An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Additional Notes. [ThML]
<generalInfo> <description>Henry Swete's <i>An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek</i> has been helping scholars and students for over a hundred years. The work provides an introduction to the <i>Septuagint</i>--the Greek version of the Old Testament. Swete--who was the Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge--provides an exhaustive analysis of <i>Septuagint</i>. In the first part, he provides the textual history of the Greek Old Testament, including its different editions and traditions. In the second part, he covers different manuscripts, and compares the "textual divisions" between them. In the third part, he more explicitly addresses the literary usages of the Old Testament Greek and its latter impact. This work is an indispensible tool for anyone curious about the Greek Old Testament. As one reader wrote, this book is a "veritable storehouse of materials... for study of the [Greek Old Testament]." A great reference work, <i>An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek</i> is the standard by which other treatments of the Greek Old Testament are measured.<br></br><br></br>Tim Perrine<br></br>CCEL Staff Writer</description> <pubHistory></pubHistory> <comments></comments> </generalInfo> <printSourceInfo> <published></published> </printSourceInfo> <electronicEdInfo> <publisherID>ccel</publisherID> <authorID>swete</authorID> <bookID>greekot</bookID> <version></version> <editorialComments></editorialComments> <revisionHistory></revisionHistory> <status>Originally a digital facsimile edition</status> <DC> <DC.Title>An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Additional Notes.</DC.Title> <DC.Creator sub="Author" scheme="short-form">H. B. Swete</DC.Creator> <DC.Creator sub="author" scheme="file-as">Swete, Henry Barclay (1835-1917)</DC.Creator> <DC.Publisher>Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library</DC.Publisher> <DC.Subject scheme="LCCN">BS738.S8</DC.Subject> <DC.Subject scheme="lcsh1">The Bible</DC.Subject> <DC.Subject scheme="lcsh2">Old Testament</DC.Subject> <DC.Subject scheme="lcsh3">Early Versions</DC.Subject> <DC.Subject scheme="ccel">All; Bibles; Reference; Proofed; </DC.Subject> <DC.Contributor sub="Digitizer"></DC.Contributor> <DC.Date sub="Created">2001-00-11</DC.Date> <DC.Type>Text.Monograph</DC.Type> <DC.Format scheme="IMT">text/html</DC.Format> <DC.Identifier scheme="URL">/ccel/swete/greekot.html</DC.Identifier> <DC.Source></DC.Source> <DC.Language>en-us</DC.Language> <DC.Rights>Public Domain</DC.Rights> </DC> </electronicEdInfo>
Title Page
i
BY
REVISED BY
WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING THE LETTER
OF ARISTEAS EDITED BY
HENDRICKSON
PUBLISHERS
PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01961-3473
ii
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. edition
ISBN: 0-943575-21-4
reprinted from the edition
originally published by Cambridge University Press, 1914
First printing - January 1989
Printed in the United States of America
iii
iv
.
v
Preface to the Second Edition
WHEN some two years ago it became clear that a reprint of this Introduction would shortly be required, the Syndics of the Press at my request put the revision, which I was unable to undertake, into the hands of a scholar already known to students of the Greek Old Testament by his Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint. Mr Ottley, while leaving intact the form and even the pagination of the Introduction, has made every endeavour to bring the contents up to the present state of knowledge. This has been done partly by a careful revision of the text and the occasional rewriting of a paragraph, partly by writing new footnotes and a large number of valuable additional notes, and by expanding the bibliographical lists that follow each chapter, which after the lapse of so many years were necessarily defective.
I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude to Mr Ottley for the unremitting labour which he has expended on my book, and I am confident that future readers will share my sense of obligation. I venture to hope that, thus revised, the Introduction may continue for some years to be of service to those who are entering on the study of the Greek Old Testament.
H. B. S.
Cambridge,
May 11, 1914.
vi
THIS book is an endeavour to supply a want which has been felt by many readers of the Greek Old Testament. The literature of the subject is enormous, and its chief points have been compendiously treated in Biblical Dictionaries and similar publications. But hitherto no manual has placed within the student's reach all the information which he requires in the way of general introduction to the Greek versions.
A first attempt is necessarily beset with uncertainties. Experience only can shew whether the help here provided is precisely such as the student needs, and whether the right proportion has been preserved in dealing with the successive divisions of the subject. But it is hoped that the present work may, at least meet the immediate wants of those who use The Old Testament in Greek, and serve as a forerunner to larger and more adequate treatises upon the same subject.
Such as it is, this volume owes more than I can say to the kindness of friends, among whom may especially be mentioned Principal Bebb, of St David's College, Lampeter, and Grinfield Lecturer at Oxford; Mr Brooke and Mr McLean, editors of the Larger Cambridge Septuagint; Mr Forbes Robinson, and Dr W. E. Barnes. But my acknowledgements are principally due to Professor Eberhard Nestle, of Maulbronn, who has added viito the obligations under which he had previously laid me by reading the whole of this Introduction in proof, and suggesting many corrections and additions. While Dr Nestle is not to be held responsible for the final form in which the book appears, the reader will owe to him in great measure such freedom from error or fulness in the minuter details as it may possess. Mr Thackeray's work in the Appendix speaks for itself. Both the prolegomena to Aristeas and the text of the letter are wholly due to his generous labours, and they will form a welcome gift to students of the Septuagint and of Hellenistic Greek.
Free use has been made of all published works dealing with the various branches of learning which fall within the range of the subject. While direct quotations have been acknowledged where they occur, it has not been thought desirable to load the margin with references to all the sources from which information has been obtained. But the student will generally be able to discover these for himself from the bibliography which is appended to almost every chapter.
In dismissing my work I desire to tender my sincere thanks to the readers and workmen of the Cambridge University Press, whose unremitting attention has brought the production of the book to a successful end.
H. B. S.
Cambridge,
September 1, 1900.
viii
ix
THE HISTORY OF THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT
AND OF ITS TRANSMISSION
pages | |
CHAPTER I. | |
1—28 | |
CHAPTER II. | |
29—58 | |
CHAPTER III. | |
59—86 | |
CHAPTER IV. | |
86—121 | |
CHAPTER V. | |
122—170 | |
CHAPTER VI. | |
171—194 |
THE CONTENTS OF THE ALEXANDRIAN OLD
TESTAMENT
pages | |
CHAPTER I. | |
197—230 | |
CHAPTER II. | |
231—264 | |
CHAPTER III. | |
265—288 | |
CHAPTER IV. | |
289—314 | |
CHAPTER V. | |
315—341 | |
CHAPTER VI. | |
342—366 |
LITERARY USE, VALUE, AND TEXTUAL CONDITION OF
THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT
pages | |
CHAPTER I. | |
369—380 | |
CHAPTER II. | |
381—405 | |
CHAPTER III. |
406—432 | |
CHAPTER IV. | |
433—461 | |
CHAPTER V. | |
462—477 | |
CHAPTER VI. | |
478—497 |
pp. 498—530.
pages | |
The Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas. | |
533—550 | |
551—606 | |
INDICES. | |
609—616 | |
617—626 |
xii
Part I.
xiii
xiv
1
Chapter I. The Alexandrian Greek Version.
1. A Greek version of any portion of the Old Testament presupposes intercourse between Israel and a Greek-speaking people. So long as the Hebrew race maintained its isolation, no occasion arose for the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into a foreign tongue. As far as regards the countries west of Palestine, this isolation continued until the age of Alexander[1]; it is therefore improbable that any Greek version of the Scriptures existed there before that era. Among the Alexandrian Jews of the second century before Christ there was a vague belief that Plato and other Greek philosophical writers were indebted for some of their teaching to a source of this kind[1]. Thus Aristobulus (ap. Clem. Al. strom. i. 22; cf. Eus, praep. ev. xiii. 12) writes: κατηκολούθηκε δὲ καὶ ὁ Πλάτων τῇ καθ᾿ 2ἠμᾶς νομοθεσίᾳ, καὶ φανερός ἐστι περιεργασάμενος ἕκαστα τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ λεγομένων. διηρμήνευται δὲ πρὸ Δημητρίου ὑφ᾿ ἑτέρου[1], πρὸ τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Περσῶν ἐπικρατήσεως, τά τε κατὰ τὴν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐξαγωγὴν τῶν Ἐβραίων τῶν ἠμετέρων πολιτῶν καὶ ἡ τῶν γεγονότων ἁπάντων αὐτοῖς ἐπιφάνεια καὶ κράτησις τῆς χώρας καὶ τῆς ὅλης νομοθεσίας ἐπεξήγησις—words which seem to imply the existence before B.C. 400 of a translation which included at least the Books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. A similar claim has been found in the statement attributed by Pseudo-Aristeas to Demetrius of Phalerum: τοῦ νόμου τῶν Ἰουδαίων βιβλία. . .οὐχ ὡς ὑπάρχει σεσήμανται, καθὼς ὑπὸ τῶν εἰδότων προσαναφέρεται[1]. 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[1].
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 Ἑλλήνων,
The Hebrew Prophets foresaw that it was the destiny
of their race to be scattered over the face of the world
(
3. Long before the time of Alexander Egypt possessed the
nucleus of a Jewish colony. Shashanq, the Shishak of
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[1]. 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 5people an instrument well fitted to assist him in carrying out his purpose of drawing East and West together. Jews served in his army (Hecataeus ap. Joseph. c. Ap. i. 22 ἔτι γε μὴν ὅτι καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ συνεστρατεύσαντο καὶ μετά 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[1], he not only assigned a place in his new city to Jewish colonists, but admitted them to full citizenship.
Joseph. ant. xix. 5. 2 ἐπιγνοὺς ἀνέκαθεν τοὺς ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ Ἰουδαίους . . . ἴσης πολιτείας παρὰ τῶν βασιλέων τετευχότας: c. Ap. ii. 4 οὐ γὰρ ἀπορίᾳ γε τῶν οἰκησόντων τὴν μετὰ σπουδῆς ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ κτιζομένην Ἀλέξανδρος 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 Ἰουδαίοις Ἀλέξανδρος γέρας τῆς συμμαχίας ἔδωκεν τό μετοικεῖν κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ἐξ ἴσου μοίρας πρός τοὺς Ἕλληνας.
Mommsen indeed (Provinces, E. T. ii. p. 162 n.) expresses a doubt whether the grant of citizenship[1] 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[1].
5. The premature death of Alexander (B.C. 323) wrecked his larger scheme, but the Jewish colony at Alexandria continued to flourish under the Ptolemies, who succeeded to the government of Egypt.
It may be convenient to place here for reference the names and dates of the earlier Ptolemies. I. Lagi, or Soter (B.C. 322—285). II. Philadelphus (B.C. 285—247). III. Euergetes I. (B.C. 247—222). IV. Philopator I. (B.C. 222—205). V. Epiphanes 6(B.C. 205—182). VI. Eupator (B.C. 182). VII. Philometor (B.C. 182—146). VIII. Philopator II. (B.C. 146). IX. Euergetes II., also known as Physkon (B.C. 146—117). Of the brief reigns of Eupator and the younger Philopator nothing is known.
The first Ptolemy added considerably to the Jewish population of Alexandria. His expeditions to Palestine and capture of Jerusalem placed in his hands a large number of Jewish and Samaritan captives, and these were conveyed to Alexandria, where many of them acquired civic rights. The report of the King's liberality towards his captives, and of their prosperity in Egypt, attracted other Palestinians to Alexandria, and many came thither as voluntary settlers.
Joseph. ant. xii. 1. 1 ὁ δὲ Πτολεμαῖος πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους λαβὼν ἀπό τε τῆς ὀρεινῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ τῶν περὶ Ἰεροσόλυμα τόπων καὶ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος καὶ τῶν ἐν Γαριζείν, 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 Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ ποιήσας ἰσοπολίτας· οὐκ ὀλίγοι δὲ οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων Ἰουδαίων εἰς τὴν Αἴγυπτον παρεγίγνοντο, τῆς τε ἀρετῆς τῶν τόπων αὐτοὺς καὶ τῆς τοῦ Πτολεμαίου φιλοτιμίας προκαλουμένης.
A separate quarter of the city was assigned to the colony
(Strabo ap. Joseph. ant. xiv. 7. 2 τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας πόλεως
ἀφώρισται μέγα μέρος τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ[1]); it lay in the north-east
of Alexandria, along the shore, near the royal palace. Here
the Jews lived under their own ethnarch[1], who exercised judicial authority in all cases between Jew and Jew. They were
permitted to follow their own religion and observe their national
customs without molestation. Synagogues sprang up not only in
the Jewish quarter, but at a later time in every part of the city
7(Philo ad Cai. 20, in Flacc. 6[1]). In the time of Philometor the
Jews stood so high in the royal favour that they were suffered
to convert a disused Egyptian temple at Leontopolis into
a replica of the Temple at Jerusalem, and the Jewish rite was
celebrated there until after the fall of the Holy City, when the
Romans put a stop to it (Joseph. ant. xii. 9. 7, xiii. 3. 1,
B. J. vii. 10. 4)[1]. Under these circumstances it is not surprising
that shortly after the Christian era the Jewish colony in Egypt
exceeded a million, constituting an eighth part of the population
(Philo in Flacc. 6, Joseph. c. Ap. ii. 4). In the Fayûm
villages were founded by Jews, and they lived on equal terms
with the Greeks[1]. 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 (
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[1], "was the mother city, not of a single
country, but of most of the countries of the world, through the
8colonies 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[1]; pilgrimages were still made to
Jerusalem at the great festivals (Philo ap. Eus. praep. ev. viii.
14. 64; cf.
The Greek which they learnt was the κοινή as colloquially used in Alexandria: based on the less elevated kind of Attic, with some loss of the niceties; but less exclusive in its vocabulary, retaining many old Ionic and Homeric words, and adopting, but less freely, others of foreign origin. When the Jews employed this tongue, now common to the regions of Greek life and Greek conquest, to translate the Old Testament, they naturally used forms of expression which matched the original as closely as possible; though many of them were more or less prevalent, or paralleled, in the κοινή. Their ingrained habits of thought, and their native speech, even if partly forgotten, led them to give constant prominence to these expressions, which correspond with Semitisms, as well as, to some extent, with the current Greek speech and colloquial writings.
7. The 'Septuagint[1],' or the Greek version of the Old Testament which was on the whole the work of Alexandrian Jews, is, written in full, the Interpretatio septuaginta virorum or seniorum, i.e. the translation of which the first instalment was attributed by Alexandrian tradition to seventy or seventy-two Jewish elders. In the most ancient Greek MSS. of the Old 10Testament it is described as the version 'according to the LXX.' (κατὰ τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα, παρὰ ἑβδομήκοντα, O. T. in Greek, i. p. 103, ii. p. 479), and quoted by the formula οἱ ό or οἱ οβʹ. 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 Ἀριστέας Φιλοκράτει. See App.
Literature. The text of the letter of Aristeas is printed
in the Appendix to this volume. It will be found also in Hody
de Bibl. text. orig. (Oxon. 1705), and in Constantinus Oeconomus
περὶ τῶν ό ἑρμηνευτῶν βιβλία δʹ
(Athens, 1849); a better text was
given by M. Schmidt in Merx, Archiv f. wissensch. Erforschung
a. A. T. i. p. 241 ff.; the latest separate edition appeared in 1900
under the title: Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula cum ceteris de
origine versionis LXX. interpretum testimoniis. Ludovici Mendelssohn
schedis usus ed. Paulus Wendland. A trans. by Mr H. St J.
Thackeray appeared in J. Q. R.
The controversies raised by the letter may be studied in Hody or in Fabricius-Harles; cf. Rosenmüller, Handbuch f. d. Literatur d. bibl. Kritik u. Exegese; Dähne, gesch. Darstellung d. jüdisch Alex. Religions-Philosophie, ii. p. 205 ff.; Papageorgius, Über den Aristeasbrief; Lumbroso, Recherches sur l’économie politigue de l’Égypte, p. 351 f. and in Atli di R. Accademia della Scienza di Torino, iv. (1868—9). Fuller lists will be found in Schürer³, iii. 472 f., and in Nestle (Real-encyklopädie f. p. Th. u. K.³ 3, p. 2), and Hastings (D.B. iv. 438 f., where much interesting information is collected); cf. Van Ess, Epilegg. p. 29 f.
8. The writer professes to be a courtier in the service of Philadelphus, a Greek who is interested in the antiquities of the Jewish people[1]. Addressing his brother Philocrates, he relates the issue of a journey which he had recently made to Jerusalem. It appears that Demetrius Phalereus[1], who is 11described 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 (τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων νόμιμα μεταγραφῆς ἄξια καὶ τῆς παρὰ σοὶ βιβλιοθήκης 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 rolls[1] composed of skins (σὺν . . . ταῖς διαφόροις διφθέραις ἐν αἷς ἡ νομοθεσία γεγραμμένη χρυσογραφίᾳ τοῖς Ἰουδαικοῖς γράμμασι). A banquet followed, at which the King tested the attainments of the Jewish elders with hard questions. Three days afterwards the work of translation began. The translators were conducted by Demetrius along the Heptastadion[1] to the island of Pharos, where a building conveniently furnished and remote from the distractions of the city was provided for their use. Here Demetrius, in the words of Aristeas, 'exhorted them to accomplish the work of translation, since they were well supplied with all that they could want. So they set to work, comparing their several results and making them agree; and whatever they agreed upon was suitably copied under the direction of Demetrius. . . . In this way the transcription was completed in seventy-two days, as it that period had been pre-arranged.'
The completed work was read by Demetrius to the Jewish community, who received it with enthusiasm and begged that a copy might be placed in the hands of their leaders; and 12a curse was solemnly pronounced upon any who should presume to add to the version or to take from it. After this the Greek Pentateuch was read to the King, who expressed delight and surprise, greeted the book with a gesture of reverence 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 τοῦ νόμου πάντων ἐπὶ τοῦ προσαγορευθέντος Φιλαδέλφου βασιλέως σοῦ δὲ προγόνου [he is addressing Philometor] προσενεγκαμένου μείζονα φιλοτιμίαν, Δημητρίου τοῦ Φαληρέως πραγματευσαμένου τὰ περὶ τούτων[1]. Philo, vit. 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. . ὁ 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 ἐπροφήτευον, 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 ἐφιλοτιμήθη τὸν ἡμέτερον νόμον καὶ τὴν κατ᾿ αὐτὸν διάταξιν τῆς πολιτείας εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα φωνὴν μεταλαβεῖν κτλ. In ant. xii. 2. 1—15 Josephus gives a full account obviously based on Aristeas (whom he calls Ἀρισταῖος, and to a great extent verbally identical with the letter.
The testimony of Josephus establishes only the fact that the letter of Aristeas was current in Palestine during the first century A.D. Philo, on the other hand, represents an Alexandrian tradition which was perhaps originally independent of the letter, and is certainly not entirely consistent with it. He 13states (l.c.) that the completion of the work of the LXX. was celebrated at Alexandria down to his own time by a yearly festival at the Pharos (μέχρι ν ῦν ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος ἑορτὴ καὶ πανήγυρις ἄγεται κατὰ τὴν Φάρον νῆσον, εἰς ἣν οὐκ Ἰουδαῖοι μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ παμπληθεῖς ἕρμηνείας 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 Philadelphus, and who is identified both by Eusebius (l.c.) and by Clement[1] (strom. 1. 22) with Philometor. Whether Aristobulus derived his information from Aristeas is uncertain, but his words, if we admit their genuineness, establish the fact that the main features of the story were believed by the literary Jews of Alexandria, and even at the Court, more than a century and a half before the Christian era and within a century of the date assigned by Aristeas to the translation of the Law.
10. From the second century A.D. the letter of Aristeas is quoted or its contents are summarised by the fathers of the Church, who in general receive the story without suspicion, and add certain fresh particulars.
Cf. Justin, apol. i. 31, dial. 68, 71, 'cohort. ad Graecos' 13 ff.; Iren. iii. 21, 2 f.; Clem. Alex. strom. i. 22, 148 f.; Tertullian, apol. 18; Anatolius ap. Eus. H. E. vii. 32; Eusebius, praep. ev. viii. 1—9, ix. 38; Cyril of Jerusalem, catech. iv. 34; Hilary, prol. ad Psalmos, tract. in Pss. ii., cxviii.; Epiphanius, de mens. et pond. §§ 3, 6; Philastrius de haer. 138; Jerome, praef. in Gen., praef. in libr. quaest. Hebr.; Augustine, de civ. Dei xvii. 42 f., de doctr. Chr. ii. 22: Theodore of Mopsuestia in Habakk. ii., in Zeph. i.; Chrysostom, or. i. adv. Jud., c. 6, hom. iv. in Gen., c. 4; Theodoret, 14praef. in Psalmos; Cyril of Alexandria, adv. Julian. or. 1; Pseudo-Athanasius, synops. scr. sacr. § 77; the anonymous dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (ed. Conybeare, Oxford, 1898, p. 90 f.).
Most of these Christian writers, in distinct contradiction to the statement of Aristeas, represent the Seventy as having worked separately, adding that when the results were compared at the end of the task they were found to be identical (so Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, &c.). The author of the Cohortatio ad Graecos[1] declares that at Alexandria he had been shewn the vestiges of the cells in which the translators had worked (αὐτοὶ ἐν τῇ Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ γενόμενοι καὶ τὰ ἴχνη τῶν οἰκίσκων ἐν τῇ Φάρῳ ἑωρακότες ἔτι σωζόμενα, καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἐκεῖ ὡς τὰ πάτρια παρειληφότων ἀκηκοότες 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[1]. The Fathers generally accept both the belief and the legend which it generated, though the latter sometimes undergoes slight modification, as when Epiphanius groups the LXXII. in pairs (ζύγη ζύγη κατ᾿ οἰκίσκον). Jerome is an honourable exception; he realises that the tale of the cells is inconsistent with the earlier tradition (prol. in Gen. "nescio quis primus auctor LXX cellulas Alexandriae mendacio suo exstruxerit, quibus divisi eadem scriptitarint, quum Aristeas . . . et Josephus nihil tale retulerint"), and rightly protests against the doctrine which was at the root of the absurdity ("aliud est enim vatem, aliud est esse interpretem")[1].
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. Dei, xviii. 4 (published in 1522), and after him by Joseph Scaliger. Ussher and Voss defended the letter, but its claim to be the work of a contemporary of Philadelphus was finally demolished by Humphry Hody, Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford (1698-1706)[1]. A few later writers have pleaded in its favour (e.g. Grinfield Apology for the LXX., and Constantinus Oeconomus, op. cit.); but the great majority of modern scholars, and perhaps all living experts, recognise the unhistorical character of much of the story of Aristeas.
Indeed it scarcely needed the massive learning of Hody to convict the letter of Aristeas of being pseudonymous, and to a large extent legendary. The selection of the elders from all the tribes of Israel awakens suspicions; their names are clearly imaginary; the recurrence of the number seventy-two seems to have struck even the writer as open to remark[1]; the letters of Philadelphus and Eleazar are of the same stamp as the confessedly fictitious correspondence between the Egyptian and the Palestinian Jews in 2 Maccabees[1]. 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 16demonstrated by the knowledge which he displays of life at the Alexandrian Court[1]. 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[1]. It is difficult to believe that a document, which within a century of the events relates the history of a literary undertaking in which the Court and the scholars of Alexandria were concerned, can be altogether destitute of truth. Detailed criticism is impossible in this place, but it is necessary to examine the credibility of the chief features of the romance so far as they affect questions relating to the date and origin of the LXX. There are certain points in the letter of Aristeas which demand investigation, especially the statements (1) that the translation of the Law was made in the time of Philadelphus; (2) that it was undertaken at the desire of the King, and for the royal library; (3) that the translators and the Hebrew rolls which they used were brought from Jerusalem; and (4) that their translation when completed was welcomed both by Jews and Greeks[1].
12. There is no improbability in the first of these statements. The personal tastes of Philadelphus, if by no means purely literary, included a fancy for the society of scholars and the accumulation of books[1]. He founded a second library at the Serapeion to receive the overflow of that which Soter had established near the Museum and the Palace[1]. His syncretistic temperament disposed him to listen to the representatives of various creeds. A Buddhist mission from the Ganges found a welcome at his court[1]; and the reign which produced 17Manetho's Greek history of Egyptian institutions may well have yielded also a translation into Greek of the Hebrew sacred books. The presence of a large Jewish colony at Alexandria could hardly have failed to awaken in the King and his scholars of the Museum an interest in the ancient laws and literature of the Jewish race. For these reasons modern scholars have for the most part shewn no desire to disturb the tradition which assigns the Alexandrian version of the Law to the days of Philadelphus.
One exception must be noted. The late Professor Grätz maintained with much ingenuity that the Greek Pentateuch was a work of the reign of Philometor, thus transferring the inception of the LXX. from the middle of the third century to the middle of the second[1].
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
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 18τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ βασιλέων are preserved by Clement (strom. i 21) and Eusebius (praep. ev. ix. 21, 29). The following specimens may suffice to prove this assertion.
Demetrius | Genesis (LXX.) |
ἀντὶ τῶν μήλων τοῦ μανδραγόρου. |
εὗρεν μῆλα μανδραγόρου . . . ἀντὶ τῶν μανδραγορῶν (XXX. 14 f.). |
ἄγγελον τοῦ θεοῦ παλαῖσαι καὶ ἅψασθαι τοῦ πλάτους τοῦ μηροῦ τοῦ Ἰακώβ. |
ἐπάλαιεν . . . καὶ ἥψατο τοῦ πλάτους οῦ μηροῦ Ἰακώβ (xxxii. 25). |
λέγειν κτηνοτρόφους αὐτοὺς εἶναι. |
ἐρεῖτε Ἄνδρες κτηνοτρόφοι 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[1]. He is thus the earliest of the Alexandrian Hellenistic writers; yet equally with the latest he draws his quotations of the Book of Genesis from the LXX. It may fairly be argued that a version, which at the end of the third century B.C. had won its way to acceptance among the literary Jews of Alexandria, probably saw the light not later than the reign of Philadelphus.
13. Both 'Aristeas' and Aristobulus associate with the inception of the LXX. the name of Demetrius Phalereus[1]. 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 τῇς τοῦ βασιλέως βιβλιοθήκης), and (2) in the days of Philadelphus, with whom he appears to be on intimate terms. Both these particulars are certainly unhistorical. Busch[1] has shewn that the office of librarian was 19filled 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)[1]. 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[1], 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 γειώρας, εἵν, σάββατα[1], 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 Alexandrian, would have been left without the advice and help of experts in the Greek tongue.
Thus everything points to the conclusion that the version 20arose 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[1]. In the closing paragraphs of the letter of Aristeas which describe the joy with which the work of the LXXII. was welcomed by the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, the writer unconsciously reveals the true history of the version, when he represents the Jews as having heard and welcomed the Greek Pentateuch before it was presented to the King[1]. 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[1] as well as for the purpose of gratifying his own curiosity.
14. The Greek of the Alexandrian Pentateuch is Egyptian, and, as
far as we can judge, not such as Palestinian translators would have written.
Instances are not indeed wanting of translations executed in Egypt by Palestinians;
the most noteworthy[1] 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
(παραγενηθεὶς
εἰς Αἱγυπτον καὶ
συγχρονίσας); but the clumsy Greek
of the prologue, and the stiff artificiality of the book, offer a
21marked 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
(
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[1], 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[1]; the style was probably enough to deter them from studying it, and the Hellenistic Jews of a somewhat later date rendered the task unnecessary by presenting the history of their country in more attractive forms. As to the preservation of the original in the Alexandrian libraries, we have no evidence beyond Tertullian's scarcely trustworthy statement, "Hodie apud Serapeum Ptolemaei bibliothecae cum ipsis Hebraicis litteris exhibentur[1]."
23
15. It has been stated (p. 11) that the letter of Aristeas does not profess to describe the origin of any part of the Alexandrian Bible except the Pentateuch[1]. This was evident to Josephus: ant. 1. prooem. 3 οὐδὲ γὰρ πᾶσαν ἐκεῖνος (sc. Πτολεμαῖος ὁ δεύτερος) ἔφθη λαβεῖν τὴν ἀναγραφήν, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ τοῦ νόμου παρέδοσαν οἱ πεμφθέντες ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξήγησιν εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν. 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[1]." Epiphanius goes so far as to apportion the books of the Hebrew canon among thirty-six pairs of translators[1]. Nevertheless the Jews were unquestionably right; Aristeas has nothing to say about the translation of any books beyond the first five. His silence as to the Prophets and the Hagiographa is entirely consistent with the conditions of the period in which he fixes his story. The canon of the Prophets seems to have scarcely reached completion before the High-Priesthood of Simon II. (219—199 B.C.)[1]. 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 24of 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 (οὐ γὰρ ἰσοδυναμεῖ αὐτὰ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς Ἐβραιστὶ λεγόμενα, καὶ ὅταν μεταχθῇ εἰς ἑτέραν γλῶσσαν· οὐ μόνον δὲ ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος καὶ αἱ προφητεῖαι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν 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 II. the Alexandrian Jews possessed, in addition to the original Greek Pentateuch, a collection of prophetic books, and a number of other writings belonging to their national literature[1] which had not as yet formed themselves into a complete group. The latter are doubtless the books which are known as כְּתוּבִים 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
17. On the whole, though the direct evidence is fragmentary, it is probable that before the Christian era Alexandria possessed the whole, or nearly the whole, of the Hebrew Scriptures in a Greek translation. For the first century A.D. we have the very important evidence of Philo, who uses the LXX. and quotes largely from many of the books. There are indeed some books of the Hebrew canon to which he does not seem to refer, i.e. Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel[1]. But, as Professor Ryle points out, 26"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[1]," may have been purposely neglected by Philo, as not possessing canonical authority. But it would be precarious to conclude that they had not been as yet translated into Greek; the Book of Esther, as we have seen, was probably current at Alexandria during the second century B.C. Two other Jewish, but not Alexandrian, authorities assist us to ascertain the contents of the Greek Bible in the first century A.D. (a) The New Testament shews a knowledge of the LXX. version in most of the books which it quotes, and it quotes all the books of the Old Testament except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and certain of the Minor Prophets[1]. As in the case of Philo, it is possible, though scarcely probable, that Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song were passed by as not having received the stamp of canonicity; but the silence of the Apostolic writers about them does not in any case prove that Greek translations of these books were not yet in circulation among Palestinian Jews. (b) Josephus, who knew and used the LXX., unfortunately has no explicit statement as to the extent of the Greek version; but his list of the Hebrew books is practically identical with our own, and, as it occurs in a treatise intended for Gentile readers, it is perhaps safe to assume that he speaks of books accessible in a translation; "in other words, that he writes with the LXX. version before him[1]."
Thus while the testimony of the first century A.D. does not absolutely require us to believe that all the books of the 27Hebrew canon had been translated and were circulated in a Greek version during the Apostolic age, such a view is not improbable; and it is confirmed by the fact that they are all contained in the canon of the Greek Bible which the Christian Church received from its Jewish predecessors. It is another question whether the versions were all of Alexandrian origin, or the only Greek translations which claimed to represent the corresponding Hebrew books. In a few cases there were certainly rival interpretations or recensions of the same book (e.g. in Judges, Daniel, Tobit). But as a whole the work of translation was doubtless carried out at Alexandria, where it was begun; and the Greek Bible of the Hellenistic Jews and the Catholic Church may rightly be styled the Alexandrian Greek version of the Old Testament.
LITERATURE. The following list embraces a mere fraction of the vast literature of the Alexandrian Version. The selection has been made with the purpose of representing the progress of knowledge since the middle of the seventeenth century.
L. Cappellus, critica sacra, 1651; J. Pearson, praefatto paraenetica, 1655; Ussher, Syntagma, 1655; Walton, prolegomena, 1657; Hottinger, disertationum fasciculus, 1660; I. Voss, de LXX. interpretibus, 1661—1663; J. Morinus, Exercitationes, 1669; R. Simon, histoire critique du Vieux Testament², 1685; H. Hody, de Bibl. textibus originalibus, 1705; H. Owen, Enquiry into the text of the LXX., 1769; Brief account of the LXX., 1787; Stroth, in Eichhorn's Repertorium, v. ff., 1779 ff.; White, Letter to the Bp of London, 1779; Fabricius-Harles, iii. 658 ff., 1793; R. Holmes, Episcopo Dunelm. epistola, 1795; praefatio ad Pentateuchum, 1798; Schleusner, opuscula critica, 1812; Töpler, de Pentateuchi interpretat. Alex. indole, 1830; Dähne, jüd.-alexandr. Philosophie, 1834; Grinfield, Apology for the LXX., 1850; Frankel, Vorstudien zu der LXX., 1841; über den Einfluss d. paläst. Exegese auf die alexandr. Hermeneutik, 1851; do., über paläst. u. alexandr. Schriftforschung, 1854; Thiersch, de Pentateuchi vers. Alexandr., 1841; Constantinus Oeconomus, περὶ τῶν ό ἑρμηνευτῶν, 1849; Churton, The Influence of the LXX. upon the progress of Christianity, 1861; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel³, 1868; E. Nestle, Septuaginta-Studien, i. 1886, ii. 1896, iii. 1899, iv. 1903, v. 1907; S. R. Driver, Notes on Samuel (Introd. § 3f.), 1890; P. de Lagarde, Septuaginta-Studien, 28i. 1891, ii. 1892; A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, i. 1904, ii. 1907, iii. 1911; Buhl, Kanon u. Text der A. T., 1891; A. Loisy, histoire critique du texte et des versions de la Bible, 1892; Hatch, Essays on Biblical Greek, 1892; W. Robertson Smith, O. T. in the Jewish Church², 1892; E. Klostermann, Analecta zur LXXta, 1895; Nestle, Urtext u. Übersezungen der Bibel, 1897. Monographs on special books or particular aspects of the subject will be enumerated elsewhere.
The student should also consult the best Introductions to the O.T., especially those of Eichhorn (1777 ff.), De Wette-Schrader (1869), Bleek-Wellhausen6 (1893), König (1893); and the Encyclopedias and Bible Dictionaries, especially the articles on the Septuagint in Smith's D. B. iii. (Selwyn), the Encyclopædia Britannica² (Wellhausen), the Real-Encykl. f. prot. Theologie u. Kirche³ (Nestle; also published in a separate form, under the title Urtext u. Übersetzungen, &c.), and Nestle's art. Septuagint in Hastings' D.B. iv.; the arts. Septuaginta (Hoberg) in Wetzer-Welte's Encyklopaedie² xi. (1899), 147—159, and Text and Versions (Burkitt) in Cheyne and Black's Encyclop. Biblica.
Chapter II. Later Greek Versions.
291. At Alexandria and in Egypt generally the Alexandrian version was regarded, as Philo plainly says, with a reverence scarcely less than that which belonged to the original. It was the Bible of the Egyptian Jews, even of those who belonged to the educated and literary class. This feeling was shared by the rest of the Hellenistic world. In Palestine indeed the version seems to have been received with less enthusiasm, and whether it was used in the synagogues is still uncertain. But elsewhere its acceptance by Greek-speaking Jews was universal during the Apostolic age and in the next generation.
On the question of the use of the LXX. in the synagogues see
Hody iii. 1. 1, Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 56 ff., König, Einleitung,
p. 105ff.; the negative is stoutly maintained by J. Lightfoot,
hor. Hebr. (add. to
2. When the LXX. passed into the hands of the Church
and was used in controversy with Jewish antagonists, the Jews
not unnaturally began to doubt the accuracy of the Alexandrian
version (Justin, dial. 68 τολμῶσι
λέγειν τὴν ἐξήγησιν
ἣν ἐξηγήσαντο
οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα ὑμῶν
πρεσβύτεροι παρὰ
Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ τῶν
Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεῖ
γενόμενοι μὴ εἶναι
ἔν τισιν ἀληθῆ). The
crucial instance was the rendering of
צַלְטָה by
παρθένος in
3. Aquila. The name had been borne in the Apostolic
age by a native of Pontus who was of Jewish birth (
This is the story of Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 14 sq.: λαβὼν [sc. ὁ Ἁδριανός] τὸν Ἀκύλαν τοῦτον . . . Ἕλληνα ὄντα καὶ αὑτοῦ πενθερίδην, ἀπὸ Σινώπης δὲ τῆς Πόντου ὁρμώμενον, καθίστησιν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖσε ἐπιστατεῖν τοῖς ἔργοις κτλ. . . . πικρανθεὶς δὲ . . . προσηλυτεύει καὶ περιτέμνεται Ἰουδαῖος· καὶ ἐπιπόνως φιλοτιμησάμενος ἐξέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν μαθεῖν τὴν Ἐβραίων διάλεκτον καὶ τὰ αὐτῶν στοιχεῖα. ταύτην δὲ ἀκρότατα παιδευθεὶς ἡρμήνευσεν οὐκ ὀρθῷ λογισμῷ χρησάμενος, ἀλλ᾿ ὅπως διαστρέψῃ τινὰ τῶν ῥητῶν, ἐνσκήψας τῇ τῶν οβʹ ἑρμηνείᾳ ἵνα τὰ περὶ Χριστοῦ ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς μεμαρτυρημένα ἄλλως ἐκδώσει). The same tale is told in substance by the Pseudo-Athanasian author of Synopsis script. sacr., c. 77, and in the Dialogue between Timothy and Aquila printed in Anecdota Oxon., class. ser. pt viii. According to the writer of the Dialogue Aquila learned Hebrew in his 40th year, and there are other features peculiar to this form of the story which have led the editor, Mr F. C. Conybeare, to conjecture that it is independent of the Epiphanian narrative, though derived from the same source, 32which he believes to have been ultimately the history of Ariston of Pella (op. cit. p. xxvi. ff.). An Aquila figures in the Clementine romance (hom. ii. sqq., recogn. ii. sqq.); the name and character were perhaps suggested by some floating memories of the translator. Cf. Lagarde, Clementina, p. 12 f.
That Aquila was a proselyte to Judaism is attested by the Jewish tradition (Jer. Talm. Meg. 1. 11, Kidush. 1. 1), in which he appears as הַגֵּר, ὁ προσήλυτος[1]. After his conversion to Judaism, Aquila became a pupil of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua (Meg. f. 71 c) or, according to another authority, of R. Akiba (Kiddush. f. 59 a). The latter statement seems to have been current among the Jews of Palestine in Jerome's time (Hieron. in Isa. viii, 14 "scribae et Pharisaei quorum suscepit scholam Akybas, quem magistrum Aquilae proselyti autumant"), and it derives some confirmation from the character of the version.
According to Epiphanius the floruit of Aquila is to be placed in the 12th year of Hadrian (Epiph. de mens. et pond. 13 Ἁδριανὸς ἔτη κά, οὗτινος τῷ δωδεκάτῳ ἔτει Ἀκύλας ἐγνωρίζετο . . . ὡς εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ χρόνου τῆς ἑρμηνείας τῶν οβʹ ἑρμηνευτῶν ἕως Ἀκύλα τοῦ ἑρμηνευτοῦ, ἤγουν ἕως δωδεκάτου ἔτους Ἁδριανοῦ, ἔτη υλʹ καὶ μῆνας δʹ. The 12th year of Hadrian was A.D. 128—9, the year in which the Emperor began to rebuild Aelia. This date is doubtless approximately correct, if Aquila was a pupil of R. Akiba, who taught from A.D. 95 to A.D. 135[1], or even of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, who immediately preceded Akiba. It must have taken the Greek proselyte many years to acquire an adequate knowledge of Hebrew and of the Rabbinical methods of interpretation, and under these circumstances his great work could hardly have been completed before the fourth decade of the second century. When Irenaeus wrote his third book, in 33the ninth decade, Aquila's translation might still be regarded as comparatively recent (τῶν νῦν μεθερμηνεύειν τολμώντων τὴν γραφήν . . . ὡς . . . Ἀκύλας).
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
5. Until the summer of 1897 Aquila's version was known
to students only from the description of ancient writers, chiefly
Christian, and the fragments of the Hexapla (c. iii.), which
when complete contained the entire work. These sources
were used with admirable skill by Dr Field (prolegomena in
Hexapla, p. xix, ff.) and Dr C. Taylor (D. C. B. art. Hexapla)
to illustrate the purpose and style of Aquila's work. But an
unexpected discovery has since placed at our disposal several
larger fragments of the version, emanating from a Jewish
source. Among the débris of the Genizah of the Cairo synagogue
brought to Cambridge in 1897 through the efforts of
Dr Taylor and Dr Schechter, Professor Burkitt was so fortunate
as to discover some palimpsest scraps which under later
Hebrew writing contain in a good uncial hand of the sixth
century Aquila's translation of
LXX. (Cod. B[1]) | Aquila. |
10καὶ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν υἰὸς Ἁδὲρ λέγων Τάδε ποιήσαι μοι ὁ θεός καὶ τάδε προσθείη, εἰ ἐκποιήσει ὁ χοῦς Σαμαρείας ταῖς ἀλώπεξιν παντὶ τῷ λαῷ τοῖς πεζοῖς μου. 11καὶ ἀπεκρίθη βασιλεὺς Ἰσραὴλ καὶ εἶπεν Ἱκανούσθω· μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ κυρτὸς ὡς ὁ ὀρθός. 12καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, πίνων ἦν αὐτὸς καὶ πάντες βασιλεῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν σκηναῖς· καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς παισὶν αὐτοῦ Οἰκοδομήσατε χάρακα· καὶ ἔθεντο χάρακα ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν. 13καὶ ἰδοὺ προφήτης εἷς προσῆλθεν τῷ βασιλεῖ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ εἶπεν Τάδε λέγει Κύριος Εἰ ἑόρακας τὸν ὄχλον τὸν μέγαν τοῦτον; ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ δίδωμι αὐτὸν σήμερον εἰς χεῖρας σάς, καὶ γνώσῃ ὅτι ἐγὼ Κύριος. |
10καὶ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν υἰὸς Ἁδὰδ καὶ εἶπεν Τάδε ποιήσαισάν μοι θεοὶ καὶ τάδε προσθείησαν, εἰ ἐξαρκέσει χοῦς Σαμαρίας τοῖς λιχάσιν[1] τοῦ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ ὃς ἐν ποσίν μου. 11καὶ ἀπεκρίθη βασιλεὺς Ἰσραὴλ καὶ εἶπεν Λαλήσατε Μὴ καυχάσθω ζωννύμενος ὡς ὁ περιλυόμενος. 12καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἤκουσεν σὺν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔπιννεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς ἐν συσκιασμοῖς· καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς δούλους αὐτοῦ Θέτε· καὶ ἔθηκαν ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν. 13καὶ ἰδοὺ προφήτης εἷς προσήγγισεν πρὸς Ἀὰβ βασιλέα Ἰσραὴλ καὶ εἶπεν Τάδε λέγει Εἶδες σὺν πάντα τὸν ὄχλον τὸν μέγαν τοῦτον; ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ δίδωμι αὐτὸν εἰς χεῖρά σου σὴμερον, καὶ γνώσῃ ὅτι ἐγὼ . |
36
LXX. (Cod. B[1]). | Aquila. |
21καὶ ἐνετείλατο ὁ βασηλεὺς παντὶ τῷ λαῷ λέγων Ποιήσατε πάσχα τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν, καθὼς γέγραπται ἐπὶ βιβλίου τῆς διαθήκης ταύτης. 22ὅτι οὐκ ἐγενήθη τὸ πάσχα τοῦτο ἀφ᾿ ἡμερῶν τῶν κριτῶν οἳ ἔκρινον τὸν Ἰσραήλ, καὶ πάσας τὰ͟ς ἡμέρας βασιλέων Ἰσραὴλ καὶ βασιλέων Ἰούδα· 23ὅτι ἀλλ᾿ ἢ τῷ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει τοῦ βασιλέως Ἰωσεία ἐγενήθη τὸ πάσχα τῷ κυρίῳ ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ. 24καί γε τοὺς θελητὰς καὶ τοὺς γνωριστὰς καὶ τὰ θεραφεὶν καὶ τὰ εἴδωλα καὶ πάντα τὰ προσοχθίσματα τὰ γεγονότα ἐν γῇ Ἰούδα καὶ ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐξῆρεν Ἰωσείας, ἵνα στήσῃ τοὺς λόγους τοῦ νόμου τοὺς γεγραμμένους ἐπὶ τῷ βιβλίῳ οὗ εὗρεν Χελκείας ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐν οἴκῳ Κυρίου. |
21καὶ ἐνετείλαπο ὁ βασιλεὺς σὺν παντὶ τῷ λαῷ τῷ λέγειν Ποιήσατε φέσα τῷ θεῷ ὑμῶν κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐπὶ βιβλίου τῆς συνθήκης ταύτης. 22ὅτι οὐκ ἐποιήθη κατὰ τὸ φέσα τοῦτο ἀπὸ ἡμερῶν τῶν κριτῶν οἳ ἔκριναν τὸν Ἰσραὴλ καὶ πασῶν ἡμερῶν βασιλέων Ἰσραὴλ καὶ βασιλέων Ἰούδα· 23ὅτι ἀλλὰ ἐν ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει τοῦ βασιλέως Ἰωσιαοὺ ἐποιήθη τὸ φέσα τοῦτο τῷ ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ. 24καὶ καί γε σὺν τοὺς μάγους καὶ σὺν τοὺς γνωριστὰς καὶ σὺν τὰ μορφώματα καὶ σὺν τὰ καθάρματα καὶ σὺν πάντα προσοχθίσματα ἃ ὡράθησαν ἐν γῇ Ἰούδα καὶ ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐπέλεξεν Ἰωσιαού, ὅπως ἀναστήσῃ τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ νόμου τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐπὶ τοῦ βιβλίου [οὗ εὗρεν] Ἑλκιαοὺ ὁ ἱερεὺς οἴκῳ Κυρίου[1] |
37
LXX. (Cod. B). | Aquila. |
ἀπὸ συμπτώματος καὶ δαιμονίου μεσημβρινοῦ. |
ἀπὸ δηγμοῦ δαιμ[ονίζοντος μεσημβρίας]. |
7πεσεῖται ἐκ τοῦ κλίτους σου χιλιάς, |
7πεσεῖται ἀπὸ πλαγίου σ[ουχιλιάς], |
καὶ μυριὰς ἐκ δεξιῶν σου, |
καὶ μυριὰς ἀπὸ δεξι[ῶν σου]· |
πρὸς σὲ δὲ οὐκ ἐγγιεῖ· |
πρὸς σὲ οὐ προσεγγ[ίσει]· |
8πλὴν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς σου κατανοήσεις, |
8ἐκτὸς ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς [σου ἐπιβλέ]ψεις, |
καί ἀνταπόδοσιν ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄψῃ. |
καὶ ἀπότισιν ἀσεβῶν ὄψῃ. |
9ὅτι σύ, Κύριε, ἡ ἐλπίς μου· |
9ὅτι σύ, , ἐλπίς μου· |
τὸν ὕψιστον ἔθου καταφυγήν σου. |
ὕψιστον ἔθηκας οἰκητήριόν σου. |
10οὐ προσελεύσεται πρὸς σὲ κακά, |
10οὐ μεταχθὴσεται πρὸς σὲ κακία, |
καὶ μάστιξ οὐκ ἐγγιεῖ τῷ σκηνώματί σου· |
καὶ ἁφὴ οὐκ ἐγγίσει ἐν σκέπῃ σου· |
11ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ, |
11ὅτι ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖταί σε, |
τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς[1] σου. |
τοῦ φυλάξαι σε ἐν πάσαις ὁδοῖς σου· |
12ἐπί χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε, |
12ἐπί ταρσῶν ἀροῦσίν σε, |
μή ποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου· |
μήποτε προσκόψῃ ἐν λίθῳ [πούς σου]· |
13ἐπ᾿ ἀσπίδα καὶ βασιλίσκον ἐπιβήσῃ. |
13ἐπί λέαινα[ν][1] καὶ ἀσπίδα πατήσεις. |
38
LXX. (Cod. B[1]). | Aquila. |
5ὅτι εὔφρανάς με, Κύριε, ἐν τῷ ποιήματί σου, |
5[ὅτι ηὔφρανάς με, ], ἐν κατέργῳ σου, |
καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν χειρῶν σου ἀγαλλιάσομαι. |
[ἐν ποιήμασι] χειρῶν σου αἰνέσω. |
6ὡς ἐμεγαλύνθη τὰ ἔργα σου, Κύριε, |
6[ὡς ἐμεγαλύνθη] ποιήματά σου, |
σφόδρα ἐβαρύνθησαν οἱ διαλογισμοί σου. |
σφόδρα [ἐβαθύνθ]ησαν λογισμοί σου. |
7ἀνὴρ ἄφρων οὐ γνώσεται, |
7[ἀνὴρ] ἀσύνετος οὐ γηώσεται, |
καὶ ἀσύνετος οὐ συνήσει ταῦτα. |
καὶ ἀνόητος οὐ συνήσει σὺι ταύτην. |
8ἐν τῷ ἀνατεῖλαι τοὺς ἁμαρτωλοὺς ὡς χόρτον |
8ἐν τῷ βλαστῆσαι ἀσεβεῖς ὁμοίως χλόῃ |
καί διέκυψαν πάντες οἱ ἐργαθόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν, |
καὶ ἤνθησαν πάντες κατεργαζόμενοι ἀνωφελές, |
ὅπως ἂν ἐξολεθρευθῶσιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος. |
ἐκτριβῆναι αὐτοὺς ἕως ἔτι· |
9σὺ δὲ Ὕψιστος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, |
9καὶ σὺ Ὕψιστος εἰς αἰῶνα, |
Κύριε. |
. |
10ὅτι ἰδοὺ οἰ ἐχθροί σου ἀπολοῦνται, |
10ἰδοὺ οἰ ἐχθροί σου, , ἰδοὺ οἱ ἐχθροί σου ἀπολοῦνται, |
καὶ διασκορπισθὴσονται πάντες οἱ ἐργαθόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν. |
[σκορπι]σθήσονται πάντες κατεργαζό[μενοι 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
39striking 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.
אֲשֶׁר נִרְאוּ
(LXX. τὰ γεγονότα). (2) Under certain
circumstances[1]
σύν is employed to represent the Hebrew
אֵת,
when it is the sign of the accusative[1]; e.g.
From the fragments which survive in the margins of
hexaplaric MSS. it is possible to illustrate certain other
characteristic features of Aquila which arise out of his extreme
loyalty to the letter of his Hebrew text. (1) Jerome remarks
upon his endeavour to represent even the etymological meaning
of the Hebrew words (ad Pammach. 11 "non solum verba
sed etymologias quoque verborum transferre conatus est),"
and by way of example he cites the rendering of
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[1]. 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 42Aquila 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[1]." Its importance for the criticism of the Old Testament was fully recognised by the two greatest scholars of ancient Christendom, and there are few things more to be desired by the modern student of Scripture than the complete recovery of this monument of the text and methods of interpretation approved by the chief Jewish teachers of the generation which followed the close of the Apostolic age.
7. Theodotion. With Aquila Irenaeus couples Theodotion of Ephesus, as another Jewish proselyte who translated the Old Testament into Greek (Θεοδοτίων ἡρμήχευσεν ὁ Ἐφέσιος καὶ Ἀκύλας . . . ἀμφότεροι Ἰουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι). Himself of Asiatic origin, and probably a junior contemporary of Theodotion, Irenaeus may be trusted when he assigns this translator to Ephesus, and describes him as a convert to Judaism. Later writers, however, depart more or less widely from this statement. According to Epiphanius, Theodotion was a native of Pontus, who had been a disciple of Marcion of Sinope before he espoused Judaism. According to Jerome, he was an Ebionite, probably a Jew who had embraced Ebionitic Christianity. His floruit is fixed by Epiphanius in the reign of the second Commodus, i.e. of the Emperor Commodes, so called to distinguish him from L. Ceionius Commodus, better known as L. Aurelius Verus.
Epiph. de mens. et pond. 17 περὶ τὴν τοῦ δευτέρου Κομόδου βασιλείαν τοῦ βασιλεύσαντος μετὰ τὸν προειρημένον Κὸμοδον Λούκιον Αὐρήλιον ἔτη ιγʹ, 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 καί αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκε. Hieron. ep. ad Augustin.: "hominis Judaei atque blasphemi"; 43praef. in Job: "Iudaeus Aquila, et Symmachus et Theodotio Judaizantes haeretici"; de virr. ill. 54 "editiones . . . Aquilae . . . Pontici proselyti et Theodotionis Hebionaei"; praef. ad Daniel.: "Theodotionem, qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit, licet eum quidam dicant Hebionitam qui altero genere Iudaeus est[1]."
The date assigned to Theodotion by Epiphanius is obviously too late, in view of the statement of Irenaeus, and the whole account suspiciously resembles the story of Aquila. That within the same century two natives of Pontus learnt Hebrew as adults, and used their knowledge to produce independent translations of the Hebrew Bible, is scarcely credible. But it is not unlikely that Theodotion was an Ephesian Jew or Jewish Ebionite. The attitude of a Hellenist towards the Alexandrian version would naturally be one of respectful consideration, and his view of the office of a translator widely different from that of Aquila, who had been trained by the strictest Rabbis of the Palestinian school. And these expectations are justified by what we know of Theodotion's work. "Inter veteres medius incedit" (Hieron. praef. ad evang.); "simplicitate sermonis a LXX. interpretibus non discordat" (praef. in Pss.); "Septuaginta et Theodotio . . . in plurimis locis concordant" (in Eccl. ii.)—such is Jerome's judgement; and Epiphanius agrees with this estimate (de mens. et pond. 17: τὰ πλεῖστα τοῖς οβʹ 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 Job)[1], and in Daniel, on 44the other hand, the Midrashic expansions which characterise the LXX. version disappear in Theodotion. His practice with regard to apocryphal books or additional matter appears not to have been uniform; he followed the LXX. in accepting the additions to Daniel and the supplementary verses in Job[1], but there is no evidence that he admitted the non-canonical books in general[1].
8. Specimens of Theodotion's style and manner may be obtained from the large and important fragments of his work which were used by Origen to fill up the lacunae in Jeremiah (LXX.). The following passage, preserved in the margin of Codex Marchalianus, will serve as an example[1].
14 Ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, φησὶ Κύριος, καὶ ἀναστήσω τὸν λόγον μου τὸν ἀγαθὸν ὃν ἐλάλησα ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰούδα. 15 ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀνατελῶ τῷ Δαυὶδ ἀνατολὴν δικαίαν, ποιῶν κρίμα καί δικαιοσύνην ἐν τῇ γῇ. 16 ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις σωθήσεται ἡ Ἰουδαία καὶ Ἰερουσαλὴμ κατασκηνώσει πεποιθυῖα· καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα ὃ καλέσει αὐτὴν 17 ὅτι τάδε λέγει Κύριος, Οὐκ ἐξολοθρευθήσεται τῷ Δαυὶδ ἀνὴρ καθήμενος ἐπὶ θρόνον οἴκου Ἰσραήλ· 18 καὶ τοῖς ἱερεῦσι τοῖς Λευίταις οὐκ ἐξολοθρευθήσεται ἀνὴρ ἐκ προσώπου μου, ἀναφέρων ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ θύων θυσίαν. 19 καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος Κυρίου πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν λέγων 20 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· 21 καίγε ἡ διαθήκη μου διασκεδασθήσεται μετὰ Δαυὶδ τοῦ δούλου μου, τοῦ μὴ 45εἶναι αὐτῷ υἱὸν βασιλεύοντα ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἠ πρὸς τοὺς Λευίτας τοὺς ἰερεῖς τοὺς λειτουργοῦντάς μοι. 22 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. 23 καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος Κυρίου πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν λέγων 24 Ἆρά γε οὐκ ἴδες τί ὁ λαὸς ἐλάλησαν λέγοντες Αἱ δύο πατριαὶ ἃς ἐξελέξατο Κύριος ἐν αὐταῖς, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀπώσατο αὐτούς·; καὶ τὸν λαόν μου παρώξυναν τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι ἔθνος ἐνώπιόν μου. 25 τάδε λέγει Κύριος Εἰ μὴ τὴν διαθήκην μου ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, ἀκριβάσματα οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, οὐκ ἔταξα, 26 καίγε τὸ σπέρμα Ἰακὼβ καὶ Δαυὶδ τοῦ δούλου μου ἀποδοκιμῶ, τοῦ μὴ λαβεῖν ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ ἄρχοντα πρὸς τὸ σπέρμα Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβ· ὅτι ἐπιστρέψω τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν αὐτῶν, καὶ οἰκτειρήσω αὐτούς[1].
Unfortunately there is no other Greek version which can be
compared with Theodotion in this passage, for the LXX. is
wanting, and only a few shreds of Aquila and Symmachus have
reached us. But the student will probably agree with Field
that the style is on the whole not wanting in simple dignity,
and that it is scarcely to be distinguished from the best manner
of the LXX.[1] With his Hebrew Bible open at the place, he will
observe that the rendering is faithful to the original, while it
escapes the crudities and absurdities which beset the excessive
fidelity of Aquila. Now and again we meet with a word unknown
to the LXX. (e.g. ἀκριβάσματα =
חֻקּוֹת)[1], or a reminiscence
of Aquila; on the other hand Theodotion agrees with the LXX.
against Aquila in translating בְּרִית
by διαθήκη. If in one place
46Theodotion 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 languages.
Field gives a list of 90 words which are treated by
Theodotion in this way without any apparent cause[1]. When
among these we find such a word as אֵל (which is represented
by ἤλ in
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[1], announced his intention of using Theodotion's version of Daniel; and an examination of Origen's extant works shews that his citations of Daniel "agree almost verbatim with the text of Theodotion now current[1]." The action of Origen in this matter was generally endorsed by the Church, as we learn from Jerome (praef. in Dan.: "Danielem prophetam iuxta LXX. interpretes ecclesiae 47non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione"; cf. c. Rufin. ii. 33). Jerome did not know how this happened, but his own words supply a sufficient explanation: "hoc unum affirmare possum quod multum a veritate discordet et recto iudicio repudiata sit." So universal was the rejection of the LXX. version of Daniel that, though Origen loyally gave it a place in his Hexapla, only one Greek copy has survived[1], Theodotion's version having been substituted in all other extant Greek MSS. of Daniel.
But the use of Theodotion's Daniel in preference to the
version which was attributed to the LXX. did not begin with
Origen. Clement of Alexandria (as edited) uses Theodotion,
with a sprinkling of LXX. readings, in the few places where
he quotes Daniel (paed. ii. 8, iii. 3, strom. i. 4, 21). In North
Africa both versions seem to have influenced the Latin text of
Daniel. The subject has been carefully investigated by Prof.
F. C. Burkitt[1], who shews that Tertullian used "a form of the
LXX. differing slightly from Origen's edition," whilst Cyprian
quotes from a mixed text, in which Theodotion sometimes predominates.
Irenaeus, notwithstanding his reverence for the LXX.
and distrust of the later versions, cites Daniel after Theodotion's
version[1]. Further, Theodotion's Daniel appears to be used by
writers anterior to the date usually assigned to this translator.
Thus Hermas (vis. iv. 2, 4) has a clear reference to Theodotion's
rendering of
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[1]. 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 τῷ εἰδωλίῳ αὐτοῦ
in
10. Symmachus. Of this translator Irenaeus says nothing, and it has been inferred, perhaps too hastily, that he was unknown to the Bishop of Lyons, and of later date. Origen knew and used Symmachus, and had received a copy of his commentary on St Matthew from a wealthy Christian woman named Juliana, to whom it had been given by the author. According to Eusebius, Symmachus was an Ebionite, and this is confirmed by Jerome; a less probable tradition in Epiphanius represents him as a Samaritan who had become a convert to Judaism[1].
Eus. H. E. vi. 17 τῶν γε μὴν ἑρμηνευυῶν αὐτῶν δὴ τούτων ἰστέον Ἐβιωναῖον τὸν Σύμμαχον γεγονέναι . . . καὶ ὑπομνήματα δὲ τοῦ Συμμάχου εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται ἐν οἷς δοκεῖ πρὸς τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἀποτεινόμενος εὐαγγέλιον τὴν δεδηλωμένην αἵρεσιν κρατύνειν. ταῦτα δὲ ὁ Ὠριγένης μετὰ καὶ ἄλλων εἰς τὰς γραφὰς ἑρμηνειῶν τοῦ Συμμάχου σημαίνει παρὰ Ἰουλιανῆς τινος εἰληφέναι, ἣν καὶ φησι παῤ αὐτοῦ Συμμάχου τὰς βίβλους διαδέξασθαι. Hieron. de virr. ill. 54 "Theodotionis Hebionaei et Symmachi eiusdem dogmatis" (cf. in Hab. iii. 13); praef. in Job: "Symmachus et Theodotion Iudaizantes haeretici." Epiph. de mens. et pond. 15 ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Σευήρου χρόνοις Σύμμαχός τις Σαμαρείτης τῶν παῤ αὐτοῖς σοφῶν μὴ τιμηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ οἰκείου ἔθνους . . . προσηλυτεύει καὶ περιτέμνεται δευτέραν περιτομήν . . . οὗτος τοίνυν ὁ Σύμμαχος πρὸς διαστροφὴν τῶν 50παρὰ Σαμαρείταις ἑρμηνειῶν ἑρμηνεύσας τὴν τρίτην ἐξέδωκεν ἑρμηνείαν.
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[1]; the Symmachians, an Ebionite sect probably named after him, are mentioned by Ambrosiaster (comm. in Gal., prolegg.) and Augustine (c. Faust. xix. 4, c. Crescon. i. 36)[1]. His floruit is open to some question. Dr Gwynn has shewn[1] that Epiphanius, who makes Theodotion follow Symmachus, probably placed Symmachus in the reign of Verus, i.e. Marcus Aurelius. Now in the Historia Lausiaca, c. 147, Palladius says that Juliana sheltered Origen during a persecution, i.e. probably during the persecution of the Emperor Maximius (A.D. 238—241). If this was so, the literary activity of Symmachus must have belonged, at the earliest, to the last years of M. Aurelius, and it may be questioned whether Epiphanius has not inverted the order of the two translators, i.e. whether Theodotion ought not to be placed under M. Aurelius and Symmachus under Commodus (A.D. 180—192)[1]. The version of Symmachus was in the hands of Origen when he wrote his earliest commentaries, i.e. about A.D. 228[1]; 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 51a verbal rendering: "non solet verborum κακοζηλίαν sed intellegentiae ordinem sequi" (in Am. iii. 11). While Aquila endeavoured "verbum de verbo exprimere," Symmachus made it his business "sensum potius sequi" (praef. in Chron. Eus., cf. praef. in Job). Epiphanius, who believed Symmachus to have been a Samaritan proselyte to Judaism, jumped to the conclusion that his purpose was polemical (πρὸς διαστροφὴν τῶν παρὰ 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 Theodotion. The following extracts will serve to illustrate this view of his relation to his predecessors.
LXX. | Aq. |
καὶ ταῦτα ἃ ἐμίσουν ἐποιεῖτε· ἐκαλύπτετε δάκρυσιν τὸ θυσιαστήριον Κυρίου καὶ κλαυθμῷ καὶ στεναγμῷ ἐκ κόπων. ἔτι ἄξιον ἐπιβλέψαι εἰς θυσίαν ἢ λαβεῖν δεκτὸν ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν ὑμῶν | καὶ τοῦτο δεύτερον ἐποιεῖτε· ἐκαλύπτετε δάκρύῳ τὸ θυσιαστήριον κλαυθμῷ καὶ οἰμωγῇ, ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι νεῦσαι πρὸς τὸ δῶρον καὶ λαβεῖν εὐδοκίαν ἀπὸ χειρὸς ὑμῶν. |
Th. | Symm. |
καὶ τοῦτο δεύτερον ἐποιήσατε· ἐκαλύπτετε δάκρυσιν τὸ θυσιαστήριον, κλαίοντες καὶ στένοντες, ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι πρὸσεγγίζοντα τὸ ὁλοκαύτωμα καὶ λαβεῖν τέλειον ἐκ χειρῶν ὑμῶν. | καὶ ταῦτα δεύτερον ἐποιεῖτε, καλύπτοντες ἐν δάκρυσιν τὸ θυσιαστήριον, κλαίοντες καὶ οἰμώσσοντες, ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι νεύοντα πρὸς τὸ δῶρον καὶ δέξασθαι τὸ εὐδοκημένον ἀπὸ χειρὸς ὑμῶν. |
52
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:
It cannot be said that these renderings approach to excellence,
but a comparison with the corresponding LXX. will shew
that Symmachus has at least attempted to set himself free from
the trammels of the Hebrew idiom and to clothe the thoughts
of the Old Testament in the richer drapery of the Greek
tongue. It is his custom to use compounds to represent ideas
which in Hebrew can be expressed only by two or more words
(e.g. בְּלי־פֶשַׁע,
Symm. ἀναιτίως,
עַיִן ∙בְּעַיִן,
Symm. ὁφθαλμοφανῶς,
לְראׁשׁ פִּנָּה
Symm. ἀκρογωνιαῖος); he converts into a participle
the first of two finite verbs connected by a copula (
Literature. On Aquila the student may consult R. Anger de Onkelo Chaldaico, 1845; art. in D. C. B. (W. J. Dickson); M. Friedmann, Onkelos u. Akylas, 1896; Lagarde, Clementina, p. 12 ff.; Krauss, Akylas der Proselyt (Festschrift), 1896; F. C. Burkitt, Fragments of Aquila, 1897; C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers2, 1897 (p. viii.); Schürer3, iii. p. 317 ff. On Symmachus, C. H. Thieme, pro puritate Symmachi dissert., 1755; art. in D. C. B. (J. Gwynn); Giov. Mercati, l’età di Simmaco interprete, 1892. On Theodotion, Credner, Beiträge, ii. p. 253 ff.; art. in D. C. B. (J. Gwynn); G. Salmon, Intr. to the N. T.7, p. 538 ff.; Schürer3, iii. p. 323 ff. Works which deal with the ancient non-Septuagintal versions in general will be mentioned in c. iii., under Literature of the Hexapla.
12. Other ancient Greek versions. The researches of Origen (A.D. 185—253) brought to light three anonymous versions besides those of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus; from their relative position in the columns of his great collection (see c. iii.) they are known as the Quinta (εʹ), Sexta (ςʹ), and Septima (ζʹ) respectively. The following are the chief authorities:
Eus. H. E. vi. 16 τοσαύτη δὲ εἰσήγετο τῷ Ὠριγένει τῶν θείων λόγων ἀπηκριβωμένη ἐξέτασις ὡς . . . καί τινας ἑτέρας παρὰ τὰς· καθημαξευμένας ἑρμηνείας ἐναλλαττούσας . . ., ἐφευρεῖν, ἃς οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅθεν ἔκ τινων μυχῶν τὸν πάλαι λανθανούσας χρόνον εἰς φῶς ἀνιχνεύσας προήγαγεν . . . τίνος ἄῤ εἶεν οὐκ εἰδὼς αὐτὸ τοῦτο μόνον ἐπεσημήνατο 54ὡς ἄρα τὴν μὲν εὕροι ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἀκτίῳ Νικοπόλει . . .ἐπὶ μιᾶς αὖθις σεσημείωται ὡς ἐν Ἰεριχοῖ εὑρημένης ἐν πίθῳ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους Ἀντωνίνου τοῦ υἰοῦ Σεβήρου. Epiph. de mens. et pond. 18 μετὰ τὸν διωγμὸν τοῦ βασιλέως Σευήρου ηὑρέθη ἡ πέμπτη ἐν πίθοις ἐν Ἰεριχῷ κεκρυμμένη ἐν χρόνοις τοῦ υἱοῦ Σευήρου τοῦ ἐπικληθέντος Καρακάλλου τε καὶ Γέτα . . . ἐν δὲ τῷ ἑβδόμῳ αὐτοῦ ἔτει ηὑρέθησαν καὶ βίβλοι τῆς πέμπτης ἐκδόσεως ἐν πίθοις ἐν Ἰεριχῷ κεκρυμμένης μετὰ ἄλλων βιβλίων Ἐβραικῶν καὶ Ἑλληνικῶν. τὸν δὲ Καράκαλλον διαδέχεται Ἀντωνῖνος ἕτερος . . . μετὰ τοῦτον ἐβασίλευσεν Ἀλέξανδρος . . . ἔτη ιγʹ· ἐν μέσῳ τῶν χρόνων τούτων ηὑρέθη ἕκτη ἔκδοσις, καὶ αὐτὴ ἐν πίθοις κεκρυμμένη, ἐν Νικοπόλει τῇ πρὸς Ἀκτίῳ. Pseudo-Ath. syn. scr. sacr. 77 πέμπτη ἑρμηνεία ἐστὶν ἡ ἐν πίθοις εὑρεθεῖσα κεκρυμμένη ἐπὶ Ἀντωνίνου βασιλέως τοῦ Καρακάλλα ἐν Ἰεριχῷ παρά τινος τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις σπουδαίων. ἕκτη ἐρμηνεία ἐστὶν ἡ ἐν πίθοις εὑρεθεῖσα, καὶ αὕτη κεκρυμμένη, ἐπὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Μαμαίας παιδὸς ἐν Νικοπόλει τῇ πρὸς Ἄκτιον ὑπὸ Ὠριγένους γνωρίμων. Hieron. de virr. ill. 54 "quintam et sextam et septimam editionem, quas etiam nos de eius bibliotheca habemus, miro labore repperit et cum ceteris editionibus conparavit": in ep. ad Tit. "nonnulli vero libri, et maxime hi qui apud Hebraeos versu compositi sunt, tres alias editiones additas habent quam 'quintam' et 'sextam' et 'septimam' translationem vocant, auctoritatem sine nominibus interpretum consecutas." Cf. in Hab. ii. 11, iii. 13.
It appears from the statement of Eusebius[1] that Origen found the Quinta at Nicopolis near Actium, and that either the Sexta or the Septima was discovered in the reign of Caracalla (A.D. 211—217) at Jericho; while Epiphanius, reversing this order, says that the Quinta was found at Jericho c. A.D. 217, and the Sexta at Nicopolis under Severus Alexander (A.D. 222—235)[1]. According to Epiphanius both the Quinta and the Sexta, according to Eusebius the Sexta 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[1]. Since 55Origen 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 λανθανούσας χρόνον). The version found at or near Nicopolis may have been a relic of the early Christianity of Epirus, to which there is an indirect allusion in the Pastoral Epistles[1]. 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[1]. Of Septima nothing is known, beyond what Eusebius tells us, and the very sparing use of it in the Psalter of some Hexaplaric MSS.; the few instances are so dubious that Field was disposed to conclude either that this version never existed, or that all traces of it have been lost[1].
There is no conclusive evidence to shew that any of these versions covered the whole of the Old Testament[1]. Renderings from Quinta[1] are more or less abundant in 2 Kings, Job, Psalms, Canticles, and the Minor Prophets, and a few traces have been observed in the Pentateuch. Sexta is well represented in the Psalms and in Canticles, and has left indications of its existence in Exodus, 1 Kings, and the Minor Prophets.
With regard to the literary character of Quinta and Sexta,
the style of Quinta is characterised by Field as "omnium
elegantissimus . . . cum optimis Graecis suae aetatis scriptoribus
comparandus." Sexta also shews some command of Greek,
56but 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
The Greek fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries quotes non-Septuagintal renderings from an interpreter who is styled ὁ Ἐβραῖος. Ὁ Σύρος is also cited, frequently as agreeing with ὁ Ἐβραῖος. Nothing is known of these translators (if such they were), but an elaborate discussion of all the facts may be seen in Field[1].
13. The 'GRAECUS VENETUS.' This is a version of the
Pentateuch, together with the books of Ruth, Proverbs, Canticles,
Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Daniel, preserved in
St Mark's Library at Venice in a single MS. of cent. xiv.—xv.
(cod. Gr. vii.)[1]. It was first given to the world by de Villoison
(Strassburg, 1784) and C. F. Ammon (Erlangen, 1790—1);
a new edition with valuable prolegomena by O. von Gebhardt
appeared at Leipzig in 1875[1]. This translation has been
made directly from the M. T., but the author appears to have
occasionally availed himself of earlier Greek versions (LXX.,
57Aq., Symm., Theod.)[1]. His chief guide however appears to
have been David Kimchi, whose interpretations are closely
followed[1]. That he was a Jew is clear from incidental renderings
(e.g. in
The style of this remarkable version will be best illustrated by a few specimens:
2 τεθέανται γοῦν οἱ υἱεῖς τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τοῦ ἀνθρὡπου ὅτι καλαὶ ἐτέλουν, καὶ ἔλαρον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν ὦν εἵλοντο. 3 ἔφη τοίνυν ὁ ὀντωτής Οὐ κρινεῖ πνεῦμα τοὐμὸν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐς αἰῶνα, ἐφ᾿ οἷς ἔτι πέρ ἐστι σάρξ· τελέσουσι δ᾿ αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτοῦ ἑκατὸν καὶ εἴκοσιν ἔτη.
22 ὁ ὀντωτὴς ἐκτήσατό με ἀρχὴν ὁδοῦ οἱ, πρὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ ἐκ τότε. 23 ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος κέχυμαι, ἀπὸ κρατὸς, ἀπὸ προλήμματος γῆς. 24 ἐν οὐκ ἀβύσσοις πέπλασμαι, ἐν οὐ πηγαῖς δεδοξασμένων ὑδάτων· 25 πρὶν ὄρη ἐμπαγῆναι, πρὸ τῶν βουνῶν ὡδίνημαι· 26 ἄχρις οὐκ ἐποίησε γῆν, διόδους καὶ κεφαλὴν κόνεων τῆς οἰκουμένης.
13 ὁράων ἐκύρησα ἐν ὁράσεσιν εὐφρόνας, αὐτίκα τε ξὺν ταῖς 58νεφηλαις τῶν πόλων ὡς υἱεὺς ἀνθρώπω ἀφικνούμενος ἔην, μέχρι τε τῶ παλαιῶ ταῖς ἁμέραις ἔφθασε κἀνώπιον τήνω προσήγαγόν ἑ. 14 τήνῳ τ᾿ ἐδόθη ἀρχὰ τιμά τε καὶ βασιλεία, πάντες τε λαοὶ ἔθνεα καὶ γλῶτται τήνῳ λατρευσείοντι· ἁ ἀρχύ εὑ ἀρχὰ αἰῶνος ὃς οὐ παρελευσείεται, ἅ 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 (Analecta p. 30) mentions a MS. Psalter (Vat. Gr. 343), bearing the date 22 April, 1450, which professes to be a translation into the Greek of the fifteenth century (κατὰ τὴν νῦν κοινὴν τῶν Γραικῶν φωνήν). A version of the Pentateuch into modern Greek in Hebrew characters was printed at Constantinople in 1547, forming the left-hand column of a Polyglott (Hebrew, Chaldee, Spanish, Greek). It is described in Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. p. 355, and more fully in La version Neo-grecque du Pentateuche Polyglotte . . . remarques du Dr Lasare Belléli (Paris, 1897). This Greek version has recently been transliterated and published in a separate form with an introduction and glossary by D. C. Hesseling (Leide, 1897). A Greek version of job (1576) is mentioned by Neubauer in J. Q. R. iv. p. 18 f.
Chapter III. The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and Other Recensions of the Septuagint.
59
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)[1]; at eighteen he was already head of the catechetical school of Alexandria[1]. The Old Testament from the first engaged his attention, and, rightly judging that it could not be fruitfully studied without a knowledge of the original, he applied himself at once to the study of Hebrew.
Eus. H. E. vi. 16 τοσαύτη δὲ εἰσήγετο τῷ Ὠριγένει τῶν θείων λόγων ἀπηκριβωμένη ἐξέτ͍σις, ὡς καὶ τὴν Ἐβραίδα γλῶτταν ἐκμαθεῖν τάς τε παρὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἐμφερομένας πρωτοτύπους αὐτοῖς Ἐβραίων στοιχείοις γραφὰς κτῆμα ἴδιον ποιήσασθαι. Hieron. de virr. ill. 54 "quis autem ignorat quod tantum in scripturis divinis habuerit studii ut etiam Hebraeam linguam contra aetatis gentisque suae naturam edisceret[1]?"
The feat was perhaps without precedent, in the third century, among Christian scholars not of Jewish origin[1]; in one so 60young 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[1]. In the course of these labours, perhaps from the moment that he began to read the Old Testament in the original, he was impressed with the importance of providing the Church with materials for ascertaining the true text and meaning of the original. The method which he adopted is described by himself in his famous letter to Africanus (c. A.D. 240), and more fully in his commentary on St Matthew (c. A.D. 245)[1].
61Orig. ad Afric. 5: καὶ ταῦτα δέ φημι οὑχὶ ὄκνῳ τοῦ ἐρευνᾷν καὶ τὰς κατὰ Ἰουδαίους 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 ἑρμηνείαν τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα . . . ἀσκοῦμεν δὲ μὴ ἀγνοεῖν καὶ τὰς παῤ ἐκείνοις, ἵνα πρὸς Ἰουδαίους διαλεγόμενοι μὴ προσφέρωμεν αὐτοῖς τὰ μὴ κείμενα ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις αὐτῶν, καὶ ἵνα συγχρησώμεθα τοῖς φερομένοις παῤ ἐκείνοις, εἰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἡμετέροις οὐ κεῖται βιβλίοις. In
Matt. xv. 14 : τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν, θεοῦ διδόντος, εὕρομεν ἰάσασθαι, κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν· τῶν γὰρ ἀμφιβαλλομένων παρὰ τοῖς οʹ διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφωνίαν, τὴν κρίσιν ποιησάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων, τὸ συνᾷδον ἐκείναις ἐφυλάξαμεν· καὶ τινα μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν ἐν τῷ Ἐβραικῷ μὴ κείμενα, οὐ τολμῶντες αὐτὰ πάντη περιελεῖν, τινὰ δὲ μετ᾿ ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν· ἵνα δῆλον ᾖ ὅτι μὴ κείμενα παρὰ τοῖς οʹ ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων συμφώνως τῷ Ἐβραικῷ προσεθήκαμεν, καὶ ὁ μὲν βουλόμενος προῆται αὐτά· ᾧ δὲ προσκόπτει τὸ τοιοῦτον, ὃ βούλεται περὶ τῆς παραδοχῆς αὐτῶν ἢ μὴ ποιήσῃ.
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 παῤ
αὐτοῖς ἐπιφερομένας βίβλους, κολακεύειν δὲ Ἰουδαίοις καὶ πείθειν
ἵνα μεταδῶσιν ἡμῖν τῶν καθαρῶν). In this matter it was well, he
urged, to bear in mind the precept of
3. The following specimen, taken from a fragment lately discovered at Milan, will assist the reader to understand the arrangement of the columns, and to realise the general appearance of the Hexapla.
62
HEBREW. | HEB. TRANSLITERATED. | AQUILA. |
׀למנצח | λαμανασση | τῷ νικοποιῷ· |
לבני קרח | [λ]αβνηκορ | τῶν υἰῶν Κόρε |
על עלמות | αλ · αλμωθ | ἐπὶ νεανιοτήτων |
שיר | σιρ | ἆσμα. |
אלהים לנו | ελωειμ · λανου [1] | [ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν(?)] |
מחסה ועז | μασε · ουοζ | ἐλπὶς καὶ κράτος, |
עזרה | εζρ | βήθεια |
בצרות | βσαρὠθ | ἐν θλίψεσιν |
נמצא מאד | νεμσα μωδ | εὑρέθη [1] σφόδρα. |
על כן | αλ · χεν· | ἐπὶ τούτῳ |
לא נירא | λω · νιρα | οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα |
בהמיר | βααμιρ | ἐν τῷ ἀνταλάσσεσθαι |
ארץ | ααρς | γῆν, |
ובמוט | ουβαμωτ | καὶ ἐν τῷ σφάλλεσθαι |
הרים | αριμ | ὄρη |
בלב | βλεβ | ἐν καρδίᾳ |
ימים׀ | ιαμιμ | θαλασσῶν. |
63
SYMMACHUS. | LXX. | THEODOTION.[1] |
ἐπινίκιος· | εἰς τὸ τέλος· | τῷ νικοποιῷ [1] |
τῶν υἱῶν Κόρε | ὑπὲρ τῶν υἱῶν [1] Κόρε | τοῖς υἱοῖς Κόρε |
ὑπὲρ τῶν αἰωνίων | ὑπὲρ τῶν κρυφίων | ὑπὲρ τῶν κρυφίων |
ᾠδή. | ψαλμός. | ᾠδή. [1] |
ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν | ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν [1] | ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν |
πεποίθησις καὶ ἰσχύς, | καταφυγὴ καὶ δύναμις, | καταφυγὴ καὶ δύναμις, |
βοηθεια | βοηθὸς | βοηθὸς |
ἐν θλίψεσιν | ἐν θλίψεσι | ἐν θλίψεσιν |
εὐρισκόμενος σφόδρα. | ταῖς εὑρούσαις ἡμᾶς [1] σφόδρα. | εὑρέθη [1] σφόδρα. |
διὰ τοῦτο | διὰ τοῦτο | διὰ τοῦτο |
οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα | οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα | οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα |
ἐν τῷ [1] συγχεῖσθαι | ἐν τῷ ταράσσεσθαι | ἐν τῷ ταράσσεσθαι |
γῆν | τὴν γῆν | τὴν γῆν |
καὶ κλίνεσθαι | καὶ μετατίθεσθαι | καὶ σαλεύεσθαι [1] |
ὄρη | ὄρη | ὄρη |
ἐν καρδίᾳ | ἐν καρδίᾳ | ἐν καρδίᾳ |
θαλασσῶν. | θαλασσῶν. | θαλασσῶν. |
64
The process as a whole is minutely described by Eusebius and Jerome, who had seen the work, and by Epiphanius, whose account is still more explicit but less trustworthy.
Eus. H. E. vi. 16: ταύτας δὲ ἁπάσα [sc. τὰς ἐκδόσεις] ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν συναγαγὼν διελὡν τε πρὸς κῶλον καὶ ἀντιπαραθεὶς ἀλλήλαις μετὰ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς Ἐβραίων σημειὡσεως τὰ τῶν λεγομένων Ἑξαπλῶν ἡμῖν ἀντίγραφα καταλέλοιπεν, ἰδίως τὴν Ἀκύλου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ Θεοδοτίωνος ἔκδοσιν ἅμα τῇ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα ἐν τοῖς Τετραπλοῖς ἐπικατασκευάσας. Hieron. in ep. ad Tit. iii. 9: "nobis curae fuit omnes veteris legis libros quos vir doctus Adamantius in Hexapla digesserat de Caesariensi bibliotheca descriptos ex ipsis authenticis emendare, in quibus et ipsa Hebraea propriis sunt characteribus verba descripta et Graecis literis tramite expressa vicino; Aquila etiam et Symmachus, LXX. quoque et Theodotio suum ordinem tenent; nonnulli vero libri et maxime hi qui apud Hebraeos versu compositi sunt tres alias editiones additas habuit." Cf. his letter to Sunnias and Fretela (ep. 106) and to Augustine (ep. 112) and the preface to the Book of Chronicles. Epiph. de mens. et pond. 7: τὰς γὰρ ἓξ ἑρμηνείας καὶ τὴν Ἐβραικὴν γραφὴν Ἐβραικοῖς στοιχείοις καὶ ῥήμασιν αὐτοῖς ἐν σελίδι[1] μιᾷ συντεθεικώς, ἄλλην σελίδα ἀντιπαράθετον δἰ Ἑλληνικῶν μὲν γραμμάτων Ἐβραικῶν δὲ λέξεων πρὸς κατάληψιν τῶν μὴ εἰδότων Ἐβραικὰ στοιχεῖα . . . καὶ οὕτως τοῖς λεγομένοις ὑπ᾿ αὒτοῦ ἑξαπλοῖς ἢ ὀκταπλοῖς τὰς μὲν δύο Ἐβραικὰς σελίδας καὶ τὰς ἓξ τῶν ἑρμηνευτῶν ἐκ παραλλήλου ἀντιπαραθεὶς μεγάλην ὡφέλειαν γνώσεως ἔδωκε τοῖς φιλοκάλοις. Ib. 19 τὰς δύο Ἐβραικὰς πρώτας κειμένας, μετὰ ταύτας δὲ τὴν τοῦ Ἀκύλα τεταγμένην, μεθ᾿ ἣν καὶ τὴν τοῦ Συμμάχου, ἔπειτα τὴν τῶν οβʹ, μεθ᾿ ἃς ἡ τοῦ Θεοδοτίωνος συντέτακται, καὶ ἑξῆς ἡ πέμπτη τε καὶ ἕκτη[1].
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[1] 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 65untenable hypothesis that Origen regarded the LXX. as the standard of accuracy (de mens. et pond. 19: Ὠριγένης πυθόμενος τὴν τῶν οβʹ 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 opening; and it will be seen that in the Psalms at least not more than two Hebrew words were included in a line, the corresponding Greek words being at the most three or four[1]. But the claims of the sense are not neglected; indeed it will appear upon inspection that the method adopted serves in a remarkable degree to accentuate the successive steps in the movement of the thought.
4. Besides the Hexapla, Origen compiled a Tetrapla, i.e. a
minor edition from which he omitted the first two columns containing
the Hebrew text in Hebrew and Greek characters; cf. Eus. l.c.
ἰδίως τὴν Ἀκύλου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ Θεοδοτίωνος ἔκδοσιν ἅμα
τῇ τῶν οʹ ἐν τοῖς τετραπλοῖς ἐπικατασκευάσας[1]. Epiph. de mens. et
pond. 19 τετραπλᾶ γάρ εἰσι τὰ Ἑλληνικὰ ὅταν αἱ τοῦ Ἀκὸλου καὶ
Συμμάχου καὶ τῶν οβʹ καὶ Θεοδοτίωνος ἑρμηνεῖαι συντεταγμέναι ὦσι.
The Tetrapla is occasionally mentioned along with the Hexapla
in scholia attached to MSS. of the LXX. Thus in the
66Syro-Hexaplaric version at the end of Joshua it is stated that
the Greek codex on which the version was based had the note:
ἐγράλη ἐκ τοῦ ἑξαπλοῦ, ἐξ οὗ καὶ παρετέθη· ἀντεβλή͔θη δὲ καὶ
πρὸς τὸν τετραπλοῦν. Cod. Q still contains two similar
references to the Tetrapla (O. T. in Greek, iii., p. viii., notes).
Mention is also made in the MSS. of an Octapla (cf. the Syro-Hexaplar in
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 כ = χ, ק = κ, and שׁ ,צ ,ס = σ and that א ה ח ע are without equivalent[1]. The divergences of the vocalisation from that which is represented by the pointing of the M. T. are more important; see Dr Taylor's remarks in D. C. B. ii. p. 15 f.
In regard to Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and the minor Greek versions, Origen's task was limited to transcription under the conditions imposed by the plan of his work. But the fifth column, which contained the Hexaplaric LXX., called for the full exercise of his critical powers. If his first idea had been, as his own words almost suggest, merely to transcribe the LXX. in its proper place, without making material alterations in the text, a closer comparison of the LXX. with the current Hebrew text and the versions based upon it must soon have 68convinced him that this was impracticable. Let us suppose that there lay before him an Alexandrian or Palestinian MS., containing the 'common' text of the LXX. ἠ κοινή, or vulgata editio , as Jerome calls it[1]), i. e. the text of the Greek Bible as it was read by the Church of the third century. As the transcription proceeded, it would be seen that every column of the Greek contained clauses which were not in the Hebrew, and omitted clauses which the Hebrew contained. Further, in many places the order of the Greek would be found to depart from that of the Hebrew, the divergence being sometimes limited to a clause or a verse or two, but occasionally extending to several chapters. Lastly, in innumerable places the LXX. would be seen to yield a sense more or less at variance with the current Hebrew, either through misapprehension on the part of the translators or through a difference in the underlying text. These causes combined to render the coordination of the Alexandrian Greek with the existing Hebrew text a task of no ordinary difficulty, and the solution to which Origen was led appeared to him to be little short of an inspiration 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[1]. The problem before him was to restore the LXX. to its original purity, i.e. to the Hebraica veritas as he understood it, and thus to put the Church in possession of an adequate Greek version of the Old Testament without disturbing its general allegiance to the time-honoured work of the Alexandrian translators. Some of the elements in this complex process were comparatively simple. (1) Differences of order were met by transposition, the Greek order making way for the 69Hebrew. In this manner whole sections changed places in the LXX. text of Exodus, 1 Kings, and Jeremiah; in Proverbs only, for some reason not easy to determine, the two texts were allowed to follow their respective courses, and the divergence of the Greek order from the Hebrew was indicated by certain marks[1] prefixed to the stichi 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, by a simple adaptation of the Alexandrian Greek form to that which was found in the current Hebrew[1]. (3) The additions and omissions in the LXX. presented greater difficulty. Origen was unwilling to remove the former, for they belonged to the version which the Church had sanctioned, and which many Christians regarded as inspired Scripture; but he was equally unwilling to leave them without some mark of editorial disapprobation. Omissions were readily supplied from one of the other versions, namely Aquila or Theodotion; but the new matter interpolated into the LXX. needed to be carefully distinguished from the genuine work of the Alexandrian translators[1]. See Add. Notes.
6. Here the genius of Origen found an ally in the system of critical signs which had its origin among the older scholars of Alexandria, dating almost from the century which produced the earlier books of the LXX. The Ἀριστάρχεια σήματα took their name from the prince of Alexandrian grammarians, Aristarchus, who flourished in the reign of Philopator (A.D. 70222—205, and they appear to have been first employed in connexion with his great edition of Homer[1]. Origen selected two of these signs known as the obelus and the asterisk, and adapted them to the use of his edition of the Septuagint. In the Homeric poems, as edited by Aristarchus, the obelus marked passages which the critic wished to censure, while the asterisk was affixed to those which seemed to him to be worthy of special attention; cf. the anecdoton printed by Gardthausen: ὁ δὲ ὀβελὸς πρὸς τὰ ἀθετούμενα ἐπὶ τοῦ ποιητοῦ ἤγουν νενοθευμένα ἢ ὑποβεβλημένα· ὁ δὲ ἀστερίσκος . . . ὡς καλῶν εἰρημένων τῶν ἐπῶν. Similarly, in connexion with Platonic dicta , Diogenes Laertius (platon. iii. 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[1], whilst the asterisk called attention to words or lines wanting in the LXX., but present in the Hebrew. The close of the context to which the obelus or asterisk was intended to apply was marked by another sign known as the metobelus. When the passage exceeded the length of a single line, the asterisk or obelus was repeated at the beginning of each subsequent line until the metobelus was reached.
71Epiph. de mens. et pond. 2, 3 ὁ ἀστερίσκος . . . σημαίνει τὸ ἐμφερόμενον ῥῆμα ἐν τῷ Ἐβραικῷ κεῖσθαι . . . οἱ δὲ οβʹ ἑρμηνευταὶ παρῆκαν καὶ οὐχ ἡρμήνευκαν . . . ὀβελὸς δὲ . . . παρετίθη . . . ταῖς τῆς θείας γραφῆς λέξεσιν ταῖς παρὰ τοῖς οβʹ ἑρμηνευταῖς κειμέναις, παρὰ δὲ τοῖς περὶ Ἀκύλαν καὶ Σύμμαχον μὴ ἐμφερομέναις. Schol. ap. Tisch. not. ed cod. Sin. p. 76 ὅσοις οἰ ὀβελοὶ πρόσκεινται ῥητοῖς, οὗτοι οὐκ ἔκειντο οὔτε παρὰ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἑρμηνευταῖς οὔτε ἐν τῷ Ἐβραικῷ, ἀλλὰ παρὰ μόνοις τοῖς οʹ· καὶ ὅσοις οἱ ἀστερίσκοι πρόσκεινται ῥητοῖς, οὖτοι ἐν μὲν τῷ Ἐβραικῷ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἑρμηνευταῖς ἐφέροντο, ἐν δὲ τοῖς οʹ οὐκέτι.
Occasionally Origen used asterisk and obelus together, as Aristarchus had done, to denote that the order of the Greek was at fault (anecd. ap. Gardthausen: ὁ δὲ ἀστερίσκος μετὰ ὀβελοῦ, ὡς ὄντα μὲν τὰ ἔπη τοῦ ποιητοῦ, μὴ καλῶς δὲ κείμενα: schol. ap. Tisch. not. ed. Sin. l. c. φέρονται μὲν παρὰ τοῖς οʹ, φέρονται δὲ ἐν τῷ Ἐβραικῷ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἑρμηνευταῖς, τὴν θέσιν δὲ μὸνην παραλλάσσουσιν οἱ λοιποὶ καὶ τὸ Ἐβραικὸν παρὰ τοὺς οʹ· ὅθεν ὠβέλισται ἐν ταὐτῷ καὶ ἠστέρισται, ὡς παρὰ πᾶσι μὲν φερόμενα, οὐκ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς δὲ τόποις: also ap. mon. sacr. ined. iii. p. xvii. τὰ δὲ ἠστερισμένα 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[1].
The form of the asterisk, obelus, and metobelus varies slightly. The first consists of the letter x, usually surrounded by four dots (, the χῖ τεριεστιγμένον); the form occurs but seldom, and only, as it seems, in the Syro-Hexaplar. The ὀρελός, 'spit' or 'spear,' is represented in Epiphanius by , but in the MSS. of the LXX. a horizontal straight line (—)[1] has taken the place of the original form, with or without occupying dot or dots ( ); the form was known as a lemniscus, and the form as a hypolemniscus. Epiphanius indeed (op. cit., c. 8) fancies that each dot represents a pair of translators, so that the lemniscus means that the word or clause which the LXX. adds to the Hebrew had the support of two out of the thirty-six pairs which composed the whole body, whilst the hypolemniscus 72claims for it the support of only one pair. This explanation, it is scarcely necessary to say, is as baseless as the fiction of the cells on which, in the later Epiphanian form, it rests. Other attempts to assign distinct values to the various forms of the obelus have been shewn by Field to be untenable[1]. The metobelus is usually represented by two dots arranged perpendicularly (:), like a colon; other forms are a sloping line with a dot before it or on either side (/., ·/.), and in the Syro-Hexaplar and other Syriac versions a mallet . The latter form, as the least ambiguous, is used in Field's great edition of the Hexapla, and in the apparatus which is printed under the text of the LXX. version of Daniel in the Cambridge manual Septuagint.
Certain other signs found in Hexaplaric MSS. are mentioned in the following scholion Έὐαγρίου σχ., one of the σχόλια εἰς τὰς παροιμίας printed in the Notitia ed. cod. Sin., p. 76, from a Patmos MS.; see Robinson, Philocalia, pp. xiii., xvii. ff.): εἰσὶν[1] ὅσα προτεταγμένον ἔχουσι τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὧδε· ὅσα Ὠριγένην ἐπιγεγραμμένον ἔχει τούτῳ τῷ μονοσυλλάβῳ, . . . ὅσα δὲ περὶ διαφωνίας ῥητῶν τινῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ ἐδαφίῳ ἢ ἐκδόσεών ἐστιν σχόλια, ἅπερ καὶ κάτω νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει προτεταγμένην, τῶν ἀντιβεβληκότων τὸ βιβλίον ἐστίν· ὅσα δὲ ἀμφιβόλως ἔξω κείμενα ῥητὰ ἔξω νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει προτεταγμένην, διὰ τὰ σχόλια προσετέθησαν κατ᾿ αὐτὰ τοῦ μεγάλου εἰρηκότος διδασκάλου, ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ 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 LXX.) on the other [1].
73
και επεστρεψεν ις εν | τω καιρω εκεινω | κατελαβετο την : ασωρ | και τον βασιλεα αυτης | απεκτεινεν εν ρομ | φαια : ην δε ασωρ πο προ|τερον αρχουσα πασω | των βασιλειων του|των και απεκτεινα | παν ενπνεον ο : εν | αυτη εν στοματι ξιφους | και εξωλεθρευσαν : | —παντας : και ου κατελι|φθη εν αυτη ενπνε|ον και την ασωρ ενε|πρησεν εν πυρι και πα|σας τας πόλεις των | βασιλειων τουτω : | και παντας : τους βασι|λεις αυτων ελαβεν ις | και ανειλεν αυτους | εν στοματι ξιφους | εξωλεθρευσεν αυτους | ον τροπον συνεταξε | Μωσης ο παις κυ· αλλα | πασας τας πολεις τας || κεχωματισμενας | αυτων : ουκ ενεπρη|σεν ινλ πλην την : α|σωρ μονην αυτην : ενεπρησεν ις και πα|τα τα σκυλα αυτης | τα κτηνη : επρονομευ|σαν εαυτοις οι ινλ | κατα το ρημα κυ ο ενε | τειλατο τω ιυ : αυτους | δε παντας εξωλεθρευ|σεν εν στοματι ξιφους | εως απωλεσεν αυτους | ου κατιλιπον αυτω : | ουδε εν ενπνεον * * *
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.[1] A large part of the labour of transcription may have been borne by the copyists who were in constant attendance on the great scholar, but he was doubtless his own 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: H. E. vi. 23 ταχυγράφοι γὰρ αὐτῷ πλείους ἢ ἑπτὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν παρῆσαν ὑπαγορεύοντι, χρόνοις τεταγμένοις ἀλλήλους ἀμείβοντες, βιβλιογράφοι τε οὐχ ἥττους ἅμα καὶ κόραις ἐπὶ τὸ καλλιγραφεῖν ἠσκημέναις· ὧν ἁπάντων τὴν δέουσαν τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ἄφθονον περιουσίαν ὁ Ἀμβρόσιος παρεστήσατο. Two of these classes of workers, the βιβλιογράφοι and καλλιγράφοι (cf. Gardthausen, Gr. Palaeographie, p. 297), must have found ample employment in the preparation of the Hexapla. The material used was possibly papyrus. Although there are extant fragments of writing on vellum which may be attributed to the second century, "there is every reason to suppose that to the end of the third century papyrus held its own, at any rate in Egypt, as the 74material on which literary works were written" (Kenyon, Palaeography of Gk papyri, p. 113 f.; on the size of existing papyrus rolls, see p. 16 ff.). This view receives some confirmation from Jerome's statement (ep. 141) that Acacius and Evagrius endeavoured to replace with copies on parchment some of the books in the library at Caesarea which were in a damaged condition ("bibliothecam . . . ex parte corruptam . . . in membranis instaurare conati sunt")[1]. According to Tischendorf (prolegg. in cod. Frid. Aug. § 1) cod. א 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 uncanonical books, would have been nearly five times as great as that of the Vatican or the Sinaitic Old Testament. The Vatican MS. contains 759 leaves, of which 617 belong to the Old Testament; when complete, the O. T. must have occupied 650 leaves, more or less. From these data it may be roughly calculated that the Hexapla, if written in the form of a codex, would have filled 3250 leaves or 6500 pages[1]; and these figures are exclusive of the Quinta and Sexta, which may have swelled the total considerably. Even the Tetrapla would have exceeded 2000 leaves. So immense a work must have been the despair of copyists, and it is improbable that any attempt was made to reproduce either of the editions as a whole. The originals, however, were long preserved at Caesarea in Palestine, where they were deposited, perhaps by Origen himself, in the library of Pamphilus. There they were studied by Jerome in the fourth century (in Psalmos comm. ed. Morin., p. 5: "ἑξαπλοῦς Origenis in Caesariensi bibliotheca relegens"; ib. p. 12: "cum vetustum Origenis hexaplum psalterium revolverem, quod ipsius manu 75fuerat emendatum"; in ep. ad Tit.: "nobis curae fuit omnes veteris legis libros quos v. d. Adamantius in Hexapla digesserat de Caesariensi bibliotheca descriptos ex ipsis authenticis emendare." There also they were consulted by the writers and owners of Biblical MSS.; compare the interesting note attached by a hand of the seventh century to the book of Esther in cod. א : ἀντεβλήθη πρὸς παλαιότατον λίαν ἀντίγραφον δεδιορθωμένον χειρὶ τοῦ ἁγίου `άρτυρος Παμφίλου· πρὸς δὲ τῷ τέλει τοῦ αὐτοῦ παλαιοτάτου βιβλίου . . . ὑποσημείωσις τοῦ αὐτοῦ μάρτυρος ὑπέκειτο ἔχουσα οὕτως· (O. T. in Greek, ii. p. 780); and the notes prefixed to Isaiah and Ezekiel in Cod. Marchalianus (Q); the second of these notes claims that the copy from which Ezekiel was transcribed bore the subscription , (ib. iii. p. viii.)[1]. The library of Pamphilus was in existence in the 6th century, for Montfaucon (biblioth. Coisl. p. 262) quotes from Coisl. 202[1], a MS. of that century, a colophon which runs: ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ 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 12th[1]. 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.
76LITERATURE. Fragments of the Hexapla were printed by Peter Morinus in his notes to the Roman edition of the Septuagint (1587). Separate collections have since been published by J. Drusius (Vet. interpretum Graecorum . . . fragmenta collecta . . . a Jo. Drusio, Arnheim, 1622), Bernard Montfaucon (Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Paris, 1713), and F. Field (Oxford, 1875), whose work has superseded all earlier attempts to recover the Hexapla. A fuller list may be seen in Fabricius-Harles, iii. 701 ff. Materials for an enlarged edition of Field are already beginning to accumulate; such may be found in Pitra, Analecta sacra, iii. (Venice, 1883), p 551 ff.; E. Klostermann, Analecta zur . . . Hexapla (Leipzig, 1895), G. Morin, Anecdota Maredsolana iii. 1 (Mareds., 1895; cf. Expositor, June 1895, p. 424 ff.), and the Oxford Concordance. Among helps to the study of the Hexapla, besides the introductions already specified, the following may be mentioned: the Prolegomena in Field's Hexapla, the art. Hexapla in D. C. B. by Dr C. Taylor; the introduction to Dr Driver's Notes on Samuel (p. xliii. ff.), and Harnack-Preuschen, Gesch. altchristt. Litt. i. p. 339 ff. For the literature of the Syro-Hexaplaric version see c. iv.
8. The Hexapla as a whole was perhaps too vast to be copied[1], and copies even of particular books were rarely attempted; yet there was nothing to forbid the separate publication of the fifth column, which contained the revised Septuagint. This idea presented itself to Pamphilus and his friend Eusebius, and the result was the wide circulation in Palestine during the fourth century of the Hexaplaric LXX., detached from the Hebrew text and the other Greek versions, but retaining, more or less exactly, the corrections and additions adopted by Origen with the accompanying Hexaplaric signs. "Provinciae Palestinae," writes Jerome in his preface to Chronicles, "codices legunt quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt." Elsewhere[1] 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 ἐξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur . . et Ierosolymae 77atque in orientis ecclesia decantatur." The Hexaplaric text receives his unhesitating support: "ea autem quae habetur in ἑξαπλοῖς . . . ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata LXX. interpretum translatio reservatur[1]." This edition, sometimes described as τὸ Εὐσεβίου or τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον, or simply Ὠρ[ιγένης], is mentioned with great respect in the scholia of MSS. which do not on the whole follow its text. Specimens of such notes have already been given; they usually quote the words in which Pamphilus describes the part borne by himself and his friends respectively in the production of the book. Thus a note quoted by an early hand in cod. א at the end of 2 Esdras says, Ἀντωνῖνος ἀντέβαλεν, Πάμφιλος διόρθωσα. The subscription to Esther ends Ἀντωνῖνος 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: Εὐσέβιος ἐγὼ τὰ σχόλια παρέθηκα· Πάμφιλος καὶ Εὐσέβιος διορθώσαντο. In its 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[1] Antoninus, whilst the more responsible task of making corrections was reserved for Pamphilus and Eusebius[1]. Part of the work at least was done while Pamphilus lay in prison, i.e. between A.D. 307 and 309, but it was probably continued and completed by Eusebius after the martyr's death.
The separate publication of the Hexaplaric LXX. was undertaken in absolute good faith; Pamphilus and Eusebius believed (as did even Jerome nearly a century afterwards) that Origen had succeeded in restoring the old Greek version to its primitive purity, and they were moved by the desire to communicate this treasure to the whole Church. It was impossible 78for 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[1]. Not one of our uncial Bibles gives the Hexaplaric text as a whole, and it is presented in a relatively pure form by very few MSS., the uncials G and M, which contain only the Pentateuch and some of the historical books, and the cursives 86 and 88 (Holmes and Parsons), which contain the Prophets. But a considerable number of so-called Hexaplaric codices exist, from which it is possible to collect fragments not only of the fifth column, but of all the Greek columns of the Hexapla; and a still larger number of our MSS. offer a mixed text in which the influence of the Hexaplaric LXX., or of the edition published by Pamphilus and Eusebius, has been more or less extensively at work[1]. 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.
79Hieron. in praef. ad Paralipp.: "Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem"; cf. adv. Rufin. ii. where the statement is repeated[1], and praef. in Evangelia, where the revision of Hesychius is represented as having included both Testaments, and his O. T. work is condemned as infelicitous ("nec in V.T. post LXX. interpretes emendare quod licuit"); the Hesychian revision of the Gospels is censured by the Decretum Gelasii, which even denounces them as apocryphal ("evangelia quae falsavit Hesychius, apocrypha").
It is not easy to ascertain who this Hesychius was. The most conspicuous person of that name is the lexicographer, and he has been identified with the reviser of the Greek Bible[1]. 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[1] the martyr Bishop who is mentioned by Eusebius in connexion with Phileas Bishop of Thmuis, Pachymius, and Theodorus (H. E. viii. 13 Φιλέας τε καὶ Ἡσύχιος καὶ Παχύμιος καὶ Θεόδωρος τῶν ἀμφὶ τὴν Αἴγυπτον ἐκκλησιῶν ἐπὶσκοποι). The four names appear together again in a letter addressed to Meletius (Routh, rell. sacr. iv. p. 91 ff.); and Eusebius has preserved a pastoral written by Phileas in prison in view of his approaching martyrdom (H. E. viii. 10). Phileas was a distinguished scholar (H. E. viii. 9 διαπρέψας . . ἐν . . τοῖς κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν λόγοις, ib. 10 τῶν ἔξωθεν μαθημάτων ἕνεκα πολλοῦ λόγου ἄξιον . . . 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 80and Antoninus were working under similar conditions at Caesarea. It is easy to account for the acceptance of the Hesychian revision at Alexandria and in Egypt generally, if it was produced under such circumstances.
To what extent the Hesychian recession of the Old Testament is still accessible in MSS. and versions of the LXX. is uncertain. As far back as 1786 Münter threw out the very natural suggestion that the Egyptian recession might be found in the Egyptian versions. In his great monograph on the Codex Marchalianus Ceriani takes note that in the Prophets, with the exception perhaps of Ezekiel, the original text of that great Egyptian MS. agrees closely with the text presupposed by the Egyptian versions and in the works of Cyril of Alexandria, and that it is supported by the cursive MSS. 26, 106, 198, 306; other cursives of the same type are mentioned by Cornill[1] as yielding an Hesychian text in Ezekiel. For the remaining books of the LXX. we have as yet no published list of MSS. containing a probably Hesychian text, but the investigations now being pursued by the editors of the larger Cambridge LXX. may be expected to yield important help in this direction[1].
10. Meanwhile the rising school of Antioch was not inactive in the field of Biblical revision. An Antiochian recession of the κοινή had in Jerome's time come to be known by the name of its supposed author, the martyr Lucian[1].
Hieron. praef. in Paralipp.: "Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat." Cf. (
Ep. cvi. ) ad Sunn. et Fret. 2 "[ἡ κοινή] . . . a plerisque nunc Λουκιανός dicitur." Ps.-Athan. syn. sacr. script. ἑβδόμη πάλιν καὶ τελευεαία ἑρμηνεία τοῦ ἁγίου Λουκιανοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου ἀσκητοῦ καὶ μάρτυρος, ὅστις καὶ αὐτὸς ταῖς προγεγραμμέναις ἐκδοσεσι καὶ τοῖς Ἐβραικοῖς ἐντυχὼν καὶ ἐποπτεύσας μετ᾿ ἀκριβείας τὰ λείποντα ἢ καὶ περιττὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ῥήματα 81καὶ 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 αὑτοῦ τῆς ἐκδόσεως βιβλίον, εὑρέθη ἐν Νικομηδείᾳ ἐπὶ Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως τοῦ μεγάλου παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις ἐν τοίχῳ πυργίσκῳ περικεχρισμένῳ κονιάματι εἰς διαφύλαξιν (cf. the Acts of Lucian in Bolland. i. p. 363). Suidas s.v. οὗτος τὰς 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 Ἐβραίδος ἐπανενεώσατο γλώσσης. Cf. also Cyr. Alex. in Psalmos praef.
Lucian, who was born at Samosata, began his studies at Edessa, whence he passed to Antioch at a time when Malchion was master of the Greek School (Eus. H. E. vii. 29, Hieron. de virr. ill. 71). At Antioch Lucian acquired a great reputation for Biblical learning (Eus. H. E. ix. 6 τοῖς ἱεροῖς μαθὗμασι συγκεκροτημένος, Suid. s.v. αὐτὴν [sc. τὴν Ἐβραίδα γλῶσσαν] ὡς 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[1], H. E. i. 3 ἀποσυναγωγὸς ἔμεινε τριῶν ἐπισκόπων πολυετοῦς χρόνου). On his restoration to communion he was associated with Dorotheus, who was a Hebrew scholar, as well as a student of Greek literature (Eus. H. E. vii. 32 φιλόκαλος δ᾿ οὗτος περὶ τὰ θεῖα γράμματα καὶ τῆς Ἐβραίων ἐπεμελήθη γλώττης, ὡς καὶ αὐταῖς ταῖς Ἐβραικαῖς γραφαῖς ἐπιστημόνως ἐντυγχάνειν· ἦν δὲ οὗτος τῶν μάλιστα ἐλευθερίων, προπαιδείας τε τῆς καθ᾿ Ἕλληνας οὐκ ἄμοιρος). 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[1]," the 82Syrian revision of the Old Testament, which called for a knowledge of Hebrew, may have been due more especially to the Hebraist Dorotheus. Lucian, however, has the exclusive credit of the latter, and possibly was the originator of the entire work. If we may believe certain later writers, his revision of the LXX. was on a great scale, and equivalent to a new version of the Hebrew Bible; Pseudo-Athanasius goes so far as to call it the 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 κοινή in accordance with the principles of criticism which were accepted at Antioch. In the New Testament (to use the words of Dr Hort[1]) "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[1], 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[1] Field noticed that in an epistle prefixed to the Arabic Syro-Hexaplar[1], the marginal letter (L) was said 83to indicate Lucianic readings. Turning to the Syro-Hexaplar itself, he found this letter in the margin of 2 Kings (= 4 Regn.) at cc. ix. 9, 28, x. 24, 25, xi. 1, xxiii. 33, 35, But the readings thus marked as Lucianic occur also in the cursive Greek MSS. 19, 82, 93, 108; and further examination shewed that these four MSS. in the Books of Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah agree with the text of the LXX. offered by the Antiochian fathers Chrysostom and Theodoret, who might have been expected to cite from 'Lucian.' Similar reasoning led Field to regard codd. 22, 36, 48, 51, 62, 90, 93, 144, 147, 233, 308 as presenting a more or less Lucianic text in the Prophets. Meanwhile, Lagarde had independently[1] reached nearly the same result, so far as regards the historical books. He satisfied himself that codd. 19, 82, 93, 108, 118[1], had sprung from a common archetype, the text of which was practically identical with that of the LXX. as quoted by Chrysostom, i.e., with the Antiochian text of the fourth century, which presumably was Lucianic. Lagarde proceeded to construct from these and other sources a provisional text of Lucian, but his lamented death intercepted the work, and only the first volume of his Lucianic LXX. has appeared (Genesis—2 Esdr., Esther).
The following specimen will serve to shew the character of Lucian's revision, as edited by Lagarde; an apparatus is added which exhibits the readings of codd. B and A.
3 Regn. xviii. 22-28.
22 καὶ εἶπεν Ἡλίας πρὸς τὸν λαόν Ἐγὼ ὑπολέλειμμαι προφήτης κυρίου προφήτης μονώτατος, καὶ οἱ προφῆται τοῦ Βααλ τετρακόσιοι καὶ πεντήκοντα ἄνδρες, καὶ οἱ προφῆται τῶν ἀλσῶν τετρακόσιοι. 23 δότωσαν οὖν ἡμῖν δύο βόας, καὶ ἐκλεξάσθωσαν ἑαυτοῖς τὸν ἕνα καὶ μελισάτωσαν καὶ ἐπιθέτωσαν ἐπὶ ξύλα καὶ πῦρ μὴ ἐπιθέτωσαν· καὶ ἐγὼ ποιήσω τὸν βοῦν τὸν ἄλλον, καὶ πῦρ οὐ μὴ ἐπιθῶ. 24 καὶ βοᾶτε ἐν ὀνόματι θεῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ ἐγὼ ἐπικαλέσομαι ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου τοῦ 84 θεοῦ μου, καὶ ἔσται ὁ θεός ὃς ἂν ἐπακούσῃ σήμερον ἐν πυρί, οὗτος ἐστι θεός. καὶ ἀπεκρίθη πᾶς ὁ λαὸς καὶ εἶπεν Ἀγαθὸς ὁ λόγος ὃν ἐλάλησας. 25 καὶ εἶπεν Ἡλίας τοῖς προφήταις τῆς αἰσχύνης Ἐκλέξασθε ἑαυτοῖς τὸν βοῦν τὸν ἕνα , ὅτι ὑμεῖς πολλοί, καὶ ποιήσατε πρῶτοι, καὶ ἐπικαλεῖσθε ἐν ὀνόματι θεῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ πῦρ μὴ ἐπιθῆτε. 26 καὶ ἔλαβον τὸν βοῦν καὶ ἐποίησαν, καὶ ἐπεκαλοῦντο ἐν ὀνόματι 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. 27 καὶ ἐγένετο μεσημβρία, καὶ ἐμυκτήρισεν αὐτοὺς Ἡλίας ὁ Θεσβίτης καὶ προσέθετο λέγων Ἐπικαλεῖσθε ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἅμα, μήποτε ἀδολεσχία τις ἔστιν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἅμα μήποτε χρηματίζει αὐτὸς ἢ μήποτε καθεύδει, καὶ ἐξαναστήσεται. 28 καὶ ἐπεκαλοῦντο ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ κατετέμνοντο κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν αὐτῶν ἐν μαχαίραις καὶ ἐν σειρομάσταις ἕως ἐκχύσεως αἵματος ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς.
22 Ηλειου ΒΑ | κυριου] pr του BA | om προφητης 20 ΒΑ | οι προφηται 20] om οι Α | του αλσους ΒΑ | om τετρακοσιοι 20 Α 23 om ουν ΒΑ | om και επιθ. επι ξυλα Α | ξυλα] των ξυλων Β | τὸν αλλον] + και δωσω επι τα ξυλα Α 24 θεων] θεου Α | εαν ΒΑ | om σημερον ΒΑ | om εστι ΒΑ | απεκριθησαν ΒΑ | ειπον Β ειπαν Α | αγαθος ο λογος ον] καλον το ρημα ο ΒΑ 25 Ηλειου ΒΑ | βουν] μοσχον ΒΑ | και ποι. πρωτοι οτι πολλοι υμεις ΒΑ | επικαλεσασθε Β | θεων] θεου ΒΑ 26 ελαβεν Α | βουν] μοσχον ΒΑ + ον εδωκεν αυτοις Α | Βααλ 10] οτι ΒΑ | τις εστιν αυτω] αυτω εστιν ΒΑ | καθεύδει] + αυτος ΒΑ 28 κατα τον εθισμον αυτων] om Β κατα το κριμα αυτων Α | μαχαιρα Β | om εν 30 Β
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. Ἡλίας for Ἡλειού, the repetition 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 (וְיִתְּגוּ), βοῦν (פָּר); or an adherence to an older reading which the Hexaplaric LXX. had set aside, e.g. the omission of ὃν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς[1] and ἐκ πρωίθεν ἕως μεσημβρίας. 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[1] that the Lucianic recession is distinguished by (1) the substitution 85of synonyms for the words employed by the LXX.; (2) the occurrence of double renderings; (3) the occurrence of renderings "which presuppose a Hebrew original self-evidently superior in the passages concerned to the existing Massoretic text." The last of these peculiarities renders it of great importance for the criticism of the Hebrew Bible.
Lucian suffered martyrdom at Nicomedia under Maximin in the year 311 or 312[1]. 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 Quinta and Sexta, 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 Constantinople. The name of Lucian would be enough to guarantee the general acceptance of the work. He died in the peace of the Church, and a martyr; on the other hand his name was in high repute with the Arian leaders, who boasted of being συλλουκιανισταί[1]. Moreover, a revision which emanated from Antioch, the "ecclesiastical parent of Constantinople[1]," 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[1].
11. The result of these multiplied labours of Christian scholars upon the text of the LXX. was not altogether satisfactory. Before the time of Jerome much of the original text of the Alexandrian Bible had disappeared. Men read their Old Testament in the recension of Lucian, if they lived in North Syria, Asia Minor, or Greece; in that of Hesychius, if they belonged 86to 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[1]"). 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. and versions still survive which represent more or less fully the three recessions of the fourth century. But the trifaria varietas did not continue to perplex the Church; a fusion of texts arose which affected the greater part of the copies in varying proportions. No one of the rival recessions became dominant and traditional, as in the case of the New Testament[1]; among the later MSS, groups may be discerned which answer more or less certainly to this recession or to that, but the greater number of the cursives present a text which appears to be the result of mixture rather than of any conscious attempt to decide between the contending types.
Ancient Versions Based upon the Septuagint.
87THE Christian Churches of Greek-speaking countries throughout the Empire read the Old Testament in the Alexandrian Version. Few of the provinces were wholly non-Hellenic; Greek was spoken not only in Egypt and Cyrenaica, in Western Syria, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia, but to a great extent in the West, in Italy and at Rome. Roman satirists of the first century complained that the capital had become a Greek city; the upper classes acquired Greek; the freedmen and slaves in many cases spoke it as their mother tongue[1]. Official letters addressed to the Roman Church or proceeding from her during the first two centuries were written in Greek; only three or at the most four of the Bishops of Rome during the same period bear Latin names[1]. In Gaul the Greek tongue had spread up the valley of the Rhone from Marseilles to Vienne and Lyons; the Viennese confessors of A.D. 177 used it in their correspondence both with the Roman Bishops and with their brethren in Asia Minor; the Bishop of Lyons wrote in the same language his great work against the false gnosis of the age. The Old Testament as known to Clement of Rome and Irenaeus of Lyons is substantially the Greek version of 88the 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[1]; 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) 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.
89Aug. de civ. Dei xviii. 43 ex hac LXX. interpretatione etiam in Latinam linguam interpretatum est quod ecclesiae Latinae tenent. De doctr. Christ. ii. 16 [after a reference to the "Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas"] "qui enim scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini interpretes nullo modo; ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Graecus et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur ausus est interpretari." Ib. 22: "in ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala ceteris praeferatur." Ep. ii. 82 (ad Hieronymum): "ideo autem desidero interpretationem tuam de LXX. ut . . . tanta Latinorum interpretum qui qualescunque hoc ausi sunt quantum possumus imperitia careamus."
This is African testimony, but it belongs to the end of the fourth century, and needs to be verified before it can be unhesitatingly received. Many of the discrepancies to which Augustine refers may be due to the carelessness or officiousness of correctors or transcribers; if, as Jerome tells us, there were towards the end of the fourth century as many types of text as there were MSS. of the Latin Bible ("tot exemplaria quot codices"), it is clearly out of the question to ascribe each of these to a separate translator. A few specimens, taken from Cyprian and extant MSS. of the O. L., will enable the student to form some idea of the extent to which these differences are found in extant texts[1].
CYPRIAN testimonia i. 21[1]. | LYONS MS. |
17 ubi vidit autem Ioseph quoniam superposuit pater suus manum dexteram super caput Effraim, grave illi visum est, et adprehendit Ioseph manum patris sui auferre eam a capite Effraim ad caput Manasse. 18 dixit autem Ioseph ad patrem suum Non sic, pater; hic est primitivus meus; superpone dexteram tuam super caput suum. |
17 videns autem Ioseph quod misisset pater ipsius dexteram suam super caput Ephrem, grave ei visum est, et adprehendit Ioseph manum patris sui ut auferret eam a capite Ephrem super caput Manassis. 18 dixit autem Ioseph patri suo Non sicut, pater; hic enim primitivus est; impone dextram tuam super caput huius. |
90
LYONS MS | WÜRZBURG FRAGMENTS. | MUNICH FRAGMENTS. |
21 et dixit Moyses ad Aron Qid fecit tibi populus hic quia induxisti super eos peccatum magnum? 22 et dixit Aron ad Moysen Noli irasci, domine; to enim scis impetum populi huius. 23 dixerunt enim mihi Fac nobis deos qui praeeant nos; nam Moyses hic homo qui eduxit nos de Aegypto, nescimus quid factum sit ei. 24 et dixi eis Quicunque habet aurum demat sibi. et dederunt mihi, et misi illud in ignem, et exiit vitulus. |
21 et dixit Moyses ad Aron Quid fecit populus hic quia induxisti super eos peccatum magnum? 22 et dixit Aron ad Moysen Noli irasci, domine; to enim scis impetum populi huius. 23 dixerunt enim mihi Fac nobis deos qui praecedant nos; nam Moyses hic homo qui eduxit nos ex terra Aegypti, nescimus quid factum sit ei. 24 et dixi illis Quicunque habet aurum, demat; et dempserunt[1], et dederunt mihi, et misi illud in ignem, et exiit vitulus. |
21 et dixit Moyses ad Aron Quid fecit tibi populus hic quoniam immisisti eis delictum maximum? 22 et dixit Aron ad Moysen Ne irascaris, domine; to enim scis populi huius impetum. 23 dixerunt enim mihi Fac nobis deos qui praecedant nos; Moyses enim hic homo qui nos eiecit de terra Aegypti, nescimus quid acciderit ei. 24 et dixi eis Si qui habet aurum . . . . . . . .[1] tollat ad me; et dederunt mihi, et proieci in ignem, et exivit vitulus. |
LYONS MS | WÜRZBURG FRAGMENTS. |
27 si autem anima deliquerit inprudenter de populo terrae in faciendo vel unum ex omnibus praeceptis Dei quod non faciet, et neglexerit, 28 et cognitum ei fuerit delictum in quo deliquit[1] in eo, et adferet[1] primitivum de ovibus feminum immaculatum quod deliquit; 29 et imponet manum supra caput eius et occident primitivum delicti in loco in quo occidunt holocausta. |
27 si autem anima una deliquerit invita de populo in terra eo quod fecit unum ab omnibus praeceptis Domini, quod fieri non debet, et neglexerit, 28 et cognitum fuerit peccatum eius quod peccavit in ipso, et adferet hedillam de capris feminam sine vitio propter delictum quod deliquit; 29 et superponet manum super caput delicti sui et victimabunt hedillam quae est delicti in loco ubi victimabunt holocausta. |
91
CYPRIAN, testimonia ii. 12. | WEINGARTEN FRAGMENTS. |
et tu, Bethleem, domus illius Ephratha, num exigua es ut constituaris in milibus Iuda? ex to mihi procedet ut sit princeps apud Israel, et processiones eius a principio, a diebus saeculi.> |
et tu, Be[thleem,] domus [habita]tioni[s[1] Efra]ta, nu[mquid] mini[ma es] ut sis [in milibus] Iuda? [ex to mi]hi pro[diet qui] sit prin[ceps in] Istra[hel, et eg]ressus ip(sius ab] initi[o, ex diebus] saec[uli]. |
CYPRIAN, testimonia i. 4. | WÜRZBURG FRAGMENTS. |
11 et erunt vobis hi omnes sermones sicut sermones libri qui signatus est, quem si dederis homini scienti litteras ad legendum dicet Non possum legere, signatus est enim . . . 12 sed in illa die audient surdi sermones libri, et qui in tenebris et qui in nebula sunt; oculi caecorum videbunt. |
11 et erunt verba haec omnia sicut verba libri huius signati, quem si dederint homini scienti litteras dicentes ex lege haec, et dicet Non possum legere, signatum est enim . . . 12 et audient in die illa surdi verba libri, et qui in tenebris et qui in nebula; oculi caecorum videbunt. |
It is clearly unsafe to generalise from a few specimens, but the student will not fail to observe that the variations in these extracts may, perhaps without exception, be attributed either to the ordinary accidents of transcription or to the recensions of the original text. In the case of the New Testament Dr Hort[1] 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'[1] to later revisions of the European text. The classification of the Old Latin authorities for the O. T. is less advanced, and owing to the fragmentary character of most of 92the MSS. it is more difficult; but we may assume that it will proceed on the same general lines, and that the pre-Hieronymian types of text in the Old Testament as in the New will be found to be mainly two, i.e. the African, and the European, with a possible sub-division of the latter class[1]. In pursuing this enquiry use must be made not only of the surviving fragments of O. L. MSS., but of the numerous quotations of the Latin versions which occur in writings anterior to the final triumph of the Vulgate. As Dr Hort has pointed out[1], certain of the Latin fathers "constitute a not less important province of Old Latin evidence than the extant MSS., not only furnishing landmarks for the investigation of the history of the version, but preserving numerous verses and passages in texts belonging to various ages and in various stages of modification." These patristic materials were collected with great care and fulness by Sabatier (Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae . . . opera et studio D. Petri Sabatier O. S. B., Reims, 1743, '49, Paris, 1751; vols. i. ii. contain the O. T.) ; but after the lapse of a century and a half his quotations can no longer be accepted without being compared with more recent editions of the Latin fathers[1], and they often need to be supplemented from sources which were not at his command[1].
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 93the time of Origen. What Mr Burkitt has pointed out[1] 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[1] 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[1] and Ceriani[1]. This element is found even in the African text[1], 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.
Cod. Lugdunensis, vi. (Ulysse Robert, Pentateuchi e Codice Lugdunensi versio Latina antiquissima, Paris, 1881; Librorurn Levitici et Numerorum versio antiqua Itala e cod. perantiquo in bibliotheca Ashburnhamiensi conservato, London, 1868; Delisle, Découverte d’une très ancienne version latine de deux livres de la Bible in the Journal des Savants, Nov. 1895, p. 702 ff.; U. Robert, Heptateuchi partis post. versio Lat. antiquissima e cod. Lugd., Lyons, 1900[1].
94Containing
Fragmenta Wirceburgensia palimpsesta, ? vi. (E. Ranke, Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium[1], Vienna, 1871).
Containing
Fragmenta Monacensia, v.— vi. (L. Ziegler, Bruchstücke einer vorhieronymianischen Übersetzung des Pentateuchs, Munich, 1883).
Containing
Lectiones ap. Cod. Ottobonian., viii. (C. Vercellone, variae lectiones, Rome, 1860, i. p. 183 ff.).
Containing
Fragmenta Philonea (F. C. Conybeare, in Expositor IV. iv. p. 63 ff.).
Consisting of
Fragmenta Vindobonensia (J. Belsheim, Palimpsestus Vindob., 1885).
Containing
Joshua,
Cod. Lugdunensis (in the portion published by Robert in 1900).
Ruth.
Cod. Complutensis, ix., Madrid, Univ. Libr. (S. Berger in Notices et Extraits, xxxiv. 2, p. 119 ff.).
1— 4 Regn.
Fragments of Corbie and St Germain MSS. (Sabatier); fragments from a Verona MS. and a Vatican MS. in Bianchini (Vindiciae, p. cccxli. ff.), from a Vienna MS. in Haupt's vet. antehieron. vers. fragmenta Vindobonensia, 1877, from an Einsiedeln MS. in Notices at Extraits xxxiv. 2, p. 127 ff., and from leaves found at Magdeburg and Quedlinburg[1] printed by W. Schum, 1876, Weissbrodt, 1887, and A. Düning, 1888. Fragments of 2 Regn. at Vienna published by J. Haupt, 1877. A Vienna palimpsest containing considerable fragments of 1— 2 Regn. (J. Belsheim, Palimpsestus Vind., 1885). Readings from the margin of Cod. Goth. Legionensis[1] printed by C. Vercellone, ii. p. 179 ff.; cf. Archiv, viii. 2. (The Verona and Vatican fragments should perhaps be classed as Vulgate.)
1 Esdras.
An O. L. text is to be found in the Paris MS. Bibl. Nat. lat. 111, the Madrid MS. E. R. 8, and another in a Lucca MS. ap. Lagarde, Septuagintastudien, 1892.
Judith, Tobit.
Cod. Complutensis.
Cod. Goth. Legionensis.
Cod. Vatic. regin. (Bianchini, Vindiciae, p. cccl. f.; Tobit only).
O. L. texts are also to be found in the Paris MSS. Bibl. Nat. lat. 6, 93, 161 (Tobit), 11505, 11549 (Judith), 11553, in the Munich MS. 6239, the Milan MS. Amb. E 26 infr. (Tobit), and the Oxford MS. Bodl. auct. E. infr. 2 (Judith). See Notices et Extraits xxxiv. 2, p. 142 ff. Of these texts some were printed by Sabatier, and Munich 6239 is in Belsheim's Libr. Tobiae, &c. (1893).
Esther.
Cod. Pechianus (Sabatier).
Cod. Vallicellanus (Bianchini, Vindiciae, p. ccxciv. ff.).
96Cod. Complutensis (see above under Ruth).
An O. L. text of Esther is found also in the Paris MS. Bibl. Nat. lat. 11549 (= Corb. 7), the Lyons MS. 356, the Munich MSS. 6225, 6239, the Monte Casino MS. 35 (Biblioth. Casin. i., 1873), the Milan MS. Amb. E. 26 infr. (see S. Berger op. cit.).
1, 2 Maccabees.
O. L. texts are to be found in the Paris MS. Bibl. Nat. lat. 11553 (Sabatier) and the Milan MS. Amb. E. 26 inf. (A. Peyron, Cic. fragmm. i. 70 ff: (1824).
(See Berger, op. cit.)
Psalms.
Cod. Veronensis (in Bianchini).
Cod. Sangermanensis (in Sabatier).
A Reichenau palimpsest described by Mone, l. u. gr. Messen, p. 40.
Fragments of the ῷδαί edited by F. F. Fleck (Leipzig, 1837), and L. F. Hamann (Jena, 1874).
Job.
Fragment. Floriacense (Sabatier). Containing c. xl. 3— 9.
Readings from the margin of Cod. Goth. Legionensis (Notices et Extraits, p. 111 ff.).
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles.
Readings in a St Gallen MS., see Notices et Extraits, p. 137 ff. Fragments published by Sabatier, Vogel, Mone, Berger (Hastings' D. B. iii. p. 50).
Wisdom, Sirach.
See Lagarde, Mittheilungen i. (Göttingen, 1884). C. Donais, Une ancienne Version latine de l’Ecclésiastique (Paris, 1895).
Fragmenta Wirceburgensia, vi. (?) (E. Ranke, Par palimp. Wirceb. p. 49 sqq.).
Containing
Fragmenta Fuldensia, v. (E. Ranke, Fragm. versionis ante-Hieronymianae, Marburg, 1868).
Containing
Fragmenta Weingartensia, v. (E. Ranke, Fragm. v. ante-H., Vienna, 1868; P. Corssen, Zwei neue Fragmente d. Weingartener Prophetenhandschrift, Berlin, 1899).
Containing
Fragmenta Stutgardiana (E. Ranke, Antiquissima V. T. versionis Latinae fragmenta, Marburg, 1888).
Containing
Fragmenta monast. S. Pauli Carinthiaci (A. Vogel, Beiträge zur Herstellung der A. L. Bibelübersetzung, Vienna, 1868).
Containing
Fragmenta palimpsesta Vaticana (F. Gustafsson, Fragmenta V. T. in Latinum conversi a palimpsesto Vaticano eruta, Helsingfors, 1881)[1].
Containing
Fragmenta palimpsesta Sangallensia (F. C. Burkitt, O. L. and Itala, Camb. 1896).
Containing
Codex Vallicellanus B. vii. (Bianchini, Vindiciae, p. ccxiii.).
Containing Baruch.
O. L. texts of Baruch are also to be found in the Paris MSS. Bibl. Nat. lat. 11, 161, 11951, and Arsenal 65, 70; and in the Monte Casino MS. 35, and the Reims MS. 1.
Copious extracts from most of the books of the O. L. Bible are given in the anonymous Liber de divinis scripturis sive Speculum, wrongly attributed to St Augustine (ed. F. Weihrich in the Vienna Corpus, vol. xii.). Two other patristic collections of O. L. excerpts may also be mentioned here—the Testimonia of St Cyprian (ed. Hartel, Corpus, vol. iii. 1), and the liber regularum Tyconii (ed. F. C. Burkitt, in Texts and Studies, iii. 1). See also the Collatio Carthaginiensis printed in Dupin's Optatus (Paris, 1700), p. 379 ff.
98(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[1]" upon the Old Testament at Rome about the year 383, probably (as in the case of his revision of the Gospels) at the suggestion of the Roman Bishop Damasus († 384). His first attempt was limited to a revision of the Latin Psalter and conducted on lines which afterwards seemed to him inadequate. A few years later—but before 390— 1, when he began to translate from the Hebrew—a fresh revision of the Psalter from the LXX. was undertaken at the desire of Paula and Eustochium; its immediate purpose was to remove errors which had already found their way into the copies of the earlier work, but the opportunity was seized of remodelling the Latin Psalter after the example of the Hexapla.
Praef. in libr. Psalmorum: "psalterium Romae dudum positum emendaram et iuxta LXX. interpretes, licet cursim, magna illud ex parte correxeram. quod quia rursum videtis, o Paula et Eustochium, scriptorum vitio depravatum, plusque antiquum errorem quam novam emendationem valere, cogitis ut . . . renascentes spinas eradicem. . . . . notet sibi unusquisque vel iacentem lineam vel signa radiantia, id est vel obelos () vel asteriscos (); et ubicunque viderit virgulam praecedentem (), ab ea usque ad duo puncta (:) quae impressimus, sciat in LXX. translatoribus plus haberi; ubi autem stellae () similitudinem perspexerit, de Hebraeis voluminibus additum noverit aeque usque ad duo puncta, iuxta Theodotionis dumtaxat editionem qui simplicitate sermonis a LXX. interpretibus non discordat."
These two revised Latin Psalters were afterwards known as Psalterium Romanum and Psalterium Gallicanum respectively. Both recensions established themselves in the use of the Latin Church[1], the former in the cursus psallendi, the latter in the bibliotheca or Church Bible. At length Pius V. († 1572) 99ordered 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[1]. In MSS. of the Vulgate a triple Psalter not infrequently appears, shewing Jerome's two Septuagintal revisions side by side with the Psalterium Hebraicum, his later translation from the Hebrew; but the 'Hebrew' Psalter never succeeded in displacing the Hieronymian revisions of the Old Latin, and the Latin Church still sings and reads a version of the Psalms which is based on the Septuagint. The liturgical Psalter of the Anglican Church "followeth . . . the Translation of the Great English Bible, set forth and used in the time of King Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth"; i.e. it is based on Coverdale's version, which was "translated out of Douche and Latyn into Englishe"; and many of its peculiarities may be traced to the LXX. through the Gallican Psalter incorporated in the Vulgate[1].
The following specimen (
ROMAN. | GALLICAN. | HEBREW. |
12Dominus dabit verbum evangelizantibus virtute multa; 13rex virtutum dilecti, et speciei domus dividere spolia. 14si dormiatis in medios cleros, pennae columbae deargentatae, et posteriora dorsi eius in specie auri. [diapsalma]......18currus Dei decem milium multiplex, milia laetantium. Dominus | 12Dominus dabit verbum evangelizantibus virtute multa; 13rex virtutum dilecti: et speciei domus dividere spolia. 14si dormiatis inter medios cleros pennae columbae deargentatae et posteriora dorsi eius in pallore auri, diapsalma.........18currus Dei decem milibus multiplex, milia laetantium: | 12Domine, dabis sermonem adnuntiatricibus fortitudinis plurimae, 13reges exercituum foederabuntur, foederabuntur et pulcritudo domus dividet spolia. 14si dormieritis inter medios terminos, pennae columbae deargentatae et posteriora eius in virore auri.......18currus Dei innumerabiles, milia |
in illis in Sina in sancto. 19ascendensin altum captivam duxit captivitatem, dedit dons hominibus. etenim non credunt inhabitare. 20Dominus Deus benedictus; benedictus Dominus de die in diem. , prosperum iter faclet nobis Deus salutaris poster. diapsalma. 21Deus noster deus salvos faciendi, et Domini exitus mortis. 22verumtamen Deus conquassabit capita inimicoruril suorum, verticem capilli perambulantium in delictis suis. | Dominus in eis in: Sina in sancto. 19ascendisti in altum: cepisti captivitatem, accepisti dona in hominibus. etenim non credentes inhabitare Dominum Deum. 20benedictus Dominus die quotidie; prosperum iter faciet nobis Deus salutarium nostrorum. disapsalma. 21Deus noster, Deus salvos faciendi: et Domini Domini: exitus mortis. 22verumtamen Deus confringet capita inimicorum suorum, verticem capilli perambulantium in delictis suis. | abundantium; Dominus in eis in Sina, in sancto. 19ascendisti in excelsum, captivam duxisti captivitatem, accepisti dona in hominibus; insuper et non credentes habitare Dominum Deum. 20benedictus Dominus per singulos dies; portabit nos Deus salutis nostrae. semper. 21Deus noster deus salutis, et Domini Dei mortis egressus. 22verumtamen Deus confringet capita inimicorum suorum, verticem crinis ambulantis in delictis suis. |
The book of Job offered a still more promising field for the labours of the Hexaplarising reviser, for the Greek text as known to Origen fell greatly short of the current Hebrew, and it was this defective text which formed the basis of the Latin versions used by Cyprian and Lucifer and in the Speculum[1]. Jerome, who had access to the Hexapla at Caesarea, took advantage of Origen's revision, in which the lacunae of the Greek job were filled up from Theodotion, and sent his friends, Paula and Eustochium, a Latin version of Job at once corrected and supplemented from the Hexaplaric LXX. The result gave him for the time profound satisfaction; he had lifted up job from the dunghill[1], and restored him to his pristine state[1]; 101the difference between the Old Latin version and the new seemed to him to be nothing short of that which separate falsehood from truth[1]. The asterisks shewed that from 700 to 800 lines had been restored to this long mutilated book[1].
A few brief specimens from Lagarde's text[1] will suffice to shew the character of the work.
x. 4. aut sicut homo perspicit, perspicis? aut sicut videt homo, videbis? aut humana est vita tua? aut anni tui sunt tanquam dies hominis?
xix. 17 et rogabam uxorem meam invocabam blandiens filios uteri mei ; at illi in perpetuum despexerunt me; cum surrexero, locuntur ad me.
xlii. 7 et defunctus est job senex plenus dierum. scriptum est autem resurrecturum cum his quos Dominus suscitabit.
Jerome also revised from the Hexaplaric Septuagint, for the benefit of Paula and Eustochium, the 'books of Solomon' (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles), treating the Greek text after the manner of Origen; but his work has perished, the preface alone surviving. A like fate has overtaken a translation of Chronicles, undertaken at the desire of Domnio and Rogatianus. This version of Chronicles appears from the preface to have been influenced by Jerome's Hebrew studies, which were now sufficiently matured to enable him to form an independent judgement in reference to the merits of his Greek text, though he still clung to his old belief in the inspiration of the original Septuagint.
Praef. in libros Salomonis: "tres libros Salomonis, id est, Proverbia, Ecclesiasten, Canticum canticorum, veteri LXX. auctoritati reddidi, vel antepositis lineis () superflua quaeque 102designans, vel stellis () titulo (?) praenotatis ea quae minus habebantur interserens . . . et ubi praepostero ordine atque perverso sententiarum fuerat lumen ereptum suis locis restituens feci intellegi quod latebat" Praef. in libr. Paralipomenon: "cum a me nuper litteris flagitassetis ut vobis librum Paralipomenon Latino sermone transferrem, de Tiberiade legis quondam doctorem qui apud Hebraeos admirationi habebatur assumpsi . . . et sic confirmatus ausus sum facere quod iubebatis. libere enim vobis loquor, ita et in Graecis et Latinis codicibus hic nominum liber vitiosus est ut non tam Hebraea quam barbara quaedam . . . arbitrandum sit. nec hoc LXX. interpretibus qui Spiritu sancto pleni ea quae vera fuerant transtulerunt, sed scriptorum culpae adscribendum. . . . ubicunque ergo asteriscos . . . videritis ibi sciatis de Hebraeo additum . . . ubi vero obelus, transversa scilicet virga, praeposita est, illic signatur quid LXx. interpretes addiderint."
Whether Jerome dealt with the rest of the canonical books of the Old Latin in the same manner must remain an open question. No trace remains either of such revised versions or of prefaces which once belonged to them, nor does he refer to them in the prefaces of his translations from the Hebrew. On the other hand his letters occasionally speak of his revision of the Old Latin in terms which seem to imply that it was complete, and in one of them there is a passage which suggests that the disappearance of the other books was due to the dishonesty of some person whose name is not given.
Adv. Rufin. ii. 24: "egone contra LXX. interpretes aliquid sum locutus quos ante annos plurimos diligentissime emendatos meae linguae studiosis dedi?" Ep. 71 (ad Lucinium): "LXX. editionem et te habere non dubito." Ep. 106 (ad Sunn. et Fret.): "editionem LXX. interpretum quae et in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur et a nobis in Latinum sermonem fideliter versa est." Cf. Ep. Augustini ad Hieron. (116), (c. 405): "mittas obsecro interpretationem tuam de LXX. quam te edidisse nesciebam." At a later time (c. 416) Jerome excuses himself from doing as Augustine had desired, since "pleraque prioris laboris fraude cuiusdam amisimus" (Ep. 134).
In any case Jerome's Hexaplarised version had little or no influence on the text of the Latin Bible, except in the Psalter. Even his translations from the Hebrew did not easily supersede the Old Latin. The familiar version died hard and, 103as 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[1]."
The coexistence of the two versions naturally produced mixture in the MSS.[1], which was not altogether removed by the revisions of the sixth and ninth centuries. Moreover, the Old Latin version continued to hold its place in those books of the Church Bible which had no Semitic original, or of which the Semitic original was no longer current. In the preface to the Salomonic Books Jerome says explicitly: "porro in eo libro qui a plerisque Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur et in Ecclesiastico . . . calamo temperavi, tantummodo canonicas scripturas vobis emendare desiderans." The books of Tobit and Judith[1] were afterwards translated by him from the Aramaic (praeff. in librum Tobiae, in librum Judith), and these versions have been incorporated in the Vulgate, but the Vulgate Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1, 2 Maccabees are supplied from ante-Hieronymian sources. Thus to this day a considerable part of the Latin Bible is in greater or less degree an echo of the Septuagint.
LITERATURE. Besides the editions already mentioned the
student may consult with advantage Eichhorn, Einleitung, i. 321; N. Wiseman,
Essays, i. (London, 1853)—a reprint of his
Two letters on some parts of the controversy concerning
The tradition of St Mark's episcopate at Alexandria[1] 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[1], and their Greek proselytes; and the first extension of the movement was probably amongst the Greek population of the towns on the sea-coast of the Mediterranean. As it spread to the interior, to the villages of the Delta, to Memphis, Oxyrhynchus, Panopolis, and eventually to Thebes, it encountered native Egyptians who spoke dialects of the Egyptian tongue[1]. How soon they were evangelised there is no direct evidence to shew, but the process may have begun shortly after the Gospel reached Alexandria. The native Church retained its own tongue, and in the fourth and fifth centuries Greek was still unknown to many of the monks and ecclesiastics of Egypt. Christianity however is probably responsible for either introducing or spreading the use of a new system of 105writing with characters which are chiefly of Greek origin[1]. This writing, known as Coptic—a corruption of Αἰγύπτιος—is found with some variations in all MS. fragments of the Egyptian versions of the Old and New Testaments.
The analogy of the Old Latin would lead us to suppose (as Bp Lightfoot remarks[1]) that no long interval passed between the acceptance of Christianity by any large number of native Egyptians, and the first attempts to translate the Scriptures into the Egyptian tongue. "We should probably not be exaggerating if we placed one or both of the principal Egyptian versions, the Bohairic and the Sahidic, or at least parts of them, before the close of the second century." The Bishop is writing with only the New Testament in view, but his argument applies equally to the Old. His view is on the whole supported by Dr Hort[1], Ciasca[1], and Mr A. C. Headlam[1]: 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[1]."
The plurality of the Egyptian versions is well ascertained. Perhaps the geographical form of Egypt gave special opportunities for the growth of popular dialects; certain it is that increased knowledge of the language has added to the dialectic complications with which the Coptic scholar has to struggle[1]. 106It 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[1], 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[1]; in Bohairic he enumerates 6 MSS. of the Pentateuch, 14 of the Psalms, 5 of Proverbs, 3 of Job, 4 of the Minor Prophets, 5 of Isaiah, 3 of Jeremiah, 4 of Daniel, and 107one MS. of Ezekiel; in Sahidic, though few complete MSS. of any Biblical book have survived, there is a large number of extant fragments representing most of the canonical books and certain of the non-canonical (the two Wisdoms, the Ep. of Jeremiah, and the Greek additions to Daniel).
The following list gives the more important publications which contain portions of the Old Testament in the Egyptian versions.
BOHAIRIC. D. Wilkins, Quinque libri Moysis, 1731; Fallet, La version Cophte du pentateuque, 1854; Lagarde, Der Pentateuch koptisch, 1867; Bruchstücke der kopt. Übersetzungen des A. T. in Orientalia i. 1879. The Psalter has been edited by R. Tuki, 1744, J. L. Ideler, 1837, Schwartze, 1848, Lagarde, Psalterii versio Memphitica, Göttingen, 1875, F. Rossi, Cinque manoscritti &c., 1894; Job by H. Tattam, 1846; the Prophets by Tattam (Prophetae minores, 1836, Proph. maiores, 1852).
SAHIDIC. Lagarde, Aegyptiaca, 1883; Ciasca, Sacr. bibl. fragm. Coptosahidica Musei Borgiani, 1885— 9; Amélineau, Fragments coptes in Recueil v. (1884), and Fragments de la version thébaine, ib. vii.— x. (1886— 9); the same scholar has edited Job in Proceedings of the Soc. of Bibl. Arch., 1887; O. v. Lemm, Bruchstücke, 1885, Sahidische Bibelfragmente, 1890; Krall, Mittheilungen, 1887; F. Rossi, Papiri Copti, 1889, Un nuovo codice, 1893; Maspéro, Fragments de l᾿Ancien Testament in Mémoires publiés par les membres de la mission arch. française au Caire, vi., 1892; E. A. T. W. Budge, The earliest known Coptic Psalter, 1898[1]; Coptic Biblical Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt, 1912; N. Peters, Die sahidisch-koptische Übersetzung d. Buches Ecclesiasticus . . . untersucht, 1898; P. Lacau, Textes de l᾿A. T. en copte sahidique, 1901; Sir H. Thompson, The Coptic Version of certain books of the O. T., 1908; A Coptic Palimpsest, 1911.
MIDDLE EGYPTIAN, &c. Tuki, Rudimenta linguae Coptae, 1778; Quatremère, Recherches sur la langue et la littérature de l’Egypte, 1808; Zoega, Catal. codd. Copt., 1810; Engelbreth, Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica V. et N. T., 1811; Von Lemm, Mittelägyptische Fragmente, 1885; Krall, Mittheilungen, 1887; Bouriant in Mémoires de l’Institut égyptien ii., 1889, and in Mémoires publiés par &c. vi. 1; Steindorff, die Apokalypse des Elias, p. 2 ff. (Leipzig, 1899).
It may reasonably be expected that the Egyptian versions of the Old Testament; when they have been more fully recovered and submitted to examination by experts, will prove 108to be of much importance for the criticism of the text of the LXX. Ceriani[1] has shewn that the Greek text of Cod. Marchalianus agrees generally with that which underlies the Bohairic version of the Prophets, whilst both are in harmony with the text which is quoted by Cyril of Alexandria. A German scholar[1], 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[1] as Hesychian (22, 23, 26, 36, 40, 42, 49, 51, 62, 86, 91, 95, 97, 106, 114, 130, 147, 153, 185, 228, 233, 238, 240, 310, 311), and the Greek columns of the Complutensian Polyglott. Of the Sahidic fragments, Job is perhaps "a translation of Origen's revised text, with the passages under asterisk omitted[1]," whilst Isaiah is distinctly Hexaplaric, and traces of the influence of the Hexapla are also to be found in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Ezekiel, although in varying degrees. On the whole it is natural to expect the Hesychian recension to be specially reflected in Egyptian versions. But other influences may have been at work[1], and much remains to be done before these versions can be securely used in the work of reconstructing the text of the Greek Old Testament[1].
LITERATURE. Quatremère, Recherches; Zoega, Catalogus; L. Stern, Koptische Grammatik, 1880; Kopten, Koptische Sprache u. Litteratur, 1886; Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 91 ff. (J. B. Lightfoot and A. C. Headlam); Gregory, prolegg., p. 859 ff.; J. P. P. Martin, Intr., partie théor., p. 310 ff.; H. Hyvernat, Étude sur les versions coptes de la Bible in Revue biblique, v. 3, 4, vi. 1; E. Nestle, Urtext, p. 144 ff.; W. E. Crum, Coptic Studies, 1897— 8; Catalogue of Coptic MSS. in Brit. Museum, 1905; A. E. Brooke in J. Th. St. iii.
109Ethiopia is said to have been evangelised in the fourth century from Tyre. The Tyrian missionaries were probably of Greek speech[1], and brought with them the Greek Bible. But apart from this, the contiguity of Ethiopia to Egypt, and the circumstance that the first Bishop of Auxume received consecration at Alexandria, create an a priori probability that any early translations from the Old Testament into Ethiopic were based upon the Septuagint, whether immediately or through the Coptic versions.
Dillmann, who at one time had explained the numerous transliterations and other approaches to the Hebrew in the existing Ethiopic version by assuming that the translators worked upon a Hexaplaric text, ultimately found cause to classify the MSS. under three heads, (1) those which on the whole represent the text of the LXX. on which he supposed the version to have been based; (2) those of a later recension—the most numerous class—corrected by other MSS. of the LXX.; (3) those in which the original version has been revised from the Hebrew[1]. Lagarde, on the other hand, suggested that the version was translated from the Arabic, as late as the fourteenth century, and maintained that in any case the printed texts of the Ethiopic Old Testament depend upon MSS. which are too late and too bad to furnish a secure basis for the employment of this version in the reconstruction of the Septuagint[1]. "These suggestions are not however supported by a closer examination of the Ethiopic version of the Octateuch. The text as printed by Dillmann, and especially the readings of the oldest MS. he used, which is supported by a dated thirteenth century MS. brought from Abyssinia to Paris since 110his edition was published, betray direct descent from a Septuagint text of a somewhat interesting type, which had apparently undergone less Hebrew or hexaplar revision than the Greek ancestors of the Armenian and Syro-hexaplar versions. We are safe in concluding with Charles, 'It is unquestionable that our version was made in the main from the Greek[1].'"
The Ethiopic version of the Old Testament contains all the books of the Alexandrian canon except 1— 4. Maccabees, together with certain apocrypha which are not found in MSS. of the LXX. (Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, 4 Esdras, &c.). A considerable part of it has appeared in print. Dillmann edited the Octateuch and the four books of Kingdoms (1853— 71), and the deuterocanonical books (1894); the book of Joel appeared in Merx, Die Prophetie des Joels, the book of Jonah in W. Wright's Jonah in four Semitic versions (London, 1857). The Psalms were printed by Ludolf (1701), Rödiger (1815), Dorn (1825), and Jeremiah, Lamentations and Malachi by Bachmann (1893); Bachmann also edited the Dodecapropheton, and part of Isaiah.
Lists of the MSS, may be seen in Wright, Ethiopic MSS. of the British Museum (London, 1878); Zotenberg, Catalogue des MSS. éthiopiens de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1877); D’Abbadie, Catalogue raisonné de MSS. éthiopiens (Paris, 1859); Dillmann, Catalogus MSS. Aethiop. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana (Oxford, 1848), and Abessinische Handschr. d. k. Biblioth. zu Berlin; Müller, Aethiofi. Handschr. der k. Hofbiblioth. in Wien (ZDMG. xvi. p. 554). For fuller information as to this Version see F. Prätorius, Urtext, p. 147 ff.
The Arabic Old Testament printed in the Paris and
London Polyglotts is a composite work, the Hexateuch being
a translation from the Hebrew, and the books of Judges,
Ruth, 1 Regn. i.—2 Regn. xii. 17,
The Arabic version directly derived from the LXX. is said to exhibit in the Prophets a text akin to that of Cod. A (Ryssel, in ZA W. 1885, p. 102 ff., 158). It shews traces of Hexaplaric influence (H. Hyvernat, in Vigouroux, D. B. i. p. 846).
EDITIONS of Arabic versions of the Septuagint. Besides the Polyglotts (Paris, 1645; London, 1652), mention may be made of the Psalters published at Genoa, 1516; Rome, 1614 and 1619; Aleppo, 1706; London (S.P.C.K.), 1725. In W. Wright's Book of Jonah the Arabic is from a MS. in the Bodleian (see p. vii.). Cf. H. Hyvernat, op. cit.
MSS. Lists of MSS. of the Arabic versions of the Old Testament will be found in the Preface to Holmes and Parsons, vol. i.; Slane's Catalogue des MSS. Arabes de la Bibl. nat.; Mrs M. D. Gibson's Studia Sinaitica, iii. (London, 1894), Catalogue of Arabic MSS. at Sinai (codd. 1— 67). Cf. Hyvernat, op. cit.
LITERATURE. Schnurrer, Bibliotheca Arabica, 1780; H. E. G. Paulus, Bodleiana specimina versionum Pent. Arab., 1789; Eichhorn, Einleitung, § 275 ff.; R. Holmes, Praef. ad Pent.; Rödiger, De origine et indole Arab. libr. V. T. interpretationis (Halle, 1829). Among more recent works reference may be made to Cornill, Ezechiel, p. 49 f.; Loisy, Hist. crit. I. ii. p. 238; Nestle in Urtext, p. 150 ff.; F. C. Burkitt, art. Arabic Versions, in Hastings' D. B. i. p. 136 ff.; H. Hyvernat, op. cit.
According to Moses bar-Cephas († 913), there are two Syriac versions of the Old Testament—the Peshitta, translated 112from 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 παῤ ὅτου δήποτε, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔγνωσται μέχρι τῆς τήμερον ὅστις ποτὲ οὗτός ἐστιν[1]. 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[1]." 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[1]."
(2) The Syriac version ascribed to Paul, Bishop of Telladhe-Mauzelath (Constantine) in Mesopotamia, was a literal translation of the LXX. of the Hexapla, in which the Origenic signs were scrupulously retained. A note in one of the rolls of this version assigns it to the year 616— 7; the work is said to have been produced at Alexandria under the auspices of Athanasius, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, who with five of his suffragans had gone thither to visit the Alexandrian Patriarch. Paul of Tella and Thomas of Harkel appear to have been of the party, and their visit in Alexandria led to 113the translation of the entire Greek Bible into Syriac, the New Testament having been undertaken by Thomas, while Paul worked upon the Old[1].
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[1] have been discovered among the Nitrian MSS. of the British Museum, and a catena, also at the Museum, contains fragments of Chronicles and the books of Esdras, while the Paris Library contributes 4 Kingdoms. Norberg edited Jeremiah and Ezekiel in 1787; Daniel was published by Bugati in 1788 and the Psalms in 1820; Middeldorpf completed the prophetical and poetical books in his edition of 1835, and in 1861 Ceriani added Baruch, Lamentations, and the Ep. of Jeremiah. Of the historical books Judges and Ruth were published by Skat Rördam in 1861, and Genesis and Exodus (i.—xxxiii. 2) by Ceriani (Mon. sacr. et prof. ii.), who has also given to the world the Milan fragments in Mon. vol. vii.
The Hexapla, Tetrapla, and occasionally the Heptapla, are 114mentioned as the sources of the text in the subscriptions to the books of the Syro-Hexaplar. These subscriptions were doubtless translated with the rest of the Greek archetypes, but they shew the character of the copies employed by the translators. The version is servile to such an extent as sometimes to violate the Syriac idiom[1]. It is obvious that this extreme fidelity to the Greek, while it must have hindered the use of the version in the Monophysite churches of Syria, is of vast advantage to the Biblical critic. It places in his hands an exact reflexion of the Hexaplaric LXX. as it was read at Alexandria at the beginning of the 7th century, derived ultimately from the Hexapla and Tetrapla through the recession of Eusebius. Thus it supplements our scanty stock of Greek Hexaplaric MSS., and indeed forms our chief authority for the text of Origen's revision. In the case of one of the canonical books the version of Paul of Tella renders even greater service. One of the Greek texts of Daniel—that which Origen regarded as the true Septuagintal text—has survived only in a single and relatively late MS. The Syro-Hexaplar here supplies another and earlier authority, which enables us to check the testimony of the Chigi Greek.
(3) Other Syriac versions made from the Greek.
(a) Fragments of a Syriac version in the Palestinian dialect have been printed by Land, Anecdota Syriaca, iv. (Leyden, 1875), J. R. Harris, Biblical Fragments from Mt Sinai (London, 1890), G. H. Gwilliam, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, I. v., ix. (Oxford, 1893— 6), G. Margoliouth, Liturgy of the Nile (London, 1897), and Mrs Lewis, Studia Sinaitica, vi. (London, 1897)[1]. This version has been made from the LXX.; in the Books of Kings the text is now known not to be Lucianic, as it was at first supposed to be (Anecd. 115Oxon. ix. p. 32); in the Greater Prophets, it is in part at least Origenic (Studia Sinaitica, pp. xvi., lxiii.); Job seems to have contained the interpolations from Theodotion which are found in the extant Greek texts of that book[1].
The following is a complete list of the Palestinian fragments
included in the publications mentioned above:
(b) Mention is made[1] 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[1] mentions a Philoxenian 'edition' of Isaiah, 116to which two fragments printed by Ceriani[1] 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.[1], and the fragments of the other Greek translations. Some books of this revised version exist in MS. at London and Paris[1], and a few specimens have been printed[1].
(d) From Melito downwards the Greek fathers refer occasionally to the Greek renderings of an interpreter who is called ὁ 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[1].
EDITIONS. PESHITTA. Lee, V. T. Syriace (London, 1823); O. and N. T., 1826. A complete Syriac Bible has recently been published by the Dominicans of Mosul ((1)1887— 91, (2)1888— 92).
SYRO-HEXAPLAR. A. Masius, Josuae-historia illustrata (1574); M. Norberg, Codex Syriaco-Hexaplaris (1787); C. Bugati, Daniel (1788), Psalmi (1820); H. Middledorpf, cod. Syrohexapl., lib. IV. Reg. e cod. Paris. Iesaias &c. e cod. Mediol. (1835): Skat Rördam, libri Iudicum et Ruth sec. Syro-hexapl. (1861); P. de Lagarde, V. T. ab Origene recensiti fragmenta ap. Syros servata v. (1880), and V. T. Graeci in sermonem Syrorum versi fragm. viii. (in his last work Bibliothecae Syriacae . . . quae ad philologiam sacram pertinent, 1892); G. Kerber, Syro-hexaplarische Fragmente (ZATW., 1896). Ceriani has published 117the contents of the London MS. in Monumenta sacra et profana, ii., and those of the Milan MS. in vol. vii. (1874) of the same series[1].
LITERATURE. G. Bickell, Conspectus rei Syrorum literariae (1871); Field, Hexapla, I. p. lxvii. sqq. (1875); W. Wright, Syriac literature in Encycl. Britannica, xxii. (1887); E. Nestle, Litteratura Syriaca (1888), and Urtext (1897), p. 227 ff.; Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 6 ff.; Gregory, p. 807 ff.; J. P. P. Martin, Introduction (p. théor.), p. 97 ff.; Loisy, Histoire critique I. ii. p. 234 f.; E. Nestle, Syriac Versions (in Hastings' D. B. iv.
About the year 350 a translation of the Bible into the
Gothic tongue was made by Ulfilas (Wulfila)[1], the descendant
of a Cappadocian captive who had been brought up among the
Goths in Dacia, and was in 341 consecrated Bishop of the Gothic
nation, which was then beginning to embrace Arian Christianity.
According to Philostorgius he translated the whole of the Old
Testament except the books of Kingdoms, which he omitted as
likely to inflame the military temper of the Gothic race by
their records of wars and conquests (Philostorg. loc. cit.:
μετέφρασεν εἰς τὴν αὐτῶν φωνὴν τὰς γραφὰς ἁπάσας πλήν γε δὴ τῶν
Βασιλειῶν ἅτε τῶν μὲν πολέμων ἱστορίαν ἐχουσῶν, τοῦδε ἔθνους
ὄντος φιλοπολέμου). Unfortunately only a few scanty fragments
of the Gothic Old Testament have been preserved, i.e.,
some words from
Lagarde (Librorum V T. canonicorum pars i., p. xiv., 1883) shews by an examination of the Esdras fragments that Ulfilas probably used MSS. of the Lucianic recension, and the same view is held by A. Kisch, Der Septuaginta-Codex des Ulfilas (Monatschrift f. Gesch. u. W. des Judenthums, 1873), and F. Kauffmann, Beiträge zur Quellenkritik d. gothischen Bibelübersetzung (Z. f. d. Phil. 1896). Ulfilas was in Constantinople for some time about 340, and his MSS. of the LXX. were doubtless obtained in that city, which according to Jerome was one of the headquarters of the Lucianic LXX. ("Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat").
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[1] 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"[1] 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[1]. On the other hand the existing Armenian version 119is 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[1]." But, as Lagarde has pointed out[1], 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[1].
The order of the books of the O.T. in Armenian MSS., as given by Conybeare[1] (Octateuch, 1—4 Regn., 1—2 Paralipp., 1 and 2 Esdr., Esther, Judith, Tobit, 1—3 Macc., Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, Job[1], 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[1], and seems to point to the use by the translators of good early codices.
MSS. Few codices of the entire Bible are earlier than the 13th century; one at Edschmiatzin belongs to the year 1151. Holmes assigns his Arm. 3 to A.D. 1063, but according to Conybeare it is a MS. of the eighteenth century.
EDITIONS. Venice (Psalter), 1565; Amsterdam, 1666; Constantinople, 1705; Venice, 1805 (the first edition which is of any critical value, by J. Zohrab); Venice, 1859— 60 (by the Mechitarist fathers of San Lazzaro).
LITERATURE R. Holmes, Praef. ad Pent.; F. C. Conybeare in Scrivener-Miller, ii. 148 ff. and in Hastings' D. B., l.c.; 120H. Hyvernat, in Vigouroux' D. B.; C. R. Gregory, Prolegg. p. 912 ff.; J. P. P. Martin, Introd. (p. théor.), p 323 ff.; E. Nestle in Urtext, p. 155, where fuller bibliographical information will be found.
The origin of this version is obscure. According to Moses of Khoren, the Georgian as well as the Armenian version was the work of Mesrop. Iberia seems to have received the Gospel early in the fourth century, if not before; but it may have possessed no translation of the Scriptures until the movement initiated in Armenia by Mesrop had communicated itself to the neighbouring region. That the Georgian Old Testament was based upon the Greek is said to be manifest from the transliteration of Greek words which it contains.
MSS. A Psalter of cent. vii.—viii. is preserved at the monastery
of St Catherine's, Mt Sinai, and at Athos there is a MS.,
dated 978, which originally contained the whole Bible, but has
lost
EDITIONS. The Georgian Bible was printed at Moscow in 1743 and at St Petersburg in 1816 and 1818; the Moscow edition is said to have been adapted to the Russian Church Bible.
LITERATURE. F. C. Alter, über Georgianische Litteratur (Vienna, 1798); A. A. Tsagarelli, An account of the monuments of Georgian Literature (in Russian, St Petersburg, 1886— 94; A. Khakhanow, Les MSS. Georgiens de la Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris (without place or date, ? 1898).
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 121longer 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[1]." The existing version has not been made uniformly from the Greek. Esther was translated from the Hebrew, while Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, and certain other books, were rendered from the Latin Vulgate in the fifteenth century. On the other hand the Octateuch, the books of Kingdoms, and the poetical books are from the Greek, and some of them, especially the Octateuch, contain old materials probably due, at least in part, to the work of Cyril and Methodius.
A Psalter in the Glagolitic script, preserved at Sinai, has been edited by Geitler (Agram, 1883); and there is a critical edition of the Slavonic Psalter by Amphilochius (Moscow, 1874— 9).
So far as the Slavonic Old Testament is based on the LXX., its text is doubtless Lucianic; cf. Lagarde, Praef. in Libr. V. T. can. i. p. xv. "ni omnia fallunt Slavus nihil aliud vertit nisi Luciani recensionem," and Leskien in Urtext, p. 215, "dass im allgemeinen der Kirchenslavischen Übersetzung der griech. Text der Lucianischen (Antiochenisch-Konstantinopolitanischen) Rezension zu Grunde liegt ist sicher."
LITERATURE. The Russian authorities are given by Mr Bebb in Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 158. See also Gregory, Prolegg. p. 1112 ff.; Professor Leskien of Leipzig in Urtext, p. 211 ff.; the article in Ch. Quarterly Review cited above; and Th. Literaturzeitung, 1901, col. 571.
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
122THE great edition of the Septuagint published by Holmes and Parsons ends with a complete list of the MSS. employed (vol. v. ad fin., addenda). It enumerates 311 codices (I—XIII., 14—311), of which I.—XIII., 23, 27, 39, 43, 156, 188, 190, 258, 262, are written in uncial letters, or partly so, while the rest are in minuscule or cursive hands. Since 1827, the date of the publication of the last volume of the Oxford edition, the list of available codices or fragments has been largely increased, owing partly to the researches and publications of Tischendorf, partly to the progress which has recently been made in the examination and cataloguing of Eastern libraries, and the discovery in Egypt of fragments of papyrus bearing Biblical texts. In this chapter an effort has been made to present the student with a complete list of all the MSS. which have been or are being used by editors of the LXX., and of the important fragments so far as they are known to us. It is, however, impossible to guarantee either the exhaustiveness or the correctness in regard to minor details of information which has been brought together from many sources and cannot be verified by enquiry at first hand.
SYSTEMS OF NOTATION. Two systems have been used to denote the uncial MSS. Holmes employed Roman numerals; Lagarde, the capitals of the Roman alphabet[1]. 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 123this method of notation for the cursives, excepting in the case of a few groups which are supposed to represent a particular recension; thus Lagarde adopted the symbols f h m p z for the Lucianic MSS. 82, 93, 118, 44[1], whilst Cornill with a similar object substituted the small letters of the Greek alphabet for the Arabic numerals[1]. Uniformity in this matter can scarcely be expected until the cursive codices have been thoroughly examined and catalogued; meanwhile it is sufficient to call attention to the variety of practice which exists.
Manuscripts of the LXX., whether uncial or cursive, rarely contain the whole of the Greek Old Testament. There are some notable exceptions to the general rule (e.g. A, B, C, S = א, 64, 68, 106, 122, 131, and the number of these exceptions may be increased by adding MSS. which have been broken up into two or more separate codices (e.g. G, N + V). But the majority of the copies seem never to have included more than a particular book (as Genesis, or the Psalms, with or without the liturgical ᾠδαί), or a particular group of books such as the Pentateuch (ἡ πεντάτευχος[1]) or the Octateuch (ἡ 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 combinations are also found, e.g. Genesis—Tobit, the Poetical Books as a whole, or the Poetical Books with the Prophets.
In reference to the date of their execution, the uncial MSS. of the LXX. range from the third century to the tenth, and the cursives from the ninth to the sixteenth. Their present distribution may be seen from the descriptions; an analysis of the list of Holmes and Parsons gives the following general results: Italy, 129; Great Britain and Ireland, 54; France, 36; Austria, 26; Russia, 23; Germany, 13; Spain, 7; Holland, 6; Switzerland, 6; Denmark, 4. This summary conveys a general 124idea of the proportion in which the MSS. of the LXX. were distributed among European countries, Greece excepted, at the beginning of the nineteenth century. But the balance will be considerably disturbed if we add the acquisitions of Tischendorf and other discoverers, and the treasures of the libraries at Athens, Athos, Patmos, Smyrna, Jerusalem, and Mount Sinai, which are now within the reach of the critical student.
The following table of the Uncial MSS. may be found convenient. A detailed account of each will follow.
Symbols. | Name of Codex. | Century. | Present locality. | |
H.—P. | Lagarde. | |||
III | A | Alexandrinus | v | London |
II | B | Vaticanus | iv | Rome |
C | Ephraemi | v | Paris | |
I | D | Cottonianus | v | London |
E | Bodleianus | ix—x | Oxford | |
VII | F | Ambrosianus | v | Milan |
IV+V | G | Sarravianus | v | Leyden, Paris, St Petersburg |
H | Petropolitanus | vi | St Petersburg | |
XIII=13 | I | Bodleianus | ix | Oxford |
K | Lipsiensis | vii | Leipzig | |
VI | L | Vindobonensis | v—vi | Vienna |
X | M | Coislinianus | vii | Paris |
XI | N | Basilianus | viii—ix | Rome |
VIII | O[1] | Dublinensis | vi | Dublin |
XII | Q | Marchalianus | vi | Rome |
R | Veronensis | vi | Verona | |
S = א | Sinaiticus | iv | Leipzig, St Petersburg | |
262 | T | Turicensis | vii | Zurich |
U | Londinensis | vii | London | |
23 | V | Venetus | viii—ix | Venice |
43 | W | Parisiensis | ix | Paris |
258 | X | Vaticanus | ix | Rome |
Y[1] | Taurinensis | ix | Turin | |
Za—c | Fragment Tischendorfiana | |||
Γ | Cyrptoferratensis | viii—ix | Grotta ferrata | |
Δ | Bodeianus | iv—v | Oxford | |
Θ | Washingtoniensis | v—vi | Detroit | |
Π | Petropolitanus | viii—ix | St Petersburg |
125
A (III). CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. British Museum, Royal, I. D. v.—viii.
A MS. of the O. and N. Testaments, with lacunae. The
O. T. is defective in the following places:
The codex now consists of four volumes, of which the first three contain the O. T. in 639 leaves. The books are thus distributed: vol. i. Genesis—2 Chronicles; vol. ii. Hosea—4 Maccabees; vol. iii. Psalms—Sirach[1]. 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. iii. 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 successively
of Alexandria and Constantinople, but did not reach
England till after the succession of Charles. It had previously
belonged to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, as we learn from an
Arabic note at the beginning. Another but later Arabic note
states that the MS. was the work of 'the martyr Thecla,' and
Cyril Lucar has written on a leaf prefixed to vol. i.: "Liber iste
. . . prout ego traditione habebam, est scriptus manu Theclae
nobilis faeminae Aegyptiae ante MCCC annos circiter, paulo post
concilium Nicaenum." But, apart from palaeographical
considerations[1], 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 (
The codex is written on leaves of fine vellum, arranged in quires
usually of eight. The writing "varies in different parts of the
MS., though sufficient uniformity is maintained to make it difficult
to decide the exact place where a new hand begins . . . the
style of writing in vol. iii. is for the most part different from that
of the other volumes[1]." 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[1]." The leaves measure about 32 centimetres by 26.3;
each leaf contains two columns of 49—51 lines, the lines usually
consisting of 23—25 letters. Except in the third volume, the
commencement of a new section or paragraph is marked by a
large initial letter in the margin as well as by paragraph-marks.
There are no breathings or accents by the first hand; an apostrophe
occasionally separates words or consonants; here and
there an asterisk is placed in the margin (e.g.
B (II). CODEX VATICANUS (Vatican Library, Gr. 1209).
A MS. of the Old and New Testaments, defective at the
beginning and in some other places. The O. T. has lost its first
31 leaves, the original hand beginning at
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[1]; reference is made to this MS. in letters addressed by the librarian of the Vatican to Erasmus in 1521 and 1533[1], and it formed the chief authority for the Roman edition of the LXX. in 1587. By this time its importance was already recognised, and it is amazing that an interval of nearly 300 years should have been allowed to pass before the actual text of the MS. was given to the world. A collation of B with the Aldine text was made by Bartolocci in 1669, and is still preserved at Paris in the Bibliothèque Nationale (MS gr. supplem. 53). With other treasures of the Vatican the codex was carried to Paris by Napoleon, and there it was inspected in 1809 by Hug, whose book De antiquitate codicis Vaticani (Freiburg, 1810) aroused fresh interest in its text. On the restoration of the MS. to the Vatican it was guarded with a natural but unfortunate jealousy which for more than half a century baffled the efforts of Biblical scholars. Neither Tischendorf in 1843 and 1866 nor Tregelles in 1845 was permitted to make a full examination of the codex. Meanwhile the Roman authorities were not unmindful of the duty of publishing these treasures, but the process was slow, and the first results were disappointing. An edition printed by Mai in 1828—38 did not see the light till 1857. It was followed in 1881 by Cozza's more accurate but far from satisfactory volumes in facsimile type. At length in 1890 under the auspices of Leo XIII. the Vatican Press issued a photographic reproduction worthy of this most important of Biblical MSS.[1]
128The codex is written on the finest vellum in a singularly beautiful hand[1] which "may be attributed to the fourth century," and probably to the middle of the century[1], and bears a resemblance to the hand which is found in papyri of the best Roman period[1]. The leaves are arranged in quinions (gatherings of ten pages); each page exhibits three columns of 42 lines with 16—18 letters in each line. There are no breathings or accents in the first hand; a point occurs but rarely; initial letters do not project into the margin. The text is written in two contemporary hands, the transition being made at p. 335. The MS. has been corrected more than once; besides the scribe or contemporary diorthotes (B1), we may mention an early corrector denoted as Ba, and a late instaurator, who has gone over the whole text, spoiling its original beauty, and preserving oftentimes the corrections of Ba rather than the original text.
C. CODEX EPHRAEMI SYRI RESCRIPTUS PARISIENSIS. Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 9 (formerly Reg. 1905, Colbert. 3769).
A folio consisting at present of 209 leaves, of which 64 contain
portions of the O. T. The fragments are as follows:
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[1]. 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[1]. The book was probably brought to Florence early in the 16th century by Andreas Lascaris, the agent of Lorenzo de’ Medici, and passing into the possession of Catharine de’ Medici, accompanied her to France, where it found its way into the Royal Library. Here the value of the underlying text was recognised by Montfaucon, who called attention to it in his Palaeografihia Graeca, and gave a specimen from the fragments of the N. T. (p. 213 f.). The O. T. fragments were partly examined by Wetstein and Thilo[1], but were not given to the world until in 1845 Tischendorf, who had published the N. T. portion in 1843, completed his task by printing the LXX. text.
This once noble MS. was written in single columns from 40 to 46 lines in length, each line containing about 40 letters[1]. The writing of the O. T. differs, according to Tischendorf, from that of the N. T.; it is more delicate, some of the letters (Α, Δ, Β, Κ, Ξ, Χ, Φ) assume different forms in the two portions of the codex, and there are other palaeographical indications that the hand which wrote the earlier books did not write the later. Nevertheless Tischendorf regarded the two hands as contemporary, and believed the codex to have been originally one. A seventh century corrector has left traces of his work, but his corrections are not numerous except in Sirach. As to the order of the books nothing can be ascertained, the scribe who converted the MS. into a palimpsest having used the leaves for his new text without regard to their original arrangement[1].
S = א. CODEX SINAITICUS. Leipzig and St Petersburg.
The remains of this great uncial Bible contain the following
portions of the O. T.:
The forty-three leaves containing
This great Bible was written on leaves which originally
measured 15 x 131 inches, and were gathered, with two exceptions,
into quires of four. Each column contains 48 lines, with
12—14 letters in a line; and in all but the poetical books each
page exhibits four columns, so that eight lie open at a time[1]; in
the poetical books, where the lines are longer, two columns
appear on each page, or four at an opening. The characters are
assigned to the fourth century; they are well-formed and somewhat
square, written without break, except when an apostrophe
or a single point intervenes; a breathing prima manu has been
131noticed at
After
No uniform edition or photographic reproduction of this most important MS. has yet appeared[1]. The student is still under the necessity of extracting the text of א from the five works of Tischendorf mentioned above. A homogeneous edition of the remains of the codex or a photographic reproduction of the text is one of our most urgent needs in the field of Biblical palaeography. (The N. T. has now appeared in collotype; H. and K. Lake, introd. by K. Lake, Oxford, 1911.)
N (XI). CODEX BASILIANO-VATICANUS. Vatican Library, Gr. 2106, formerly Basil. 145[1].
132
V (23). CODEX VENETUS. St Mark's Library, Venice, cod. Gr. 1[1].
Dr E. Klostermann (Analecta, pp. 9 f., 33 f.) has produced good reasons for believing that these two codices originally formed portions of a complete copy of the Greek Old Testament.
The Vatican portion now contains
The Venice folio measures 16½ x 11⅔ 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[1]. 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[1]; the Venice book was once the property of Cardinal Bessarion, by whom it was presented to St Mark's[1].
The handwriting of N and V is in the sloping uncials of cent. viii.—ix. Some use was made of V in the Roman edition of 1587, where it seems to have supplied the text of Maccabees; both codices were collated for Holmes and Parsons, who numbered V as a cursive.
(D) (T). CODEX COTTONIANUS. British Museum, Cotton MSS., Otho B. vi. 5—6.
A collection of fragments, the largest of which measures no more than 7 x 5½ inches, containing portions of the Book of Genesis with vestiges of pictures executed in a semi-classical style.
133No other uncial codex of the LXX., of which any portion remains, has suffered so lamentable a fate. Brought to England from Philippi[1] in the reign of Henry VIII. by two Orthodox Bishops[1], 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[1]; the beginning and end of the book had disappeared, and other leaves were defective here and there; yet 165 or 166 leaves remained and 250 miniatures. The existing remains at the British Museum, though collected with the most scrupulous care, consist only of 150 mutilated fragments; to these must be added a smaller series preserved at the Baptist College, Bristol, to which institution they were bequeathed by Dr A. Gifford, formerly an Assistant Librarian at the Museum.
Most of the London fragments were deciphered and published by Tischendorf in 1857 (Mon. sacr. ined., nov. coll. ii.); the rest, together with the Bristol fragments, are now accessible in Dr F. W. Gotch's Supplement to Tischendorf's Reliquiae cod. Cotton. (London, 1881).
Happily we have means of ascertaining with some approach to completeness the text of this codex as it existed before the fire. Although no transcript had been made, the MS. was more than once collated—by Patrick Young and Ussher for Walton's Polyglott, and afterwards by Gale, Crusius, and Grabe; and Grabe's collation, which is preserved in the Bodleian, was published by Dr H. Owen (Collatio cod. Cotton. Geneseos cum Editione Romana . . . , Londini, 1778). Some assistance can also be obtained from the Vetusta Monumenta published by the London Society of Antiquaries (vo1 i. 1747), where two plates are given depicting some of the miniatures, together with portions of the text of fragments which have since disappeared.
Lastly, among the Peiresc papers in the Bibltothèque Nationale,
transcripts have been found of
11.
16.
The vellum of the MS. is fine, but not so thin as in some other early uncials. The leaves were arranged in quires of four. Each page, where the writing was not broken by an illustration, contained from 26 to 28 lines of 27 to 30 letters. The uncials are well formed, but vary to some extent in thickness and size. Initial letters are used, and the point is sometimes high, sometimes middle or low. On the whole the codex may probably be assigned to cent. v.—vi. The hands of three scribes have been traced in the fragments, and there appear to have been two correctors after the diorthotes; the earlier of the two, who seems to have lived in the eighth century, has retraced the faded letters.
E. CODEX BODLEIANUS. Bodleian Library, Oxford. Auct. T. infr. ii. 1.
The Bodleian volume contains the following fragments of
Genesis: i. 1—xiv. 6, xviii. 24
δικαίων—xx. 14
καὶ ἀπέδωκεν, xxiv.
54 ἐκπέμψατε—xlii. 18
εἶπεν δὲ αὐ[τοῖς].
Another leaf, now at the
Cambridge University Library, contains xlii. 18
[αὐ]τοῖς τῇ ἡμέρᾳ—xliv. 13
τὸν ἕνα καὶ, verso,
to which xlii. 31—xliv. 13
belongs, is written in (?) contemporary minuscules. It is now
known that this text is carried on by more than one cursive
MS. The St Petersburg cod. lxii. begins where the Cambridge
fragment leaves off (at
The recent history of this MS. is both curious and instructive. The portions now at Oxford and London were brought from the East by Tischendorf in 1853; the Cambridge leaf and the St Petersburg portion followed in 1859. Tischendorf published the contents of the Bodleian volume in Monumenta sacra inedita, n. c. ii. (1857); the Cambridge leaf remained in his possession till his death in 1874, when it was purchased by the Syndics of the University Library. In 1891 it was recognised by the present writer and Mr H. A. Redpath as a continuation of the Bodleian Genesis[1]; and its contents were at once communicated to the Academy (June 6, 1891), and were afterwards incorporated in the apparatus of the Cambridge manual LXX. (vol. i., ed. 2, 1895). Finally, in 1898, Dr A. Rahlfs of Göttingen[1] 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 McLean) may be found in the Classical Review for May, 1899 (vo1. xiii., pp. 209—11).
The Bodleian Genesis is written in large sloping uncials of a late form on 29 leaves of stout vellum; each page carries two columns of 37—44 lines; in the earlier pages the letters are closely packed and there are sometimes as many as 28 in a line, but as the book advances the number seldom exceeds and sometimes fall below 20. Tischendorf was disposed to assign the writing to the 9th, or at the earliest the 8th century; but the debased character of the uncials, as well as the readiness of the scribe to pass from the uncial to the cursive script, point to a still later date[1]. According to the same authority the uncial leaves of the codex have passed through the hands of a nearly contemporary corrector, and also of another whose writing is more recent.
F (VII). CODEX AMBROSIANUS. Ambrosian Library, Milan. A. 147 infr.
The remains of this important Codex consist of the following
136fragments of the Octateuch:
An inscription on a blank page states that the fragments were "ex Macedonia Corcyram advecta, ibique Ill. Card. Fed. Borromaei Bibliothecae Ambrosianae Fundatoris iussu empta eidemque Bibliothecae transmissa sunt." They attracted the notice of Montfaucon (Diar. Ital., p. 11, Pal. sacr. pp. 27, 186), and were collated for Holmes, but in an unsatisfactory manner. Ceriani's transcript (Mon. sacr. et prof. iii., Mediol. 1864) supplies the text, for the accuracy of which the name of the Editor is a sufficient guarantee, and a learned preface, but the full prolegomena which were reserved for another volume have not appeared. A photograph is needed not only for palaeographical purposes, but to shew the marginal readings, many of which are Hexaplaric.
The MS. is written on the finest and whitest vellum, the leaves of which are gathered in fours[1]; three columns of writing stand on each page, and 35 lines in each column. The characters are those of cent. iv.—v.; initial letters are used, which project to half their breadth into the margin. Punctuation is frequent, and there is much variety in the use of the points; accents and breathings are freely added prima manu, a feature in which this MS. stands alone amongst early Uncials[1]. The colour of the ink changes after Deuteronomy, and the rest of the fragments seem to have been written by another scribe; but the work is contemporary, for the quire numbers have been added by the first scribe throughout. The MS. has passed through the hands of two early correctors, and the margins contain various readings, notes, and scholia.
137
G (IV, V). CODEX COLBERTO-SARRAVIANUS. (1) Leyden, University Library, Voss. Gr. Q. 8. (2) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, cod. Gr. 17, formerly Colbert. 3084. (3) St Petersburg, Imperial Library, v. 5.
Of this codex Leyden possesses 130 leaves and Paris 22,
while one leaf has strayed to St Petersburg. When brought
together the surviving leaves yield the following portions of
the Octateuch:
The Leyden leaves of this MS. are known to have been in the possession of Claude Sarràve, of Paris, who died in 1651. After his death they passed into the hands successively of Jacques Mentel, a Paris physician, who has left his name on the first page, and of Isaac Voss († 1681), from whose heirs they were purchased by the University of Leyden. The Paris leaves had been separated from the rest of the MS. before the end of the 16tb century, for they were once in the library of Henri Memme, who died in 1596. With a large part of that collection they were presented to J. B. Colbert in 1732, and thus found their way into the Royal Library at Paris. Among earlier owners of the St Petersburg leaf were F. Pithaeus, Desmarez, Montfaucon[1], and Dubrowsky. The text of the Leyden leaves and the St Petersburg leaf was printed in facsimile type by Tischendorf in the third volume of his Monumenta sacra (Leipzig, 1860); a splendid photographic reproduction of all the known leaves of the codex appeared at Leyden in 1897[1].
138The leaves measure 9⅞ x 8⅞ inches; the writing is in two columns of 27 lines, each line being made up of 13—15 letters. In Tischendorf's judgement the hand belongs to the end of the fourth or the first years of the fifth century. There are no initial letters; the writing is continuous excepting where it is broken by a point or sign; points, single or double, occur but rarely; a breathing is occasionally added by the first hand, more frequently by an early corrector. Of the seven correctors noticed by Tischendorf three only need be mentioned here,—(A) a contemporary hand, (B) another fifth century hand which has revised Deuteronomy and Judges, and (C) a hand of the sixth century which has been busy in the text of Numbers.
In one respect this codex holds an unique position among uncial MSS. of the Octateuch. It exhibits an Origenic text which retains many of the Hexaplaric signs. Besides the asterisk ( ) and various forms of the obelus (, , , , and in the margin, —), the metobelus frequently occurs (:, ·/, /·, ·/·). The importance of Cod. Sarravianus as a guide in the recovery of the Hexaplaric text has been recognised from the time of Montfaucon (comp. Field, Hexapla, i., p. 5); and it is a matter for no little congratulation that we now possess a complete and admirable photograph of the remains of this great MS.
H. CODEX PETROPOLITANUS. In the Imperial Library at St Petersburg.
This palimpsest consists at present of 88 leaves in octavo; in its original form there were 44 arranged in quaternions. Under the patristic matter which is now in possession of the vellum, Tischendorf detected a large part of the Septuagint text of Numbers. The fragments recovered contain chh. i. 1—30, 40—ii. 14, ii. 30—iii. 26, v. 13—23, vi. 6—vii. 7, vii. 41—78, viii. 2—16, xi. 3—xiii. 11, xiii. 28—xiv. 34, xv. 3—20, 22—28, 32—xvi. 31, xvi. 44—xviii. 4, xviii. 15—26, xxi. 15—22, xxii. 30—41, xxiii. 12—27, xxvi. 54—xxvii. 15, xxviii. 7—xxix. 36, xxx. 9—xxxi. 48, xxxii. 7—xxxiv. 17, xxxvi. 1—end of book. They are printed in Monumenta sacr. ined., nov. coll. i. (Leipzig, 1855).
In Tischendorf's judgement the upper writing is not later than the ninth century; the lower writing he ascribes to the sixth; for though the characters are generally such as are found in fifth century MSS., yet there are several indications of a later date, e.g. the numerous compendia scribendi and superscribed letters, and the occasional use of oblong forms. Chapters and arguments are noted in the margin—the chapters of Numbers are 207—and at the end of the book the number of stichi is 139specified (͵γφλαʹ = 3535); the scribe appends his name—.
K. FRAGMENTA LIPSIENSIA. Leipzig, University Library (cod. Tisch. ii.).
Twenty-two leaves discovered by Tischendorf in 1844, of
which seventeen contain under Arabic writing of the ninth century
fragments of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges
(
The Greek writing is not later than cent. vii. The fragments are printed in the first volume of Monumenta sacra inedita, n. c.
L (VI). CODEX PURPUREUS VINDOBONENSIS. Vienna, Imperial Library.
This MS. consists of 24 leaves of Genesis, with which are bound up two leaves of St Luke belonging to Codex N of the Gospels[1].
The Genesis leaves contain
Like e great Cotton MS. the Vienna purple Genesis is an illustrated text, each page exhibiting a miniature painted in water-colours. The writing belongs to the fifth or sixth century; the provenance of the MS. is uncertain, but there are notes in the codex which shew that it was at one time in North Italy. Engravings of the miniatures with a description of the contents may be found in P. Lambecii Comm. de bibliotheca Vindobonensi, lib. iii. (ed. Kollar., 1776), and a transcript of the text in R. Holmes's Letter to Shute Barrington, Bishop of Durham (Oxford, 1795); but both these earlier authorities have been superseded by the splendid photographic edition lately published at Vienna (die Wiener Genesis herausgegeben von Wilhelm Ritter v. Hartel u. Franz Wickhoff, Wien, 1895).
140
M (X). CODEX COISLINIANUS. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coisl. Gr. 1.
A MS. of the Octateuch and the Historical Books, with
lacunae; the 227 remaining leaves contain
This great codex was purchased in the East for M. Seguier,
and brought to Paris about the middle of the seventeenth century.
It was first described by Montfaucon, who devotes the
first 31½ pages of his Bibliotheca Coisliniana to a careful description
of the contents, dealing specially with the capitulation and
the letters prefixed to the sentences. Facsimiles were given by
Montfaucon, Bianchini (Evangelium quadruplex), Tischendorf
(Monumenta sacr. ined., 1846), and Silvester, and a photograph
of f. 125 r., containing
The leaves, which measure 13 x 9 inches, exhibit on each page two columns of 49 or 50 lines, each line containing 18—23 letters. According to Montfaucon, the codex was written in the sixth or at latest in the seventh century ("sexto vel cum tardissime septimo saeculo exaratus"), but the later date is now usually accepted. The margins contain a large number of notes prima manu[1], among which are the excerpts from the N. T. printed by Tischendorf in the Monumenta and now quoted as cod. Fa of the Gospels[1]. The MS. is said by Montfaucon to agree frequently with the text of cod. A, and this is confirmed by Holmes as far as regards the Pentateuch. Lagarde (Genesis graece, p. 12) styles it Hexaplaric; hexaplaric signs and matter abound in the margins, and of these use has been made by Field so far as he was able to collect them from Montfaucon and from Griesbach's excerpts printed in Eichhorn's Repertorium.
Za, d. FRAGMENTA TISCHENDORFIANA. Two of a series of fragments of various MSS. discovered by Tischendorf and printed in the first and second volumes of Monumenta sacra inedita, nov. coll. i. ii. (1855, 1857).
Za. Three palimpsest leaves containing fragments of 2—3 Regn. (2 Regn. xxii. 38—42, 46—39; xxiii. 2—5, 8—10; 3 Regn. 141xiii. 4—6, 8—11, 13—17, 20—23, xvi. 31—33, xvii. 1—5, 9—12, 14—17). The upper writing is Armenian, the lower an Egyptian-Greek hand of the 7th century, resembling that of cod. Q (v. infra).
Zd. 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.
Θ. CODEX WASHINGTONIENSIS. See Additional Notes.
II. FRAGMENTA TISCHENDORFIANA.
Four leaves taken from the binding of Cod. Porfirianus Chiovensis (P of the Acts and Catholic Epistles[1]), and published by Tischendorf in Mon. sacr. ined., nov. coll. vi. p. 339 ff. They yield an interesting text of portions of 4 Maccabees (viii. 6, 12, 15, 29; ix. 28—30, 31—32). The writing appears to belong to cent. ix.
I (13). CODEX BODLEIANUS. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. D. 4. 1.
A Psalter, including the Old Testament Canticles and a catena. Described by Bruns in Eichhorn's Repertorium, xiii. p. 177; cf. Lagarde's Genesis graece, p. 11, and Nov. Psalt. Gr. edit. Specimen, p. 3. Parsons, who reckons it among the cursives, is content to say "de saeculo quo exaratus fuerit nihil dicitur"; according to Coxe (Catalogus codd. Biblioth. Bodl. i. 621), it belongs to the 9th century.
R. CODEX VERONENSIS. Verona, Chapter Library.
A MS. of the Psalter in Greek and Latin, both texts written
in Roman characters. A few lacunae (
Printed by Bianchini in his Vindiciae canonicarum scripturarum, i. (Rome, 1740), and used by Lagarde in the apparatus of his Specimen and Psalterii Gr. quinquagena prima, and in the Cambridge manual Septuagint (1891). A new collation was made in 1892 by H. A. Redpath, which has been employed in 142the second edition of The 0. T. in Greek (1896); but it is much to be wished that the Verona Chapter may find it possible to have this important Psalter photographed.
The codex consists of 405 leaves, measuring 10½ x 7½ inches; each page contains 26 lines. The Greek text appears at each opening on the left-hand page, and the Latin on the right.
T (262). CODEX TURICENSIS. Zurich, Municipal Library.
A purple MS. which contained originally 288 leaves; of these
223 remain. The text now begins at xxvi. (xxvii.) 1, and there
are lacunae in the body of the MS. which involve the loss of Pss.
xxx. 2—xxxvi. 20, xli. 6—xliii. 3, lviii. 24—lix. 3, lix. 9—10, 13—lx.
1, lxiv. 12—lxxi. 4, xcii. 3—xciii. 7, xcvi. 12—xcvii. 8. The
first five Canticles and a part of the sixth have also disappeared;
those which remain are 1 Regn. ii. 6—10 (the rest of the sixth),
the Magnificat,
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 collectio (1869), ascribes the handwriting to the seventh century.
The text of T agrees generally with that of cod. A, and still more closely with the hand in cod. א known as אc.a.
U. FRAGMENTA LONDINENSIA. London, British Museum, pap. xxxvii.
Thirty leaves of papyrus which contain
These fragments of a papyrus Psalter were purchased in 1836 from a traveller who had bought them at Thebes in Egypt, where they had been found, it was said, among the ruins of a convent. Tischendorf assigned to them a high antiquity (Prolegg. 143ad V. T. Gr., p. ix., "quo nullus codicum sacrorum antiquior videtur"), and he was followed by Lagarde, who as late as 1887 described the London codex as "bibliorum omnium quos noverim antiquissimus" (Specimen, p. 4). But a wider acquaintance with the palaeography of papyri has corrected their estimate, and the fragments are now ascribed by experts to cent. vi.—vii.[1]
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[1].
It has been pointed out that the text of U corresponds closely with that of the Sahidic Psalter published by Dr Budge[1].
X (258). CODEX VATICANUS IOBI. Rome, Vatican Library, Gr. 749.
A MS. of Job with occasional lacunae; the remaining portions are i. 1—xvii. 13, xvii. 17—xxx. 9, xxx. 23—xxxi. 5, xxxi. 24—xxxiv. 35. There are miniatures, and a catena in an uncial hand surrounding the text. At the beginning of the book Hexaplaric scholia are frequent[1].
The text is written in a hand of the ninth century. It was used by Parsons, and its Hexaplaric materials are borrowed by Field[1].
W (43) CODEX PARISIENSIS. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 20.
A portion of an uncial Psalter containing in 40 leaves
The codex was written by a hand of the ninth or tenth century, and contains paintings which, as Parsons had been informed, are of some merit.
144
Zc. See above under (B), p. 140.
Fragments of the fourth or fifth cent. (Tisch.), containing Pss. cxli. (cxlii.) 7—8, cxlii. (cxliii.) 1—3, cxliv. (cxlv.) 7—13.
O (VIII). FRAGMENTA DUBLINENSIA. Dublin, Trinity College Library, K. 3. 4.
Eight palimpsest leaves—in the original MS. folded as four—which
are now bound up with Codex Z of the Gospels[1] and yield
The original leaves of the Codex measured about 12x9 inches, and each contained 36 lines of 14—17 letters. The writing, which belongs to the early part of the sixth century, appears to be that of an Egyptian scribe, and Ceriani is disposed to connect the text of the fragments with the Hesychian recension[1]. They have been printed in facsimile type by Professor T. K. Abbott (Par palimpsestorum Dublinensium, Dublin, 1880), and are used in the apparatus of the Cambridge manual Septuagint.
Q (XII). CODEX MARCHALIANUS. Rome, Vatican Library, Gr. 2125.
A magnificent codex of the Prophets, complete, and in the order of cod. B (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; Isaiah, Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, Epistle, Ezekiel, Daniel (Theod.) with Susanna and Bel).
This MS. was written in Egypt not later than the sixth century. It seems to have remained there till the ninth, since the uncial corrections and annotations as well as the text exhibit letters of characteristically Egyptian form. From Egypt it was carried before the 12th century to South Italy, and thence into France, where it became the property of the Abbey of St Denys near Paris, and afterwards of René Marchal, from whom it has acquired its name. From the library of R. Marchal it passed into the hands of Cardinal F. Rochefoucauld, who in turn presented it to the Jesuits of Clermont. Finally, in 1785 it was purchased for the Vatican, where it now reposes.
The codex was used by J. Morinus, Wetstein and Montfaucon, collated for Parsons, and printed in part by Tischendorf in the 145ninth volume of his Nova Collectio (1870). Field followed Montfaucon in making large use of the Hexaplaric matter with which the margins of the MS. abound, but was compelled to depend on earlier collations and a partial transcript. The liberality of the Vatican has now placed within the reach of all O.T. students a magnificent heliotype of the entire MS., accompanied (in a separate volume) by a commentary from the pen of Ceriani (1890). This gift is only second in importance to that of the photograph of Codex B, completed in the same year.
Codex Marchalianus at present consists of 416 leaves, but the first twelve contain patristic matter, and did not form a part of the original MS. The leaves measure 11⅜ x 7 inches; the writing is in single columns of 29 1ines, each line containing 24—30 letters. The text of the Prophets belongs, according to Ceriani, to the Hesychian recension; but Hexaplaric signs have been freely added, and the margins supply copious extracts from Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the LXX. of the Hexapla. These marginal annotations were added by a hand not much later than that which wrote the text, and to the same hand are due the patristic texts already mentioned, and two important note[1] from which we learn the sources of the Hexaplaric matter in the margins. The result of its labours has been to render this codex a principal authority for the Hexapla in the Prophetic Books.
Y. CODEX TAURINENSIS. Turin, Royal Library, cod. 9.
This codex consists of 135 leaves in quarto, and contains the δωδεκαπρόφητον. The MS. is difficult to read, and there are many lacunae. The text, written according to Stroth[1] 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 LXX., nor has any transcript or collation been published[1].
Zb, c. See above, under (B), p. 140.
Zb. Palimpsest fragments of Isaiah (iii. 8—14, v. 2—14, xxix. 11—23, xliv. 26—xlv. 5). As in Za, the upper writing is Armenian; the Greek hand belongs apparently to cent. viii.—ix.
Zc. Palimpsest fragment of Ezekiel (iv. 16—v. 4) found among the Nitrian leaves at the British Museum. The Greek hand resembles that of Za, and is probably contemporary with it.
146
Γ. CODEX 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 accompanied by musical notation. Some portions of the book are doubly palimpsest, having been used by an earlier scribe for a work of St John of Damascus. About 130 leaves in the present liturgical codex were taken from the Biblical MS., and the Biblical text of 85 of these leaves has been transcribed and published (with many lacunae where the lower writing could not be deciphered) in Cozza-Luzi's Sacrorum bibliorum vetustissima fragmenta, vol. i (Rome 1867) and iii. (1877).
The original codex seems to have contained 432 leaves gathered in quires of eight; and the leaves appear to have measured about 10¾ x 8¼ inches. The writing, which is in sloping uncials of the eighth or ninth century, was arranged in double columns, and each column contained 25—28 lines of 13—20 letters.
It cannot be said that Cozza's transcript, much as Biblical students are indebted to him for it, satisfies our needs. Uncial codices of the Prophets are so few that we desiderate a photographic edition, or at least a fresh examination and more complete collation of this interesting palimpsest.
Δ. FRAGMENTUM BODLEIANUM. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Gr. bibl. d. 2 (P).
A fragment of Bel in the version of Theodotion (21 γυναικῶν—41 Δανιήλ). A vellum leaf brought from Egypt and purchased for the Bodleian in 1888.
Written in an uncial hand of the fifth (?) century, partly over a portion of a homily in a hand perhaps a century earlier.
The following uncial fragments have not been used for any edition of the LXX., and remain for the present without a symbolical letter or number.
(1) A scrap of papyrus (B. M., pap. ccxii.) yielding the text
of
(2) The vellum fragment containing
(3) Another Sinaitic fragment, containing
(4) Another Sinaitic fragment, containing a few words of
(5) Another Sinaitic fragment, containing
(6) Part of a Psalter on papyrus (B. M., pap. ccxxx.), containing
(7) Part of a Psalter on a Berlin papyrus, containing
(8) Nine fragments of a MS. written in columns of about
25 lines, one on each page. The fragments give the text of
(9) A vellum MS. in the Royal Library at Berlin (MS. Gr.
oct. 2), containing
(10) Fragments discovered by H. A. Redpath at St Mark's,
Venice, in the binding of cod. gr. 23, containing the text of
(11) Portion of a leaf of a papyrus book, written in large
uncials of cent. vii.—viii., exhibiting
(12) Palimpsest fragments of Wisdom and Sirach (cent. vi.—vii.), carried by Tischendorf to St Petersburg and intended for publication in the 8th volume of his Monumenta, which never appeared. See Nestle, Urtext, p. 74.
(13) Two palimpsest leaves of Sirach belonging to cod. 2 in the Patriarchal Library at Jerusalem: cf. Papadopulos, Ἰεροσ. Βιβλ., i. p. 14: τὰ ἀναπληρωτικὰ φύλλα 27 καὶ 56 εἰσὶ παλίμψηστα ὧν ἡ ἀρχικὴ γραφὴ ἀνήκει εἰς τὸν εʹ αἰῶνα . . . τὸ παλαιὸν δὲ αὐτῶν κείμενόν ἐστι δίστηλον, καὶ ἐν φυλ. 56 διακρίνεται ἡ ἐπιγραφή . The leaves contain Sir. prol. 1—i. 14, i. 29—iii. 11. Printed by J. R. Harris, op. cit., no. 5.
(14) Part of a Papyrus book which seems to have contained
the Minor Prophets. The discovery of this fragment was
announced in 1892 by W. H. Hechler, who gave a facsimile
of Zach. xii. 2, 3 ('Times,' Sept. 7, 1892; Transactions of the
Congress of Orientalists, 1892, ii., p. 331 f.). Mr Hechler
148claimed for this papyrus an extravagantly early date, but the
hand appears to belong to the seventh century; see Kenyon,
Pa1aeography of papyri, p. 118. This MS., which contains
(15) Two leaves of a small vellum book, from the Fayûm, now Bodl. MS. Gr. bibl. e. 4 (P); the handwriting, "in small, fine uncials," yields the text of Zach. xii. 10—12, xiii. 3—5. "About the fifth century" (Grenfell, Greek papyri, p. 11 f).
(16) A Rainer papyrus, assigned to the third century and
containing
(17) A portion of a leaf of a papyrus book, bearing the Greek text of Ezech. v. 12—vi. 3 (Bodl. MS. Gr. bibl. d. 4 (P)); see Grenfell, Greek papyri, pp. 9 ff. The text shews Hexaplaric signs; the writing is said to belong to the third century (Kenyon, Palaeography of papyri, p. 107).
(18) A fragment of a lead roll on which is engraved Ps. lxxix (lxxx). 1—16, found at Rhodes in 1898. See Sitzungsberichte d. konigl. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1898 (xxxvii.)[1].
The following are the cursive MSS. used by Holmes and Parsons, with the addition of others recently examined or collated by the editors of the larger Cambridge Septuagint[1].
14. Gen., Ex., ep. Arist., cat. (xi) |
Rome, Vat. Palat. Gr. 203 | Klostermann, Anal. p. 11 n. |
15. Octateuch (ix—x) | Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 2 | Hexaplaric in early books |
16. Octateuch (xi) | Florence, Laur. v. 38 | Batiffol, Vat., p. 91 |
17. Genesis, cat. (x) | Moscow, Syn. 5, Vlad. 28. | |
18. Octateuch (x—xi) |
Florence, Laur. Med. Pal. 242 (formerly at Fiesole) |
19. Octateuch. . . . . .[1] (?x) |
Rome, Chigi R. vi. 38 | Bianchini, Vind., p. 279 ff. |
Lucianic, Lagarde's h | ||
20. Genesis (ix) | [Cod. Dorothei i.] | |
25. Gen., Ex., ep. Arist., cat. (xi) |
Munich, Staatsbibl. Gr. 9 |
Field, ii. Auct. p. 3. Lag.'s m (Gen. gr.) |
28. Num., Deut., Jos. imperf. (xi) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2122 (formerly Basil. 161) |
|
29. Octateuch (inc. |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 2 |
Cf. Lagarde Genesis, p. 6, Septuagintast. i. p. 11. Lag.'s x |
30. Octateuch (inc. |
Rome, Casan. 1444 | |
31. Genesis, cat. (xvi) |
Vienna, Imp. Lib. Theol. Gr. 4 (Lamb.) |
? Copied from Ald. (Nestle.) Lag.'s w |
32, Pentateuch (xii) |
[Cod. Eugenii i.] | Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 224. |
37. Lectionary (A.D. 1116) |
Moscow, Syn. 31, Vlad. 8 |
|
38. Octateuch . . . (xv) |
Escurial, Υ. 11. 5 |
Hexaplaric, cf. Field, i. p. 398 |
44. Octateuch . . . (xv) |
Zittau, A. 1. 1 |
Lagarde's z: see Genesis gr., p. 7 ff. and Libr. V. T. can. i. p. vi.; Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 261; Redpath, Exp. T., May 1897 |
45. Num. (lect.), (xi) |
Escurial | |
46. Octateuch . . . (xiv) |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 4 | O. T. exc. Psalter |
47. Fragment of lectionary |
Oxford, Bodl. Baron. 201 | |
50. Lectionary (xiii) |
Oxford, Bodl. Seld. 30 | |
52. Octateuch . . . , ep. Arist., cat. (x) |
Florence, Laur. Acq. 44 | |
53. Octateuch (A.D. 1439) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 17A | |
54. Octateuch, ep. Arist. (xiii—xiv) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 5 | Field, i. p. 223. Lagarde's k |
55. Octateuch . . . (xi) |
Rome, Vat. Regin. Gr. 1 | Part of a complete Bible, cf. Klostermann, p. 12 |
56. Octateuch . . . (A.D. 1093) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 3 | |
57. Octateuch, ep. Arist., cat. (xi) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 747 | Field, i. pp. 5, 78 |
58. Pentateuch. . . . . .(xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Regin. Gr. 10 | Hexaplaric. Field, l. p. 78 |
59. Octateuch (xv) |
Glasgow, Univ. BE. 7b. 10 (formerly at C.C.C., Oxford |
|
61. Lectionary (xi) | Oxford, Bodl. Laud. 36 | Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 329 |
63. Jos., Jud., Ruth (imperf.) (x) |
Rome, Vat. 1252 |
Klostermann, p. 12 |
64. Octateuch . . . (x—xi) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 2 |
Field, i. p. 5 O. and N.T. |
68. Octateuch . . . (xv) |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 5 |
O. and N.T. Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 219 |
70. Jos., Jud., Ruth . . . (xi) |
Munich, Gr. 372 (formerly at Augsburg) |
|
71. Octateuch . . . (xiii) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 1 |
|
72. Octateuch (xiii) |
Oxford, Bodl. Canon. Gr. 35 (formerly at Venice; see H. P.) |
Hexaplaric. Tischendorf in L. C.-Bl., 1867 (27) |
73. Octateuch, ep. Arist. (part), cat. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 746 |
Field, i. p. 78 |
74. Octateuch . . . (xiv) |
Florence, Laur. Acq. 700 (49) |
Hesychian |
75. Octateuch (A.D. 1126) |
Oxford, Univ. Coll. lii. |
Lagarde's o. Hornemann, p. 41; Owen, Enquiry, p. 90 |
76. Octateuch . . . (xiii) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 4 | Hesychian |
77. Octateuch, cat. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 748 | |
78. Gen., Ex., cat. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 383 | Field, i. p. 78 |
79. Gen., ep. Arist., cat. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1668 | |
82. Octateuch . . . (xii) |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 3 |
Lucianic (in part). Rahlfs, Sept.-St. i. 5 ff. (Lagarde's f) |
83. Pentateuch, cat. (xvi) |
Lisbon, Archivio da Torre da Tombo 540 &c. (formerly at Evora) |
? Copied from Ald. (Nestle) |
84. Heptateuch (imperf.) (x) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1901 | Hesychian |
85. Heptateuch (imperf.) (xi) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2058 (formerly Basil. 97) |
Field, i. pp. 78, 397 ("praestantissimi codicis") |
93. Ruth . . . (xiii) |
London, B. M. Reg. i. D. 2 |
Lucianic (Largard's m in "Lucian" |
94 = 131 |
||
105. |
London, B. M. Burney |
|
106. Octateuch . . (xiv) | Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 187 |
Hesychian. O. T., N. T. (582 Greg., 451 Scr). Lagarde, Ank. p. 27 |
107. Octateuch . . . A.D. 1334) |
Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 188 |
Lagarde, ib. |
108. Octateuch . . . (xiv) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 330 |
Field, i. p. 5. Lucianic (Lagarde's d) |
118. Octateuch . . . (imperf.) (xiii) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 6 |
Lucianic (Lagarde's p) |
120. Octateuch . . . (xi) |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 4 |
|
121. Octateuch . . . (x) |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 3 |
|
122. Octateuch . . . (xv) |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 6 |
O. and N. T. (Ev. 206) in Latin order. Copy of 68. Lag.'s y |
125. Octateuch . . . (xv) |
Moscow, Syn. 30, Vlad. 3 |
|
126. Heptateuch . . . cat. in Gen., Ex. (A.D. 1475) |
Moscow, Syn. 19, Vlad. 38 |
|
127. Octateuch . . . (x) |
Moscow, Syn. 31 a, Vlad. 1 |
Field, i. p. 5. Lagarde, Ank. p. 3 |
128. Octateuch (xii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1657, formerly Grotta ferrata |
Field, i. pp. 168, 224 |
129. Octateuch (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1252 | See note to 63 |
130. Octateuch (? xiii) |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 3 (Nessel 57) |
Field, i. p. 6. Lagarde's t: Ank. p. 26. See note to 131 |
131. Octateuch . . . . . . (x—xi) |
Vienna, Th. Gr. r (Nessel 23) |
Field, i. p. 5: "in enumeratione Holmesiana [cod. 130] perserve designature 131, et vice versa.' O. and N.T. |
132. Lectionary (palimpsest, xi—xii) |
Oxford, Bodl. Selden. 9 | |
133. Excerpts from MSS. by I. Voss |
Leyden, Univ. |
|
134. Octateuch . . . (xi) |
Florence, Laur. v. 1 | Hesychian |
135. Gen., |
Basle, A. N. iii. 13 (omont 1) |
Field, i. p. 6. Lagarde's r (Genesis, p. 6) Hexaplaric |
136. Excerpts from Pentateuch (A.D. 1043) |
Oxford, Bodl. Barocc. 196 |
|
209. Jos., Jud., Ruth, cat. (xii) |
[Cod. Dorothei iv] |
|
236. Jos., Jud., Ruth . . . (xii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 331 |
Klostermann, p. 78 |
237 = 73 |
||
241. Jos., Jud., Ruth . . . (xvii) |
London, B. M. Harl. 7522 |
P. Young's copy of Cod. A |
246. Octateuch . . . (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1238 |
Cf. Batiffol, d’un important MS. des Septante, in Bulletin Critique, 1889, pp. 112 ff. |
Josh.—Ruth (x—xi) |
London, B. M. Add. 20002 |
Continuation of E (p. 134) with Petersburg lxii. See next page |
Octateuch, cat. (xii—xiii) |
London, B. M. Add. 35123 |
|
Lev.—Ruth, cat. (A.D. 1104) |
Lambeth, 1214 |
|
Lev.—Ruth, cat. (A.D. 1264) |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 5 |
|
Jos.—Ruth . . . . . cat. (xii) |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 7 |
|
Octateuch . . . . . . schol. |
Paris, Arsenal 8415 |
Hexaplaric readings |
Heptateuch (imperf.) (xiii) |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 184 |
Lucianic (?) |
Lev.—Ruth, cat. (xiii) |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 6 |
|
Octateuch . . . . (xiv) |
Paris, Nat. Suppl. Gr. 609 |
Hesychian (?) |
Octateuch, ep. Arist., cat. (xii) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 128 |
|
Ex.—Ruth, cat. (xv) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 132 |
Hexaplaric readings |
Octateuch, ep. Arist., cat. (xiii) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 129 |
Hexaplaric readings |
Gen.—Ex. (imperf.), ep. Arist., cat. (xv) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 130 |
Ex. (imperf.), cat. (xvi) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 131 |
Hexaplaric readings (interlinear) |
|
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 161 |
|
Gen., Ex., ep. Arist., cat. (A.D. 1586) |
Escurial Σ. i. 16 |
Hexaplaric readings |
Octateuch . . . (imperf.) (xi) |
Escurial Ω. i. 13 |
|
Octateuch, cat. (xiii) |
Leyden, 13 (belongs to Voss collection) |
|
Exod.—Deut. (imperf.) (xi) . . . |
Leipzig, Univ. Libr. Gr. 361 |
Hexaplaric readings. Published by Fischer in 1767 = Lips. (H. P.) |
Gen., Ex., ep. Arist., cat. (xvi) |
Munich, Gr. 82 |
|
Octateuch, ep. Arist., cat. (xiii) |
Zurich, Bibl. de la ville, c. 11 |
Hexaplaric matter |
|
Basle, O. ii. 17 |
|
Octateuch, cat. (? xii) |
Rome, Barb. Gr. iv. 56 |
|
Gen., cat. (xvi) |
Rome, Barb. Gr. vi. 8 |
|
Num.—Ruth . . . (xiv—xv) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 332 |
|
Hexateuch . . . (x) |
Grotta Ferrata Υ. γ. 1 |
|
Gen.—Jos. (imperf.) . . . (x—xi) |
St Petersburg, Imp. Libr. lxii |
Continuation of E (p. 134) |
Gen. comm. Chrys. |
Moscow, Syn. Vlad. 35 |
|
Joshua—Ruth . . . . cat. (xii) |
Athos, Ivér. 15 |
|
Octateuch (x) |
Athos, Pantocr. 24 |
Hexaplaric readings |
Octateuch . . . (x—xi) |
Athos, Vatop. 511 |
|
Octateuch . . . . . (A.D. 1201) |
Athos, Vatop. 513 |
|
Lev.—Ruth, cat. (xi—xii) |
Athos, Vatop. 515 |
|
Ex.—Ruth . . . . . . (xiv) |
Athos, Vatop. 516 |
Hexaplaric readings, much faded |
Pentateuch (imperf.),) (A.D. 1327) |
Athos, Protat. 53 |
Hexaplaric readings |
Octateuch (A.D. 1013) |
Athos, Laur. γ. 112 |
Hexaplaric readings (a few) |
Genesis, cat. (? xi) |
Constantinople, 224 (formerly 372) |
|
Octateuch . . . cat. (xi) |
Athens, Bibl. Nat. 43 |
|
Octateuch . . . (xiii) |
Athens, bibl. Nat. 44 |
Lucianic (?) |
Octateuch . . . cat. Niceph. (xii) |
Smyrna, σχολὴ εὐαγγ. 1 |
|
Pentateuch, cat. (xi) |
Patmos, 216 |
|
Num.—Ruth, cat. (xi) |
Patmos, 217 |
|
Heptateuch (imperf.) (xiii) |
Patmos, 410 |
|
Pentateuch, test. xii. patr. (xv) |
Patmos, 411 |
|
Octateuch . . . (x—xi) |
Sinai, 1 |
|
Pentateuch, cat. (? x) |
Sinai, 2 |
|
Octateuch . . . (ix. med.) |
Jerusalem, H. Sepulchre 2 |
|
Genesis, cat. (xii—xiii) |
Jerusalem, H. Sepulchre 3 |
|
Octateuch, cat. (xi) |
Venice, Gr. 534: see below, p 508 |
19[1] . . . 1 Regn., 2 Esdr., Judith, Esth., 1—3 Macc., &c. (x) |
Rome, Chigi R. vi. 38 |
|
29 . . . 1—4 Regn., 1—3 Macc. (imperf.), &c (x) |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 2 |
|
38 . . . 1 Regn., 2 Regn. i. 1—xx. 18 (xv) |
Escurial Υ. 11. 5 |
|
44 . . . 1 Regn., 2 Esdr., 1—4 Macc., Esth., Judith, Tob., (N. T.) &c. (xv) |
Zittau, A. 1. 1 |
46. . . 1 Regn.—2Esdr., Esth., Judith, 1—4 Macc., Tob.... |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 4 |
|
52. . . 1 Regn.—2Esdr., Esth., Judith, 1—4 Macc., Tob., schol. (x) |
Florence, Laur. Acq. 44 |
|
55. . . 1 Regn.—2 Esdr., Judith, Esth., Tob., 1—4 Macc. (xi) |
Rome, Vat. Regin. Gr. 1 |
|
56. . . 1—4 Regn., 1—2 Chron., 1—2 Macc. (xii) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 3 |
|
58. . . 1—4 Regn., 1—2 Chron., 1—2Esdr., Jud., Tob., Esth., &c. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Regin. Gr. 10 |
|
60. 1—2 Chron. (? xii) |
Cambridge, Univ. Libr. Ff. i. 24 |
Walton, Polygl. vi. 121 ff.; J. R. Harris, Origin of Leicester Cod., p. 21 |
64. . . 1 Regn.—2 Esdr., Esth., Tob., 1—2 Macc. (x) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 2 |
|
68. . . 1 Regn.—2 Esdr., Esth., Judith, Tob., 1—3 Macc. . . (xv) |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 5 |
|
70. . . 1—4 Regn., parts of Chron., Tob. (xi) |
Munich, Gr. 372 (formerly at Augsburg) |
|
71. . . 2 Esdr., 1—3 Macc., Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiii) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 1 |
|
74. . . 1—2 Esdr., 1—4 Macc., Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiv) |
Florence, St Mark's |
|
76. . . Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiii) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 4 |
|
82. . . 1—4 Regn. (xii —xiii) |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 3 |
|
92. 1—4 Regn. (x) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 8 |
Field, i. p. 486 |
93. . . 1—2 Esdr., Esth., 1—3 Macc. (xiii) |
London, B. M. Reg. i. D. 2 |
Facsimile in Kenyon. Two texts of Esther |
98. 1—4 Regn., 1—2 Chron., cat. |
Escurial, Σ. 2. 19 |
|
106. . . 1 Regn.—2 Esdr., Judith, Esth., 1—2 Macc. |
Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 187 |
107. . . 1 Regn.—2 Esdr., 1—3 Macc., Esth., Judith, Tob. (A.D. 1334) |
Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 188 |
108. . . 1 Regn.—2 Esdr., Judith, Tob., Esth. (xiv) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 330 |
Cf. Field, i. p. 702 |
119. 1—4 Regn., 1—2 Chron., 1—2 Esdr. (x) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 7 |
|
120. . . 1 Regn.—2 Esdr., 1—4 Macc., Esth. (xi) |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 4 |
|
121. . . 1 Regn.—2 Esdr. (x) |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 3 |
|
122. . . Historical Bks., . . . (xv) |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 6 |
|
123. 1—4 Regn. (xi) |
[Cod. Dorothei v.] |
|
125. . . Historical Bks., . . . (xv) |
Moscow, Syn. 30, Vlad. 3 |
|
126. . . Judith, Tob.(xv) |
Moscow, Syn. 19, Vlad. 38 |
|
127. . . 1—4 Regn., 1—2 Chron. xxxvi. (x) |
Moscow, Syn. 31 a, Vlad. 1 |
|
131. . . Historical Bks. (exc. 4 Macc.) (? xii) |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 1 (Nessel 23) |
|
134. . . 1 Regn.—2 Esdr., 1 Macc. (x) |
Florence, Laur. v. 1 |
|
158. 1—4 Regn., 1—2 Chron. |
Basle, B. 6. 22 |
Wetstein, N. T. i. p. 132 |
236. . . 1 Regn.—2 Esdr., Esth., Judith, Tob., 1—4 Macc., cat. (xii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 331 |
|
241. . . 1—4 Regn., 1—2 Chron. |
London, B. M. Harl. 7522 |
|
242. 1—4 Regn. |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 5 |
|
243. 1—4 Regn., cat. |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. 8 |
Field, i. p. 486 |
243*. 1—4 Regn. (cat.), 1 Chron.—2 Esdr., Esth., Tob., Jud., 1—4 Macc. |
Venice, St Mark's, cod. 16 |
Field, i. p. 486 |
244. 1—4 Regn. (x) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 333 |
|
245. 1 Regn. (ix—x) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 334 |
Lucianic (Field) |
246. . . 1 Regn. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1238 |
|
247. 1—4 Regn. (4 Regn. imperf.) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. Urb. 1 |
|
248. . . 1—2Esdr., Tob., Judith, Esth., &c. (xiv) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 346 |
Nestle, Marg. p. 58 |
311. . . Historical Bks. (xi) |
Moscow, Syn. 341 |
. . . 1 Regn.—2 Esdr., Esth., Tob. |
||
... Judith, 1—3 Macc. (3 M. imperf.) (xi) |
Escurial, Ω. 1. 13 |
|
. . . 1 Regn.—2 Chron. (x) |
Munich, Gr.454 (? formerly at Augsburg) |
|
. . . 1 Regn.—3 Regn. xvi. 28 (x or xi) |
St Petersburg, Imp. Libr. lxii. |
|
. . . Tob., Judith, Esth., Ruth (x) |
Grotta Ferrata, A. γ. 1 (catal., 29) |
|
. . . Tobit (xiv or xv) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 332 |
|
. . . 1 Esdr., Tobit (fragments) (x or xi) |
Leipzig, Univ. Libr. Gr. 361 |
Hexaplaric readings |
. . . Esth., Judith, Tob., 1—4 Regn. (x or xi) |
Athos, Vatop. 511 |
|
. . . Esth., Tob., Judith (A.D. 1021) |
Athos, Vatop. 513 |
|
. . . 1—2 Chron. (xiv) |
Athos, Vatop. 516 |
|
. . . 1—4 Regn., cat. (xi) |
Athens, Bibl. Nat. 43 |
|
. . . 1 Regn.—2 Esdr., Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiii) |
Athens, Bibl. Nat. 44 |
|
. . . 1—4 Regn., 1—2 Chron. (xiv) |
Paris, Arsenal 8415 |
|
. . . 1 Regn.—2 Esdr., 1—4 Macc., Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiv) |
Paris, Nat. Suppl. Gr. 609 |
. . . 1—5 Regn. (xii) |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 7 |
13. = I (see under Uncial MSS.) |
||
21. Psalms, schol. (xiii—xiv) |
[Cod. Eugenii iv.] |
|
27. Psalms i—lxx |
Gotha, formerly Lothringen |
An uncial MS., Lagarde's Mps (Specimen, p. 27) |
39. Psalms (imperf.) (ix) |
[Cod. Dorothei ii.] |
An uncial MS., Lagarde's Eps (Specimen, p. 2) |
43. = W (see under Uncial MSS.) |
Lagarde's Fps (Specimen, p. 2) |
|
46. . . Prov., Eccl., Cant., Job, Sap., Sir., ὕμνος τῶν πατ. ἡμῶν (xiv) |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 4 |
|
55. . . Job, Psalms (? xi) |
Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. 1 |
|
65. Psalms, cant., Lat. (xii) |
Leipzig |
|
66. Psalms, cant. (xiv) |
Eton Coll. |
|
67. Psalms, cant. (xvi) |
Oxford, C.C.C. 19 |
Harris, Leicester Codex, p. 20 |
68. . . Poetical Books (xv) |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr.5 |
|
69. Psalms, cant. (? x) |
Oxford, Magd. Coll. 9 |
|
80. Psalms, cant. (xiii—lxiv) |
Oxford, Christ Ch. A |
|
81. Psalms (xi) |
Oxford, Christ Ch. 2 |
|
99. Psalms, schol., cat. (xii—xiii) |
Oxford, Trin. Coll. 78 |
|
100. Psalms, cant. (xi—xii) |
Oxford, Christ Ch. 3 |
|
101. Psalms, cant. (xiii) |
Oxford, Christ Ch. 20 |
|
102. Psalms, cant. (xiii) |
Oxford, Christ Ch. 1 |
|
103. |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 25 |
Klostermann, pp. 6, 18 |
104. |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 27 (Nessel 229) |
|
106. . . Job, Prov., Eccl., Cant., Sap., Sir. . . . Psalms (xiv) |
Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 187 |
|
109. Proverbs. . . (xiii) |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 26 |
|
110. Job, schol. (ix) |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 9 |
Klostermann, p. 18 |
111. Psalms (ix) |
Milan, Ambr. P. 65 |
|
112. Psalms, cat. (A.D. 961) |
Milan, Ambr. F. 12 |
|
113. Psalms, cat. (A.D.. 967) |
Milan, Ambr. B. 106 |
|
114. . . Psalms, comm. |
Evora, Carthus. 2 |
|
115. Psalms, comm. |
Evora, Carthus. 3 |
|
122. . . Poetical Books (xv) |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 6 |
|
124. Psalms, cant. |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 21 |
|
125. . . Proverbs (comm. Chrys.), Eccl., Cant., Sap. (xv) |
Moscow, Syn. 30, Vlad. 3 |
|
131. . . Poetical Books, &c. (? xii) |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 23 |
|
137. Job, cat. (xi—xii) |
Milan, Ambr. B. 73 |
Field, ii. p. 2, and Auct. p. 5 |
138. Job (x) |
Milan, Ambr. M. 65 |
Field, ii. p. 2 |
139. Proverbs—Job, cat. (x) |
Milan, Ambr. A. 148 |
Field, ii. p. 2 |
140. Psalms |
Basle, B. 10. 33 |
|
141. Psalms (A.D. 1344) |
Turin, B. 2. 42 |
|
142. Psalms, comm. |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 10 (Nessel 8) |
|
143. Psalms, prooem. |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 19 |
|
144 = 131 |
||
145. Psalms, cant. (x) |
Velletri, Borg. |
|
146. Psalms (x) |
[Cod. Fr. Xavier] |
In Capitular Lib. Toledo |
147. Prov.—Job, cat. . . . (xiii) |
Oxford, Bodl. Laud. 30 |
Klostermann, p. 51 |
149. Job, Prov., Eccl., Cant., Sap., Pss. Sal., comm. (xi) |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 7 |
=308* H. P. See Gebhardt, Die Psalmen Salomo's, p. 15 |
150. Psalms (? xiv) |
Ferrara, Carmelit. 3 |
|
151. Psalms (imperf.) |
Venice, Bibl. Zen. |
A Graeco-Latin MS. |
152. Psalms (xi) |
(Cod. Nan. 25) |
Now in St Mark's Lib. Venice |
154. Psalms, cant. (xiii) |
(Cod. Meermanni I) |
155. Psalms (xii—xiiii) |
(Cod. Meermanni II) |
Now Bodl. Misc. Gr. 204 |
156. Psalms, interlin. Lat. |
Basle, A. 7. 3 |
An uncial MS. Lagarde's D(ps) (Specimen, p. 2, cf. Ank. p. 27)[1] |
157. Job, Prov., Eccl., Cant., Sap. |
Basle, B. 6, 23 |
Wetstein, N. T. i. 132 |
159. Eccl, Prov. (part), Cant., schol. (xi) |
Dresden, 1 |
Klostermann, p. 39 |
160. Job (xiv) |
Dresden, 2 |
|
161. Job, Prov., Eccl., Cant. (xiv) |
Dresden, 3 |
Field, ii. p. 2; cf. 6, 309, and Auct. 22. Cf. Klostermann, pp. 16, 39 |
Job, comm. (xv) |
Turin, Royal Library, 330 |
|
162. Psalms, interlin. Latin (xi) |
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 24 |
|
163. Psalms (xii) |
Paris, Nat. Colbert. Gr. 26 |
|
164. Psalms (xiv) |
London, B. M. Harl. 5533 |
|
165. Psalms (xiv) |
London, B. M. Harl. 5534 |
|
166. Psalms, cant. (A.D. 1283) |
London, B. M. Harl. 5535 |
|
167. Psalms, cant. (xiv) |
London, B. M. Harl. 5553 |
|
168. Psalms (imperf.) (xi-xii) |
London, B. M. Harl. 5570 |
|
169. Psalms (xii—xiii) |
London, B. M. Harl. 5571 |
|
170. Psalms, cant. (xii) |
London, B. M. Harl. 5582 |
|
171. Psalms, cant. (xiv) |
London, B. M. Harl. 5653 |
|
172. Psalms, cant. (A.D. 1488) |
London, B. M. Harl. 5737 |
|
173. Psalms, cant. |
London, B. M. Harl. 5738 |
|
174. Psalms (Latin, Arabic) (A.D. 1153) |
London, B. M. Harl. 5786 |
|
175. Psalms (xi) |
London, B. M. 2. A. vi. |
|
176. Psalms, cant. |
London, B. M. Harl. 5563 |
177. Psalms (imperf.) cant. (xiii) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 27 |
|
178. Psalms, cant. (A.D. 1059) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 40 |
|
179. Psalms, cant. (xii) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 41 |
|
180. Psalms, cant. (xii) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 42 |
|
181. Psalms, cat. (xii) |
Cod. Ducis Saxo-Goth. |
|
182. Psalms, cant. (xi) |
Rome, Chigi 4 |
|
183. Psalms, cant. (xii) |
Rome, Chigi 5 |
|
184. Psalms, comm. (ix-x) |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 17 |
|
185. Psalms, comm. (xi) |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 18 |
|
186. Psalms, comm. (xi) |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 13 |
|
187. Psalms (imperf.) |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 10 |
|
188. Psalms (imperf.) |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 186 |
An uncial MS. Lagarde's H(ps) (Specimen, p. 3). Often agrees with 156 |
189. Psalms, cant. |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 13 |
|
190. Psalms (imperf.) cant. |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 187 |
An uncial MS. Lagarde's K(ps) (Specimen, p. 3) |
191. Psalms, cant. |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 188 |
|
192. Psalms (imperf.) cant. (xiii) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 13 |
|
193. Psalms, cant. (xii) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 21 |
|
194. Psalms, cant. (xii) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 22 |
|
195. Psalms, cant. (xii) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 23 |
|
196. Psalms (inc. ii. 3), cant. (xii) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 25 |
|
197. Psalms, cant. (xiv) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 29 |
|
199. Psalms (xi) |
Modena, |
|
200. Psalms, cant. |
Oxford, Bodl. Barocc. 15 |
Cf. Nestle, Septuagintastud. iii. p. 14 |
201. Psalms, cant. |
Oxford, Bodl. Barocc. 107 |
|
202. Psalms, cant., comm. |
Oxford, Bodl. Cromw. 110 |
203. Psalms, cant., prayers (A.D. 1336) |
Oxford, Bodl. Laud. C. 41 |
|
204. Psalms (imperf.) schol., prayers |
Oxford, Bodl. Laud. C. 38 |
|
205. Psalms, cant. |
Cambridge, Trin. Coll. |
|
206. Psalms, cant. (xiv) |
Cambridge, Gonville & Caius Coll. 348 |
Facsimile in Harris, Leicester codex |
208. Psalms (imperf.), cant. |
Tübingen, (cod. Schnurrer) |
|
210. Psalms (xiv) |
[Cod. Demetrii v.] |
|
211. Psalms, cant. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1541 |
|
212. Psalms (imperf.) (xii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1542 |
|
213. Psalms (imperf.) (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. G4. 1848 |
|
214. Psalms, cant. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1870 |
|
215. Psalms, cant. (A.D. 1011) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1873 |
Klostermann, p. 13 |
216. Psalms, cant. (x) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1927 |
|
217. Psalms, cant. (A.D. 1029) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 341 |
|
218. Psalms, li.—liii. (xiii—xiv) |
? |
|
219. Psalms, cant. |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 20 |
|
220 = 186 |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 13 |
|
221. Psalms, ix.—cl., comm. |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 16 |
|
222. Psalms, cant. |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 21 |
|
223. Psalms, cant. |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 22 |
|
225. Psalms, cant. (xi) |
Bologna, 720 |
|
226. Psalms, cant., prayers (x) |
Rome, Barber. 1 (Gr. 372) |
|
227. Psalms (imperf.) cant., prayers (x) |
Rome, Barber. 2 (Gr. 322) |
|
228. Job, &c. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1764 |
|
241. . . Prov., Eccl., Cant. |
London, B. M. Harl. 7522 |
|
248. . . Prov., Ecc1., Cant., Job, Sap., Sir., &c. (xiv) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 346 |
Hexaplaric readings Field, ii. p. 2 |
249. Job, Sap., Sir., &c. |
Rome, Vat. Pius 1 |
Field, l.c. |
250. Job (xiv) |
Munich, Elect. 148 |
Field, l. c. |
251. Job, cat., Psalms (xiv) |
Florence, Laur. v. 27 |
|
252. Job, Prov., Eccl., Cant. (ix—x) |
Florence, Laur. viii. 27 |
Field, l.c.; cf. p. 309 and Auct. p. 2 |
253. Job, Prov., Sir. (xi—xiv) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 336 |
Klostermann, p. 17 ff. Gebhardt, Die Psalmen Salomo's p. 25 ff. |
254. Job, Prov. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 337 |
|
255. Job (ix) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 338 |
Field, ii. p. 2. Klostermann, p. 69 ff. |
256. Job, schol. (xii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 697 |
Field, l.c. |
257. Job, comm. (x) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 743 |
|
258. Job, cat., pict. (ix) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 749 |
Field, l.c. Klostermann, p. 68 |
259. Job, schol. (x) |
Rome, Vat. Pal. Gr. 230 |
Field, l.c. Klostermann, p. 11 |
260. Job, cat., Prov. |
Copenhagen, Royal Libr. |
|
261. Job, Prov., Eccl., Sap. (xiv) |
Florence, Laur. vii. 30 |
|
263. Psalms |
Copenhagen, Royal Lib. |
|
264 Psalms, cat. |
Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr. 398 |
Cf. Field, ii. p. 84 f., and Auct. p. 11 |
265. Psalms, cant., pict. (xiv) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 381 |
|
266. Psalms (imperf.) (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2101 |
|
267. Psalms, cant. (xiv) |
Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr. 294 |
|
268. Psalms, cat., cant. |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2057 |
Cf. Field, ii. p. 84 |
269. Psalms, comm. Athen. (A.D. 897) |
Rome, Vat. Pal. Gr. 44 |
|
270. Psalms, cant. (xii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1864 |
|
271. Psalms, comm. (xi) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1747 |
|
272. Psalms (imperf.) cat. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Pal. Gr. 247 |
|
273. Psalms, cat. (xiv) |
Rome, Vat. Regin. Gr. 40 |
Cf. Field, ii. p. 84 |
274. Psalms (imperf.) comm. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr. 343 |
|
275. Psalms, cant. (xii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1874 |
|
276 = 221 |
||
277. Psalms, cant. |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 24 |
|
278. Psalms (xii—xiii) |
Florence, Laur. v. 23 |
|
279. Psalms, cant. (xiii—xiv) |
Florence, Laur. v. 35 |
|
280. Psalms (xi) |
Florence, Laur. v. 5 |
|
281. Psalms (xi) |
Florence, Laur. v. 18 |
|
282. Psalms (xv) |
Florence, Laur. v. 25 |
|
283. Psalms (xii) |
Florence, Laur. vi. 36 |
|
284. Psalms, cant. (xiv) |
Florence, Laur. v. 17 |
|
285. Psalms, cant. (xiii) |
Florence, Laur. v. 34 |
|
286. Psalms, comm. (xii) |
Florence, Laur. v 30 |
|
287. Psalms (imperf.) comm. (xii) |
Florence, Laur. v. 14 |
|
288. Psalms, comm. Thdt. (xii) |
Florence, Laur. xi. 5 |
|
289. Psalms, comm. Euth.-Zig. (xiii) |
Florence, Laur. ix. 2 |
|
290. Psalms, cant. |
Florence, Laur. |
|
291. Psalms (xi—xii) |
Florence, Laur. v. 39 |
|
292. Psalms, cat. (xi) |
Florence, Laur. vi. 3 |
|
293. Psalms, metr. paraphr. (xv) |
Florence, Laur. v. 37 |
|
294. Psalms, lxxi. 14, —lxxxi.7, cxxvii 3—cxxxix. 6, cxxxv. 11—cxxxvi. 1, cxxxvii. 4—cxli. 21 (? xiii) |
Cambridge, Emmanuel College |
Lagarde calls it P in Genesis graece, but N(ps) in the Specimen. Apparently a copy in a Western hand of an early cursive Psalter; see M. R. James in Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 1892—3, p. 168 ff.[1] |
295. Prov., comm. Procop. (xiv) |
Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr. 56 |
|
296. Prov.—Sir. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Palat. Gr. 337 |
|
297. Prov., cat. (xii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1802 |
|
298. Eccl., comm. (xii) |
[Cod. Eugenii 3] |
|
299. Eccl., Comm. Greg. Nyss., al. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1694 |
Klostermann, p. 29 f. |
300. Cant., comm. (xii) |
[Cod. Eugenii 3] |
|
302. Prov. . . . (ix) = 109 |
||
Psalms, A.D. 1066 |
London, B. M. Add. 19,352 |
|
Psalms |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 754 |
22. Prophets (xi—xii) |
London, B. M. Reg. i. B. 2 |
Cod. Pachomianus. Lucianic; Field, ii. p. 428 f. Cornill's ξ |
24. Isaiah, cat. (xii) |
[Cod. Demetrii i.] |
|
26. Prophets (? xi) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 556 |
Hesychian (Cornill, Ceriani): cf. Klostermann, p. 10 f. |
33. Dan., Jer., cat. (x) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1154 |
Originally belonged to same codex as Vat. gr. 1153: see Klostermann, p. 11. Cf. 87, 97, 238 |
34. Dan. (xii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 803 |
Klostermann, p. 11 n. |
35. Dan. (xii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 866 |
|
36. Prophets (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 347 |
Lucianic (Field). Cornill's ο |
40. Dodecapropheton (xii) |
[Cod. Dorothei iii.] |
|
41. Isa., Jer. (ix—x) |
[Cod. Demetrii ii.] |
|
42. Ezek.,Dan., Min. Proph. (xi—xii) |
[Cod. Demetrii iii.] |
Lucianic (Field) |
46. . . Isa., Jer., Bar., Lam., Ep. Ezek., Dan., Minor Prophets. . . (xiv) |
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 4 |
|
48. Prophets (xii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1794 |
Lucianic(Field), Cornill's η. Klostermann, pp. 11, 14 |
49. Prophets (xi) |
Florence, Laur. xi. 4 |
Hesychius, Cornill's κ |
50. Prophets (xi) |
Florence, Laur. x. 8 |
Lucianic (Field). Cornill's θ |
58. . . Prophets (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. 10 |
On the text of Daniel in this MS. see Klostermann, p. 12 |
62. Prophets (xiii) |
Oxford, New Coll. |
Lucianic (Field). Field, ii. p. 907; Burkitt, Tyconius, p. cviii; Klostermann, p. 51 |
68. . . Ezek., Dodecapr. (xv) |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 5 |
Hesychian. Cornill's ψ |
70. . . Prophets (x—xi) |
Munich, Gr. 372. (formerly at Augsburg) |
|
86. Isa., Jer., Ezek., Dodecapr.(? ix) |
Rome, Barber. v. 45 |
Field, ii. p. 939. Walton, vi. 131 f.; Klostermann, p. 50 |
87. Prophets (? ix) |
Rome, Chigi 2 |
Hesychian. Cornill's β. For the relation of 87 to 91 and 96 see Faulhaber Die Propheten-catenen. 33, 97, 238 are copied from 87 |
88. Isa., Jer., Ezek., Dan. (LXX.) (? xi) |
Rome, Chigi 3 |
87 in Field (ii. p. 766). O.T. in Greek (iii. p. xiii.). Cf. Klostermann, p. 31 |
89. Daniel (xi) = 239 |
||
90. Isa., Jer., Ezek., Dan., cat. (xi) |
Florence, Laur. v. 9 |
Lucianic (Field); in Ezekiel, Hesychian acc. to Cornill: Cornill's λ |
91. Prophets, cat. (xi) |
Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr. 452 |
Hesychian (Cornill). Cornill's μ See note on 87 |
93. . . Isa. (xiv) |
London, B. M. Reg. i. D. 2 |
Lucianic (Field) |
95. Dodecaproph., comm. Theod. Mops. |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 163 |
Lucianic (Cornill) |
96. Isa., Jer., Ezek., Dan. |
Copenhagen See note on 87 |
|
97. Dodecapr., Isa., cat. (x) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1153 |
See notes on 33, 87 |
104. . . |
Vienna, Th. Bib. 27 (Nessel 229) |
|
105. . . Fragments of Prophets, &c. (xiii—xiv) |
London, B. M. Burney |
106. . . Isa., Jer., Ezek., Dan., Minor Prophets to Micah (xiv) |
Ferrara, Gr. 187 |
Hesychian |
109. Isaiah, cat. = 302 |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 26 |
|
114. Dodecaproph., comm. Theod. Mops. . . |
Evora, Carthus. 2 |
|
122. . . Prophets (xv) |
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 6 |
|
131. . . Prophets (? xii) |
Vienna, Th. Gr. (Nessel 23) |
|
147. . . Isa., Jer., Ezek., Dan. (imperf.), Dodecaproph. |
Oxford, Bodl. Laud. 30 |
Lucianic (cf. Field, ii. p. 907) |
148. Daniel (xii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2025 |
|
153. Prophets (exc. Zech.), comm. (x) |
Rome, Vat. Pal. Gr. 273 |
Lucianic (Cornill) |
185. . . Dodecaproph. (xi) |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 18 |
Lucianic (Cornill) |
198. Prophets (imperf.) (ix) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 14 |
= Ev. 33. Burkitt, Tyconius, p. cviii |
228. . . Prophets (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1764 |
Hesychian (Cornill, but cf. Klostermann, p. 13 f. Cornill's φ) |
229. Jer., Dan., comm. (xiv) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 673 |
|
230. Daniel (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1641 |
|
231. Jer. with Baruch &c. (xi) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1670 |
From Grotta Ferrata. Lucianic, Cornill's ι. Cp. Klostermann, p. 14 |
232. Daniel (xii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2000 |
A Basilian MS., cp. Klostermann, p. 15 |
233. Prophets (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2067 |
Lucianic (Field) |
234. Susanna |
Moscow, Syn. 341 |
|
235. Susanna |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2048 |
|
238. Ezekiel, cat. (x) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1153 |
Hesychian (Cornill). Cornill's ς See notes on 33, 87, 97 |
239. Prophets (A.D. 1046)= 89 |
||
240. Dodecapr., cat. (A.D. 1286) |
Florence, Laur. vi. 22 |
|
301. Isaiah (ix) |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 158 |
|
302. . . Isaiah, cat. ( xiii) = 109 |
303. Isaiah, comm. Cyril. |
Vienna, Th. Gr. 100 |
|
304. |
Florence, Laur. iv. 2 |
|
305. Isaiah (imperf.), cat. |
Copenhagen, Reg. |
|
306. Isa., Ezek. (xi) |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 16 |
|
307. Isaiah, comm. Basil. (xi) |
Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr. 430 |
|
308. Isaiah, comm. Basil. and Thdt. (xiii) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1509 |
Lucianic (Field) |
309. Isaiah, cat. (x) |
Rome, Vat. Gr. 755 |
Cf. Klostermann, p. 11 |
310. Dodecapr., schol. (xi) |
Moscow, Syn. 209 |
|
311. . . Prophets (xi) = 234 |
||
. . . Prophets (ix, med.) |
Jerusalem, H. Sepulchre 2 |
From the second century the Greek-speaking Churches, following the example of the Hellenistic Synagogue, read the Greek Old Testament in their public assemblies.
Justin, Apol. i. 67 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 κ.τ.λ. Ibid. viii. 5 μετὰ τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν. Chrys. in 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 fragments of lectionaries which survive, although frequently written in large and showy uncials[1], are rarely earlier than the tenth or eleventh century; but a thorough investigation of their contents would doubtless be of interest, not only from a liturgical 169point of view, but for the light which it would throw on the ecclesiastical distribution of various types of text. Little has been done as yet in this direction, and our information, such as it is, relates chiefly to the N.T.
See Matthaei, N. T. Gr., ad fin. vol. i.; Neale, Holy Eastern Church, General Intr., p. 369 ff.; Burgon, Last twelve verses of St Mark, p. 191 ff.; Scudamore, art. Lectionary, D. C. A. ii.; Nitzsch, art. Lectionarium, Herzog-Plitt, viii.; Gregory, prolegg. i. p. 161 ff., 687 ff.; Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 74 ff.; E. Nestle, Urtext, p. 76; M. Faulhaber, Die Propheten-catenen nach röm. Handschriften (Freiburg i. B., 1899).
The following list of MSS.[1] containing lections from the Old Testament has been drawn up from materials previously supplied by Dr E. Nestle. It will be seen that with few exceptions they are limited to those which are bound up with N.T. lections and have been catalogued under the head of N.T. lectionaries by Dr C. F. Gregory and Scrivener-Miller.
London, | Sion College, Arc. i. 1 (vi or vii) | Gr. p. 720 (234, Scr. 227) |
" | B. M. Add. 11841 (? xi) | Gr. p. 783 (9, Scr. 75) |
" | B. M. Add. 18212 (xi) | Gr. p. 715 (191, Scr. 263) |
" | B. M. Add. 22744 (xiii) | Gr. p. 731 (324, Scr. 272) |
" | Burdett-Coutts, iii. 42 (xiv) | Gr. p. 730 (315, Scr. 253) |
" | Burdett-Coutts, iii. 44 (xv) | Gr. p. 749 (476, Scr. 290) |
" | Burdett-Coutts, iii. 46 (xiii) | Gr. p. 719 (226, Scr. 249) |
" | Burdett-Coutts, iii. 53 (xv) | |
Oxford, | Christ Church, Wake 14 (xii) | Gr. p. 717 (207, Scr. 214) |
" | Christ Church, Wake 15 (A.D. 1068) | Gr. p. 717 (208, Scr. 215) |
Cambridge, Univ. Libr. Add. 1879 (? xi) |
( |
|
" | Christ's College, F. i. 8 (xi) | Gr. p. 714 (185, Scr. 222) = Zscr, WH. 59 |
Ashburnham, 205 (xii) | Gr. p. 720 (237 Scr. 237—8) | |
Paris, Nat. Gr. 308 (xiii) | Gr. p. 779 (24) | |
" Nat. Gr. 243 (A.D. 1133) | Omont, MSS. Grecs datés, no. xlvi. |
Paris, Nat, suppl. Gr. 32 (xiii) | Gr. p. 704 (84) |
Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. 59 (xii) | Gr. p. 757 (573, Scr. 395) |
" Vat. Gr. 168 (xiii or xiv) | Gr. p. 786 (188, Scr. 116) |
" Vat. Gr. 2012 (xv) | Gr. p. 756 (556, Scr. 387) |
" Barb. 18 (xiv) | Gr. p. 780 (40) |
Grotta Ferrata, Αʹ δʹ 2 (x) | Gr. p. 748 (473, Scr. 323) |
" Αʹ δʹ 4 (xiii) | Gr. p. 748 (475, Scr. 325) |
" Δʹ βʹ 22 (xviii) | Gr. p. 751 (506, Scr. 358) |
Venice, St Mark's, i. 42 (xii) | Gr. p. 724 (268, Scr. 173)[1] |
Trèves, Bibl. Cath. 143 F (x or xi) | Gr. p. 713 (179) |
Athens, Nat. 86 (xiii) | Gr. p. 745 (443) |
Salonica, Ἑλληνικοῦ γυμνασίου ιδʹ (xv or xvi) | Gr. p. 771 (837) |
Cairo, Patr. Alex. 927 (xv) | Gr. p. 776 (759, Scr. 140) |
Sinai, 748 (xv or xvi) | Gr. p. 775 (900) |
" 943 (A.D. 1697) | Gr. p. 775 (908) |
St Saba, in tower, 16 (xii) | Gr. p. 770 (829, Scr. 364) |
Jerusalem, H. Sepulchre (xiii) | Harris, p. 13 |
LITERATURE (on the general subject of this chapter). Stroth, in Eichhorn's Repertorium (vi., viii., xi.); the prolegomena to Grabe, Holmes and Parsons, Tischendorf, and The Old Testament in Greek; the prefaces to Lagarde's Genesis graece, Libr. V. T. Canon., p. i., Psalterii specimen; Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient MSS.; Madan, Summary, p. 615 ff. (Holmes MSS., A.D. 1789—1805); Nestle, Urtext, p. 71 ff.; H. Omont, Inventaire Summaire des MSS. Grecs de la Bibl. Nationale; S. Berger, Hist. de la Vulgate.
The lists of MSS. given in this chapter must be regarded as tentative and incomplete. The student may supplement them to some extent by referring to recently published catalogues of MS. libraries, especially the following: V. Gardthausen, Catalogus codd. Graecorum Sinaiticorum (Oxford, 1886); Papadopulos Kerameus, Ἰεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη i.—iv. (St Petersburg, 1891—1899); Sp. P. Lambros, Catalogue of the Greek MSS. on Mount Athos (Cambridge, vol. i., 1895; vol. ii., with index, 1900). He may also consult with advantage J. B. Pitra, Analecta sacra, iii. (1883), p. 551 ff.; H. A. Redpath, in Academy, Oct. 22, 1893; E. Klostermann's Analecta zur Septuaginta (1895); Mrs Lewis, in Exp. Times, xiii. 2, p. 55 ff.; H. Omont, in Lit. C. Blatt; A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, ii. (1907).
Chapter VI. Printed Texts of the Septuagint.
171THE printed texts of the Septuagint fall naturally into two classes, viz. (1) those which contain or were intended to exhibit the whole of the Greek Old Testament; (2) those which are limited to a single book or to a group of books.
I. COMPLETE EDITIONS.
1. The first printed text of the whole Septuagint is that which forms the third column in the Old Testament of the great Complutensian Polyglott. This great Bible was printed at Alcalà (Complutum) in Spain under the auspices of Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros, Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo. Ximenes, who, in addition to his ecclesiastical offices, was Regent of Castile, began this undertaking in 1502 in honour of the birth of Charles V. (1500—1558), and lived to see the whole of the sheets pass through the press. He died Nov. 8, 1517, and the fourth volume, which completes the Old Testament and was the last to be printed, bears the date July 10, 1517. But the publication of the Polyglott was delayed for more than four years: the papal sanction attached to the N. T. volume is dated May 22, 1520, and the copy which was intended for the Pope seems not to have found its way into the Vatican Library until Dec. 5, 1521. The title of the complete work (6 vols. folio) is as follows: "Biblia sacra Polyglotta complectentia V.T. 172Hebraico Graeco et Latino idiomate, N.T. Graecum et Latinum, et vocabularium Hebraicum et Chaldaicum V.T. cum grammatica Hebraica necnon Dictionario Graeco. Studio opera et impensis Cardinalis Fr. Ximenes de Cisneros. Industria Arnoldi Gulielmi de Brocario artis impressorie magistri. Compluti, 1514[—15, —17]."
The O.T. volumes of the Complutensian Bible contain in three columns (1) the Hebrew text, with the Targum of Onkelos at the foot of the page, (2) the Latin Vulgate, (3) the Septuagint, with an interlinear Latin version—an order which is explained by the editors as intended to give the place of honour to the authorised version of the Western Church[1]. The prejudice which their words reveal does not augur well for the character of the Complutensian LXX. Nevertheless we have the assurance of Ximenes that the greatest care was taken in the selection of the MSS. on which his texts were based[1]. 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[1], and it has been shewn that at least two MSS. now in that Library (cod. Vat. gr. 330 = H.P. 108, and cod. Vat. gr. 346 = H.P. 248) were used in the construction of the Complutensian text of the LXX.[1] There is 173reason to suppose that a Venice MS. (S. Marc. 5 = H.P. 68) was also employed; a copy of this MS. still exists at Madrid.
The editors of the Complutensian Polyglott were the Spaniard Antonio de Nebrija, Professor of Rhetoric at Alcalà, and his pupil Ferdinando Nũnez de Guzman (Pincianus); Diego Lopez de Zuñiga (Stunica); Juan de Vergara, Professor of Philosophy at Alcalà; a Greek from Crete, by name Demetrius; and three converts from Judaism, to whom the Hebrew text and the Targum were entrusted. The editing of the Greek LXX. text seems to have been left chiefly in the hands of Pincianus, Stunica and Demetrius.
The Complutensian text is followed on the whole in the Septuagint columns of the four great Polyglotts edited by Arias Montanus, Antwerp, 1569—72; B. C. Bertram, Heidelberg, 1586—7, 1599, 1616; D. Wolder, Hamburg, 1596; Michael Le Jay, Paris, 1645.
2. In February 15, after the printing of the Complutensian Polyglott but before its publication, Andreas Asolanus[1], 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[1]. Traces have 174been found in his text of three at least of those MSS. (cod. ii = H.P. 29; cod. iii = H.P. 121; cod. v = H.P. 68).
The Aldine text of the LXX. was followed on the whole in the editions of (1) Joh. Lonicerus, Strassburg, 1524, 1526; (2)? with a preface by Philip Melanchthon, Basle, 1545; (3) H. Guntius, Basle, 1550, 1582; (4) Draconites, in Biblia Pentapla, Wittenburg, 1562—5; (5) Francis du Jon (Fr. Junius) or (?) Fr. Sylburg, Frankfort, 1597; (6) Nic. Glykas, Venice, 1687.
3. In 1587 a third great edition of the Greek Old Testament was; published at Rome under the auspices of Sixtus V. (editio Sixtina, Romana). It bears the title: Η ΠΑΛΑΙΑ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ | ΚΑΤΑ ΤΟΥΣ ΕΒΔΟΜΗΚΟΝΤΑ | ΔΙ ΑΥΘΕΝΤΙΑΣ | ΞΥΣΤΟΥ Εʹ ΑΚΡΟΥ ΑΡΧΙΕΡΕΩΣ | ΕΚΔΟΘΕΙΣΑ | VETVS TESTAMENTVM | IVXTA SEPTVAGINTA | EX AUCTORITATE | SIXTI V. PONT. MAX. | EDITVM | ROMAE | EX TYPOGRAPHIA FRANCISCI ZANETTI. M.D.LXXXVI(I)[1] | CVM PRIVILEGIO GEORGIO FERRARIO CONCESSO..
The volume consists of 783 pages of text, followed by a page of addenda and corrigenda, and preceded by three (unnumbered) leaves which contain (1) a dedicatory letter addressed to Sixtus V. by Cardinal Antonio Carafa, (2) a preface to the reader[1], and (3) the papal authorisation of the book. These documents are so important for the history of the printed text that they must be given in full.
(1) SIXTO QUINTO PONTIF. MAX. ANTONIUS CARAFA
CARDINALIS SANCTAE SEDIS APOSTOLICAE BIBLIOTHECARIUS
Annus agitur iam fere octavus ex quo Sanctitas vestra pro singulari suo de sacris litteris benemerendi studio auctor fuit beatae memoriae Gregorio XIII. Pont. Max. ut sacrosancta Septuaginta 175Interpretum Biblia, quibus Ecclesia tum Graeca tum Latina iam inde ab Apostolorum temporibus usa est, ad fidem probatissimorum codicum emendarentur. Quod enim Sanctitas V. pro accurata sua in perlegendis divinis scripturis diligentia animadvertisset, infinitos pene locos ex its non eodem modo ab antiquis sacris scriptoribus afferri quo in vulgatis Bibliorum Graecis editionibus ctrcumferrentur, existimassetque non aliunde eam lectionum varietatem quam a multiplici eaque confusa veterum interpretatione fluxisse; rectissime censuit ad optimae notae exemplaria provocandum esse, ex quibus, quoad fieri posset, ea quae vera et sincera esset Septuaginta Interpretum scriptura eliceretur. Ex quo fit ut vestram non solum pietatem sed etiam sapientiam magnopere admirer; cum videam S. V. de Graecis Bibliis expoliendis idem multos post annos in mentem venisse quod sanctos illos Patres Tridenti congregatos auctoritate ac reverentia ductos verae ac purae Septuaginta interpretationis olim cogitasse cognovi ex actis eius Concilii nondum pervulgatis. Huius autem expolitionis constituendae munus cum mihi demandatum esset a Gregorio XIII., cuius cogitationes eo maxime spectabant ut Christiana Religio quam latissime propagaretur, operam dedi ut in celebrioribus Italiae bibliothecis optima quaeque exemplaria perquirerentur atque ex iis lectionum varietates descriptae ad me mitterentur[1]. Quibus sane doctorum hominum quos ad id delegeram industria et iudicio clarae memoriae Gulielmi Cardinalis Sirleti (quem propter excellentem doctrinam et multiplicem linguarum peritiam in locis obscurioribus mihi consulendum proposueram) persaepe examinatis et cum vestro Vaticanae bibliothecae (cui me benignitas vestra nuper praefecit) exemplari diligenter collatis; intelleximus cum ex ipsa collatione tum a sacrorum veterum scriptorum consensione, Vaticanum codicem non solum vetustate verum etiam bonitate caeteris anteire; quodque caput est, ad ipsam quam quaerebamus Septuaginta interpretationem, si non toto libro, maiori certe ex parte, quam proxime accedere. Quod mihi cum multis aliis argumentis constaret, vel ipso etiam libri titulo, qui est κατὰ τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα, curavi de consilio et sententia eorum quos supra nominavi, huius libri editionem ad Vaticanum exemplar emendandam; vel potius exemplar ipsum, quod eius valde probaretur auctoritas, de verbo ad verbum repraesentandum, accurate prius sicubi opus fuit recognitum et notationibus etiam auctum. Factum est autem providentia sane divina, ut quod Sanctitate vestra suadente sui Cardinalatus tempore inchoatum est, id variis de causis aliquoties intermissum per ipsa fere initia Pontificatus sui 176fuerit absolutum; scilicet ut hoc praeclarum opus, vestro Sanctissimo nomini dicatum, quasi monumentum quoddam perpetuum esset futurum apud omnes bonos et vestrae erga Rempublicam Christianam voluntatis et meae erga Sanctitatem vestram observantiae.
(2) PRAEFATIO AD LECTOREM
Qui sunt in sacrosanctis scripturis accuratius versati, fatentur omnes Graecam Septuaginta Interpretum editionem longe aliis omnibus quibus Graeci usi sunt et antiquiorem esse et probatiorem. Constat enim eos Interpretes, natione quidem Iudaeos, doctos vero Graece, trecentis uno plus annis ante Christi adventum, cum in Aegypto regnaret Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, Spiritu sancto plenos sacra Biblia interpretatos esse, eamque interpretationem a primis Ecclesiae nascentis temporibus tum publice in Ecclesiis ad legendum propositam fuisse, tum privatim receptam et explanatam ab Ecclesiasticis scriptoribus qui vixerunt ante B. Hieronymum, Latinae vulgatae editionis auctorem. Nam Aquila quidem Sinopensis, qui secundus post Septuaginta eosdem libros ex Hebraeo in Graecum convertit et multo post tempore sub Hadriano principe floruit, et eius interpretatio, (quod ea quae de Christo in scripturis praedicta fuerant, ut a Iudaeis gratiam iniret aliter quam Septuaginta vertendo, subdola obscuritate involverit) iamdiu est cum a recte sentientibus, licet in hexaplis haberetur, aliquibus locis non est probata. Hunc vero qui subsequuti sunt, Symmachus et Theodotio, alter Samaritanus sub L. Vero, alter Ephesius sub Imp. Commodo, uterque (quamvis et ipsi in hexaplis circumferrentur) parum fidus interpres habitus est: Symmachus, quod Samaritanis offensus, ut placeret Iudaeis, non unum sanctae scripturae locum perturbato sensu corruperit; Theodotio, quod Marcionis haeretici sectator nonnullis locis perverterit potius quam converterit sacros libros. Fuerunt praeter has apud Graecos aliae duae editiones incertae auctoritatis: altera Antonio Caracalla Imp. apud Hierichuntem, altera apud Nicopolim sub Alexandro Severo in doliis repertae. quae quod in octaplis inter Graecas editiones quintum et sextum locum obtinerent, quintae et sextae editionis nomen retinuerunt. Sed nec hae satis fidae interpretationes habitae sunt. His additur alia quaedam editio sancti Luciani martyris, qui vixit sub Diocletiano et Maximiano Impp., valde illa quidem probata, sed quae cum Septuaginta Interpretibus comparari nullo modo possit, vel ipsis etiam Graecis scriptoribus testantibus et Niceta confirmante his plane verbis in commentario Psalmorum: ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ τὴν τοιαύτην ἔκδοσιν σεβαζόμενοι, τῇ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα προσκείμεθα μάλιστα, ὅτι διῃρημένως τὴν τῆς 177διαλέκτου μεταβολὴν ποιησάμενοι μίαν ἐν ἑκάστοις ἔννοιαν καὶ λέξιν ἀποδεδώκασιν.
Adeo Septuaginta Interpretum editio magni nominis apud omnes fuit; nimirum quae instinctu quodam divinitatis elaborata bono generis humani prodierit in lucem. Sed haec etiam ipsa, quod in hexaplis ita primum ab Origene collocata fuerit ut eius e regione aliae editiones quo inter se comparari commodius possent ad legendum propositae essent, deinde vero varietates tantum ex iis ad illam sub obelis et asteriscis notari essent coeptae, factum est ut vetustate notis obliteratis insincera nimis et valde sui dissimilis ad nos pervenerit: quippe quae insertis ubique aliorum interpretationibus, aliquibus autem locis duldici atque etiam triplici eiusdem sententiae interpretatione intrusa, male praeterea a librariis accepta, suum ob id nitorem integritatemque amiserit. Hinc illae lectionum penitus inter se dissidentes varietates et, quod doctissimorum hominum ingenia mentesque diu torsit, ipsae exemplarium non solum inter se sed a veteribus etiam scriptoribus dissensiones. Quod malum primo a multis ignoratum, ab aliis postea neglectum, quotidie longius serpens, principem librum, et a quo tota lex divina et Christiana pendent instituta, non levibus maculis inquinavit. Quo nomine dici non potest quantum omnes boni debeant Sixto V. Pont. Max. Is enim quod in sacris litteris, unde sanctissimam hausit doctrinam, aetatem fere totam contriverit, quodque in hoc libro cum veterum scriptis conferendo singularem quandam diligentiam adhibuerit, vidit primus qua ratione huic malo medendum esset; nec vidit solum, sed auctoritate etiam sua effecit ut summus Pontifex Gregorius XIII. Graeca Septuaginta Interpretum Biblia, adhibita diligenti castigatione, in pristinum splendorem restituenda curaret. Quam rem exequendam cum ille demandasset Antonio Carafae Cardinali, viro veteris sanctitatis et omnium honestarum artium cultori, nulla is interposita mora delectum habuit doctissimorum hominum qui domi suae statis diebus exemplaria manuscripta, quae permulta undique conquisierat, conferrent et ex iis optimas quasque lectiones elicerent; quibus deinde cum codice Vaticanae biliothecae saepe ac diligenter comparatis intellectum est, eum codicem omnium qui extant longe optimum esse, ac operae pretium fore si ad eius fidem nova haec editio pararetur.
Sed emendationis consilio iam explicato, ipso quoque ratio quae in emendando adhibita est nunc erit apertenda, in primisque Vaticanus liber describendus, ad cuius praescriptum haec editio expolita est. Codex is, quantum ex forma characterum coniici potest, cum sit maioribus litteris quas vere antiquas vocant exaratus, ante millesimum ducentesimum annum, hoc est ante tempora B. Hieronymi et non infra, scriptus videtur. Ex 178omnibus autem libris qui in manibus fuerunt unus hic prae aliis, quia ex editione Septuaginta si non toto libro certe maiorem partem constare vises est, mirum in modum institutam emendationem adiuvit; post eum vero alii duo qui ad eius vetustatem proximi quidem sed longe proximi intervallo accedunt, unus Venetus ex bibliotheca Bessarionis Cardinalis, et is quoque grandioribus litteris scriptus; alter qui ex Magna Graecia advectus nunc est Carafae Cardinalis: qui liber cum Vaticano codice ita in omnibus consentit ut credi possit ex eodem archetypo descriptus esse. Praeter hos magno etiam usui fuerunt libri ex Medicea bibliotheca Florentiae collati, qui Vaticanas lectiones multis locis aut confirmarunt aut illustrarunt. Sed libri Vaticani bonitas non tam ex horum codicum miro consensu perspecta est, quam ex iis locis qui partim adducuntur partim explicantur ab antiquis sacris scriptoribus; qui fere nusquam huius exemplaris lectiones non exhibent ac reponunt, nisi ubi aliorum Interpretum locum aliquem afferunt, non Septuaginta. quorum editio cum esset nova emendatione perpolienda, recte ad huius libri normam, qui longe omnium antiquissimus, solus iuxta Septuaginta inscribitur, perpolita est; vel potius rectissime liber ipse ad litteram, quoad fieri potuit per antiquam orthographiam aut per librarii lapsus, est expressus. Nam vetus illa et iam absoleta eius aetatis scriptura aliquibus locis repraesentata non est; cum tamen in aliis omnibus, nisi ubi manifestus apparebat librarii lapsus, ne latum quidem unguem, ut aiunt, ab huius libri auctoritate discessum sit, ne in iis quidem quae si minus mendo, certe suspicione mendi videbantur non carere. satius enim visum est locos vel aliquo modo suspectos (nec enim fieri potest ut in quantumvis expurgate exemplari non aliqua supersit macula) quemadmodum habentur in archetypo relinqui quam eos ex alicuius ingenio aut coniectura emendari: quod multa quae primo vel mendosa vel mutilata in hoc codice videbantur, ea postea cum aliis libris collata vera et sincera reperirentur. Nam in libris Prophetarum, qui maxime in hoc exemplari (uno excepto Daniele) puram Septuaginta editionem resipiunt, mirum quam multa non habeantur; quae tamen recte abesse et eorum Interpretum non esse, intellectum est tum ex commentariis veterum scriptorum Graecis et Latinis, tum ex libris manuscriptis in quibus illa addita sent sub asteriscis.
Atque haec ratio in notationibus quoque servata est, in quibus cum multa sint ex commentariis Graecis petita quae in codicibus manuscriptis partim mutilata partim varie scripta aliquibus locis circumferuntur, ea non aliter atque in archetypis exemplaribus reperiuntur descripta sunt, quo uniuscuiusque arbitratu adiuvantibus libris restitui possint. Nec vero illud omittendum, quod item pertinet ad notationes; non omnia 179in its repraesentata esse quae aut ad confirmandas lectiones Vaticanas e scriptoribus vulgatis, aut ad explenda quae in Septuaginta non habentur, ex aliorum editionibus afferri potuissent, quod in communibus libris cum legantur, inde sibi unusquisque nullo negotio ea parare possit. Quae vero in libris manuscriptis reperta, vel ad indicandas antiquarum tum lectionum tum interpretationum varietates (sub scholii illas nomine, quod ipsarum incerta esset auctoritas, nonnunquam relatas) vel ad stabiliendam scripturam Vaticanam et eius obscuriores locos illustrandos pertinere visa sunt, ea certe non sunt praetermissa.
Ordo autem librorum in Vaticano exemplari cum idem fere sit cum eo qui apud Graecos circumfertur, a vulgatis tamen editionibus variat in hoc quod primo habet duodecim Prophetas et hos ipsos aliter dispositos; deinde reliquos quattuor, quemadmodum vulgo editi sunt. Atque hunc ordinem verum esse intelligimus ex eo quod illum agnoscunt et probant veteres Ecclesiastici scriptores. Et cum toto exemplari nulla capitum divisio sit, (nam in nova editione consultum est legentium commoditati) in libro tamen quattuor Prophetarum distinctio quaedam apparet subobscura, illi paene similts quam describit sanctus Dorotheus martyr, qui vixit sub Magno Constantino.
Maccabaeorum libri absunt ab hoc exemplari, atque item liber Genesis fere totus; nam longo aevo consumptis membranis mutilatus est ab initio libri usque ad caput XLVII. et liber item Psalmorum, qui a Psalmo CV. usque ad CXXXVIII. nimia vetustate mancus est. Sed haec ex aliorum codicum collatione emendata sunt.
Quod si aliqua videbuntur in hac editione, ut ait B. Hieronymus, vel lacerata vel inversa, quod ea sub obelis et asteriscis ab Origene suppleta et distincta non sint; vel obscura et perturbata, quod cum Latina vulgata non consentiant, et in aliquibus aliis editionibus apertius et expressius habeantur; eris lector admonendus, non eo spectasse huius expolitionis industriam ut haec editio ex permixtis eorum qui supra nominati sunt interpretationibus (instar eius quam scribit B. Hieronymus a Graecis 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, dubitabit nemo qui hanc cum illa accurate comparaverit.
Quae si doctis viris et pie sentientibus, ut aequum est, probabuntur, reliquum erit ut Sixto V. Pont. Max. huius boni auctori gratias agant, et ab omnipotenti Deo publicis votis poscant, 180 optimum Principem nobis florentem quam diutissime servet. qui cum omnes curas cogitationesque suas in amplificandam ornandamque Ecclesiae dignitatem contulerit, dubitandum non est quin Rep. Christiana optimis legibus et sanctissimis institutis per eum reformata, religione ac pietate, revocatis antiquis ritibus, in suum splendorem restituta, in hoc quoque publicam causam sit adiuturus ut sacri veteres libri, hominum incuria vel improbitate corrupti, pro sua eximia benignitate ab omni labe vindicati, quam emendatissimi pervulgentur.
(3) SIXTUS PAPA V.
Ad perpetuam rei memoriam. Cupientes, quantum in nobis est, commissi nobis gregis salute quacunque ratione ac via prospicere, ad pastoralem nostram curam pertinere vehementer arbitramur Sacrae Scripturae libros, quibus salutaris doctrina continetur, ab omnibus maculis expurgatos integros purosque pervulgari. Id nos in inferiori gradu constituti, quantum potuimus, studio et diligentia nostra praestitimus, et in hac altissima specula a Deo collocati assidue mentis nostrae oculis spectare non desistimus. Cum itaque superioribus annis piae recordationis Gregorius Papa XIII. praedecessor noster, nobis suggerentibus, Graecum Vetus Testamentum iuxta Septuaginta Interpretum editionem, qua ipsi etiam Apostoli nonnunquam usi fuerunt, ad emendatissimorum codicum fidem expoliendum mandaverit; eius rei cura dilecto filio nostro Antonio Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Presbytero Cardinali Carafae, et ad id per eum delectis eruditis aliquot viris demandata, et iam expolitio huiusmodi, permultis exemplaribus ex diversis Italiae bibliothecis et praecipue ex nostra Vaticana diligenter collatis matureque examinatis, absoluta sit: Volumus et sancimus ad Dei gloriam et Ecclesiae utilitatem, ut Vetus Graecum Testamentum iuxta Septuaginta ita recognitum et expolitum ab omnibus recipiatur ac retineatur, quo potissimum ad Latinae vulgatae editionis et veterum Sanctorum Patrum intelligentiam utantur. Prohibentes ne quis de hac nova Graeca editione audeat in posterum vel addendo vel demendo quicquam immutare. Si quis autem aliter fecerit quam hac nostra sanctione comprehensum est, noverit se in Dei Omnipotentis beatorumque Apostolorum Petri et Pauli indignationem incursurum.
Datum Romae apud Sanctum Marcum sub Anulo Piscatoris. Die viii. Octobris M.D.LXXXVI, Pontificatus nostri anno secundo. Tho. Thom. Gualterutius.
The reader will not fail to note the intelligent appreciation of the LXX., and the wide outlook over the history of the Greek 181versions which are implied by these documents[1]. They shew that the Vatican had already learnt the true value of the Alexandrian Old Testament and, as a consequence, had resolved to place in the hands of the scholars of Europe as pure a text as could be obtained of the version which was used by the ancient Church, and was now felt to be essential to a right understanding of the Fathers and of the Latin Vulgate. The inception of the work was due to Pope Sixtus himself, who had suggested it to his predecessor Gregory XIII. in 1578; but the execution was entrusted to Cardinal Antonio Carafa and a little band of Roman scholars including Cardinal Sirleto, Antonio Agelli, and Petrus Morinus. Search was made in the libraries of Italy as well as in the Vatican for MSS. of the LXX., but the result of these enquiries satisfied the editors of the superiority of the great Vatican Codex (B = cod. Vat. gr. 1209) over an other known codices, and it was accordingly taken as the basis of the new edition. Use was made, however, of other MSS., among which were a Venice MS. which has been identified with S. Marc. cod. gr. 1 (H. P. 23, Lag. V); a MS. belonging to Carafa, possibly cod. Vat. gr. 1252 (H. P. 63 + 129, cf. Klostermann, p. 12 f., and Batiffol, Bulletin critique, 15 Mars 1889), and certain Laurentian MSS. of which collations are still preserved in the Vatican Library (Vat. gr. 1241, 1242, 1244; see Batiffol, La Vaticane, p. 90 f.). From these and other sources the editors supplied the large lacunae of Cod. B[1]. But they did not limit themselves to the filling up of gaps or even to the correction of errors, as will appear from a comparison of the Sixtine text with the photographic representation of the Vatican MS. The edition of 1587 is not an exact reproduction of a single codex, even where the selected MS. was available; but it is based as a whole on a great uncial 182MS., and it is the first edition of the LXX. which possesses this character. Moreover, criticism has confirmed the judgement of the Roman editors in regard to the selection of their basal MS. It is a fortunate circumstance that the authority of the Vatican was given before the end of the sixteenth century to a text of the LXX. which is approximately pure.
Besides the text the Roman edition contained considerable materials for the criticism of the Greek Old Testament, collected by the labours of Morinus, Agelli, Nobilius, and others. These include readings and scholia from MSS. of the LXX., renderings from Aquila and the other non-Septuagintal Greek versions, and a large assortment of patristic citations.
Editions based upon the Sixtine are very numerous. The following list is abridged from Nestle's Urtext (p. 65 ff.):
1. Jo. Morinus, Paris, 1628, 1641. 2. R. Daniel, London, 4to and 8vo, 1653; Cambridge, 1653. 3. B. Walton, London, 1657 (the third column of his Polyglott). 4. Field, Cambridge, 1665 (with the praefatio paraenetica of J. Pearson [1], Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, afterwards Bp of Chester). 5. J. Leusden, Amsterdam, 1683. 6. Leipzig, 1697 (with prolegomena by J. Frick). 7. L. Bos, Frankfort, 1709. 8. D. Mill, Amsterdam, 1725. g. C. Reineccius, Leipzig, 1730. 10. Halle, 1759—62 (with a preface by J. G. Kirchner). 11. Holmes and Parsons, Oxford, 1798—1827. 12. Oxford, 1817 (with introduction by J. [G.][1] Carpzow). 13. F. Valpy, London, 1819. 14. London, 1821, 26, 31, 51, 69, 78 (the LXX. column of Bagster's Polyglott). 15. Venice, 1822. 16. Glasgow and London, 1822, 31, 43. 17. L. Van Ess, Leipzig, 1824, 35, 55, 68, 79, 87 (prolegomena and epilegomena separately in 1887). 18. London, 1837. 19. Didot, Paris, 1839, 40, 48, 55, 78, 82. 20. Oxford, 1848, 75. 21. A. F. C. von Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1850, 56, 60, 69, 75, 80, 87.
Of the above some are derived from the Sixtine indirectly, whilst others present a Sixtine text more or less modified, or accompanied by variants from other MSS.
4. The example of Rome was followed in the 18th century by England, which had meanwhile acquired an uncial Bible 183only less ancient, and in the view of some scholars textually more important than the great Vatican MS. The variants of Codex Alexandrinus had been given in Walton's Polyglott under the Sixtine text[1], but the honour of producing an edition on the basis of the English codex belongs to a Prussian scholar, John Ernest Grabe, an adopted son of the University of Oxford. This edition appeared ultimately in four folio volumes (1707—20), but only the first and fourth had been published when Grabe died (1712); the second and third were undertaken after his decease by Francis Lee, M.D., and William Wigan, D.D. respectively. Vol. i. (1707) contains the Octateuch, Vol. ii. (1719) the Historical Books, Vol. iii. (1720) the Prophets, Vol. iv. (1709) the Poetical Books. The title to the first volume runs: "Septuaginta | interpretum | tomus I | continens Octateuchum | quem | ex antiquissimo codice Alexandrino | accurate descriptum | et ope aliorum exemplarium, ac priscorum scriptorum | praesertim vero Hexaplaris editionis Origenianae | emendatum atque suppletum | additis saepe asteriscorum et obelorum signis | summa cura edidit | Joannes Ernestus Grabe S.T.P. | Oxonii, a theatro Sheldoniano | . . . MDCCVII."
This title sufficiently indicates the general principles upon which this great undertaking was based. Like the Sixtine edition, Grabe's is in the main a presentation of the text exhibited in a single uncial codex; like the Sixtine, but to a greater extent, its text is in fact eclectic and mixed. On the other hand the mixture in Grabe's Alexandrian text is overt and can be checked at every point. He deals with his codex as Origen dealt with the 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 asterisk 184before such as he believed to have been derived from Theodotion or some other non-Septuagintal source. If he constantly adds to his MS. or relegates its readings to the margin, such additions and substituted words are distinguished from the text of cod. A by being printed in a smaller type. So far as it professes to reproduce the text of the MS., his edition is substantially accurate. The prolegomena by which each volume is introduced are full and serviceable; and the work as a whole, whatever may be thought of the method adopted by the editors, is creditable to the Biblical scholarship of the age.
Grabe's text was reproduced by Breitinger (Zurich, 1730—2), and Reineccius (in his Biblia sacra quadrilinguia, Leipzig, 1750—1); also in a Greek Bible issued at Moscow in 1821 under the authority of the Holy Synod. A more important work based upon this edition is the Septuagint published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge under the care of Dr Field (Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX. interpretes. Recensionem Grabianam ad fidem codicis Alexandrini aliorumque denuo recognovit . . . F. Field, Oxonii, 1859). But the purpose which the Society had in view forbade a critical treatment of the materials, and whilst the learned editor has removed many of the imperfections of Grabe's work, the text remains arbitrary and mixed, and the arrangement is alien from that of all LXX. MSS. the non-canonical books being relegated to an appendix as 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 185were printed underneath the Sixtine text, and those of Codex Sarravianus were exhibited in the Septuagint of Lambert Bos. But the first comprehensive effort in this direction was made by Robert Holmes (1748—1805), Professor of Poetry at Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church, and, from 1804, Dean of Winchester. The preparations for his great work were begun in 1788. An appeal was made to the liberality of public bodies and private patrons of learning, and the task of collating MSS. was committed to a large number of scholars at home and on the continent, whose names are honourably mentioned in the opening pages of the first volume. From 1789 to 1805 an annual account was printed of the progress of the work[1], and the Bodleian Library contains 164 volumes of MS. collations (Holmes MSS. A.D. 1789—1805, nos. 16455—16617)[1] which were deposited there during those seventeen years. In 1795 a specimen of the forthcoming work was published together with a transcript of the Vienna Genesis in a letter to the Bishop of Durham (Shute Barrington). Genesis appeared separately in 1798, followed in the same year by the first volume bearing the title: Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus. Edidit Robertus Holmes, S.T.P., R.S.S., Aedis Christi Canonicus. Tomus primus. Oxonii: e typographeo Clarendoniano. MDCCXCVIII. This volume, which contains the Pentateuch, with a preface and appendix, was the only one which Holmes lived to complete. He died Nov. 12, 1805, and two years later the editorship was entrusted to James Parsons[1], under whose care the remaining volumes were issued (Vol. ii., Joshua—2 Chronicles, 1810; Vol. iii., 2 Esdras—Canticles, 1823; Vol. iv., Prophets, 1827; Vol. v., the non-canonical books, 1 Esdras—3 Maccabees, 1827). At the end of Vol. v. there is a list of the Greek MSS. collated 186for the work. Three hundred and eleven are enumerated. (i.—xiii., 14—311); a corrected estimate gives a total of 297 separate codices, of which 20 are uncial. Besides the readings of this large number of Greek MSS., the apparatus of Holmes and Parsons exhibits the evidence of the Old Latin versions so far as it had been collected by Sabatier, and of the Coptic (Memphitic and Sahidic), Arabic, Slavonic, Armenian and Georgian versions, obtained partly from MSS., partly from printed texts. Use was also made of patristic citations and of the four great editions of the Septuagint, the Sixtine supplying the text, while the Aldine, Complutensian and Alexandrine (Grabian) are cited in the notes. In addition to these, Holmes employed the printed text of the catena of Nicephorus (Leipzig, 1772—3), and J. F. Fischer's edition of cod. Lips. 361 (Leipzig, 1767—8)[1].
The great work of Holmes and Parsons has been severely criticised by later scholars, especially by Hatch[1] and Lagarde[1]. A vigorous defence of the Oxford editors will be found in a recent article in the Church Quarterly Review (already quoted). It appears to be certain that every effort was made by Holmes to secure the services of the best scholars who were available for the work of collation.
Among the collators of Greek MSS. employed by the Oxford editors were Bandini (Florence), C. F. Matthäi (Moscow), F. C. Alter (Vienna), Schnurrer (Tübingen), Moldenhawer (Copenhagen). "The Armenian Version was chiefly collated by Hermannus Breden-Kemp (1793) and F. C. Alter (1795—1804), the latter also taking the Georgian . . the Slavonic . . Coptic . . and Bohemian Versions. The Arabic Versions were undertaken by Paulus and Prof. Ford, and the Syriac quotations in the Horreum mysteriorum of Gregorius Bar-Hebraeus . . by Dr Holmes" (F. C. Madan, Summary catalogue, p. 640).
But in so vast an accumulation of the labours of many workers it was impossible to maintain an uniform standard of merit; nor are the methods adopted by Holmes and his continuator 187altogether 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[1]) ut textum per tria fere secula probatissimum repeterem, mutatis tantummodo quibus mutatione maxime opus esset, addita vero plena lectionis varietate ex tribus codicibus antiquissimis quos fere solos utpote editos confidenter adhibere licebat." The three MSS. employed by Tischendorf in his first edition (1850) were A (from Baber's facsimile), C (from his own facsimile), and FA, the portion of Cod. Sinaiticus which was published in 1846; in the third and fourth editions he was able to make further use of Cod. Sinaiticus, and to take into account Mai's edition of Cod. B.
Since Tischendorf's death three more editions of his Septuagint have appeared—a fifth in 1875, a sixth and a seventh in 1880 and 1887 respectively, the last two under the supervision of Dr Eberhard Nestle. Nestle added a Supplementum editionum quae Sixtinam sequuntur omnium in primis Tischendorfianarum, consisting of a collation of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. with the Sixtine text, the Vatican text being obtained from Vercellone and Cozza's facsimile, and the Sinaitic from Tischendorf's edition of א; an appendix contained a collation of Daniel (LXX.) from Cozza's edition of the Chigi MS. The Supplementum was reissued in 1887 with various enrichments, of which the most important 188was a collation of cod. A from the London photograph which appeared in 1882—3. With these helps the reader of Tischendorf's Septuagint is able to correct and supplement the apparatus, and to compare the text with that of cod. B so far as it could be ascertained before the publication of the photograph.
7. Another of the great Biblical scholars of the nineteenth century, Paul de Lagarde, commenced an edition of the Greek Old Testament, which was intended to be a definite step towards the reconstruction of the text. Lagarde's general plan was announced in Symmicta ii. (1880), p. 137 ff., and in a modified and simpler form by a pamphlet published two years later (Ankündigung einer neuen Ausgabe der griechischen übersetzung des A.T., Göttingen, 1882). A beginning was made by the appearance of the first half of the text of the Lucianic recension (Librorum V.T. canonicorum pars prior Graece Pauli de Lagarde studio et sumptibus edita, Göttingen, 1883). Lagarde's untimely death in 1891 left this work incomplete, and though his papers are preserved at Göttingen, it is understood that no steps will be taken to carry out the scheme, at least on the same lines. The published volume contains the Octateuch and the Historical Books as far as Esther. Of the last named book two texts are given, with an apparatus, but with this exception the text stands alone, and the reader knows only that it is an attempted reconstruction of Lucian, based upon six MSS. which are denoted a f h m p z (H. P. 108, 82, 19, 93, 118, 44). This is not the place to discuss Lagarde's critical principles, but it may be mentioned here that his attempt to reconstruct the text of Lucian's recension was but one of a series of projected reconstructions through which he hoped ultimately to arrive at a pure text of the Alexandrian version. The conception was a magnificent one, worthy of the great scholar who originated it; but it was beset with practical difficulties, and there is reason to hope that the desired end may be attained by means less complicated and more direct.
8. In the spring of 1883 the Syndics of the Cambridge
189University Press issued a notice that they had undertaken
"[1]an edition of the Septuagint and Apocrypha with an ample
apparatus criticus
intended to provide material for a critical
determination of the text," in which it was "proposed to give
the variations of all the Greek uncial MSS., of select Greek
cursive MSS., of the more important versions, and of the
quotations made by Philo and the earlier and more important
ecclesiastical writers." As a preliminary step they announced
the preparation of "a portable text . . . taken from the Vatican
MS., where this MS. is not defective, with the variations of two
or three other early uncial MSS." The suggestion was originally
due to Dr Scrivener, who submitted it to the Syndics of the
Press in the year 1875, but was ultimately prevented by many
preoccupations and failing health from carrying his project into
execution. After undergoing various modifications it was committed
in 1883 to the present writer, instructed by a committee
consisting of Professors Westcott, Hort, Kirkpatrick, and Bensly;
to Dr Hort in particular the editor was largely indebted for
counsel in matters of detail. The first edition of the portable
text was completed in 1894 (The Old Testament in Greek
according to the Septuagint, vol. i., Genesis—4 Regn., 1887;
vol. ii., 1 Chron.—Tobit, 1891; vo1 iii., Hosea—4 Macc.,
r89q); the second and third revised editions[1] followed (vol. i.,
1895, 1901; vol. ii., 1896, 1907; vol. iii., 1899, 1905[1]).
The larger Cambridge Septuagint has been entrusted to the
joint editorship of Dr A. E. Brooke, Fellow of King's College,
and Mr N. McLean, Fellow of Christ's College; and
of the Octateuch, which will form the first volume, Genesis
appeared in 1906, Exod.,
A word may be added with regard to the text which will be common to the manual and the larger edition of the Cambridge Septuagint. It is that of the great Vatican MS., with its lacunae supplied from the uncial MS. which occupies the next plane in point of age or importance. For a text formed in this way no more can be claimed than that it represents on the whole the oldest form of the Septuagint to be found in any one of our extant MSS. But it supplies at least an excellent standard of comparison, and until a critical text has been produced[1], it may fairly be regarded as the most trustworthy presentation of the Septuagint version regarded as a whole.
II. EDITIONS OF PARTICULAR BOOKS, OR OF GROUPS OR PORTIONS OF BOOKS.
THE PENTATEUCH.
G. A. Schumann, 1829; Pentateuchus hebraice et graece, 1 (Genesis only published).
GENESIS.
P. A. de Lagarde, Leipzig, 1868: Genesis graece e fide editionis Sixtinae addita scripturae discrepantia e libris manu scriptis a se collatis et edd. Complutensi et Aldina adcuratissime enotata. The MSS. employed are ADEFGS, 25, 29, 31, 44, 122, 130, 135. The text is preceded by useful lists of the available uncial MSS. and VSS. of the LXX.
DEUTERONOMY.
C. L. F. Hamann, Jena, 1874: Canticum Moysi ex Psalterio quadruplici . . . manu scripto quod Bambergae asservatur.
JOSHUA.
A. Masius, Antwerp, 1574: Iosuae imperatoris historia. Readings are given from the Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus.
JUDGES.
J. Ussher, 1655 (in his Syntagma, Works, vol. vii.). Two texts in parallel columns (1) "ex codice Romano," (2) "ex codice Alexandrino."
O. F. Fritzsche, Zurich, 1867: liber Iudicum secundum lxx. interpretes. A specimen had previously appeared (in 1866).
P. A. de Lagarde, 1891 (in his Septuaginta-studien, 1. c. i.—v.). Two texts.
A. E. Brooke and N. McLean, Cambridge, 1897: The Book of Judges in Greek, acc. to the text of Codex Alexandrinus.
[G. F. Moore, Andover, Mass. (in his Critical and exegetical Commentary on Judges, p. xlv.), promises an edition of the recension of the book exhibited by K, 54, 59, 75, 82, and Theodoret.]
RUTH.
Drusius, 1586, 1632.
L. Bos, Jena, 1788: Ruth ex versione lxx. interpretum secundum exemplar Vaticanum.
O. F. Fritzsche, Zurich, 1867: Ῥοὺθ κατὰ τοὺς οʹ.
PSALMS.
Separate editions of the Greek Psalter were published at Milan, 148I; Venice, 1486; Venice, not later than 1498 (Aldus Manutius); Basle, 1516 (in Hieronymi Opera, t. viii., ed. Pellicanus); Genoa, 1516 (Octaplum Psalterium Justiniani); Cologne, 1518 (Psalterium in iv. linguis cura Iohannis Potken). Other known editions bear the dates 1524, 1530 (Ps. sextuplex), 1921533, 1541, 1543, 1549, 1557, 1559, 1571, 1584, 1602, 1618, 1627, 1632, 1643, 1678 (the Psalter of cod. A), 1737, 1757, 1825, 1852, 1857, 1879 (Ps. tetraglotton, ed. Nestle), 1880, 1887 (Lagarde, Novae psalterii gr. editionis specimen), 1889 (Swete, The Psalms in Greek acc. to the LXX., with the Canticles; 2nd ed. 1896), 1892 (Lagarde, Ps. gr. quinquagena prima[1]).
JOB.
Patrick Young, 1637 (in the Catena of Nicetas).
J. Terrentius, Franeker, 1663.
ESTHER.
J. Ussher, 1655 (in his Syntagma, Works, vol. vii.). Two texts, one Hexaplaric from an Arundel MS. (H. P. 93). A second edition, Leipzig, 1696.
O. F. Fritzsche, Zurich, 1848: Ἐσθήρ. Duplicem libri textum ad opt. Codd. emendavit et cum selecta lectionis varietate edidit. The Greek additions appear also in his Libri apocryphi V. T. (see below).
MINOR PROPHETS.
W. O. E. Oesterley, Codex Taurinensis, 1908 (with apparatus).
HOSEA.
J. Philippeaux, Paris, 1636;
D. Pareus, Heidelberg, 1605: Hoseas commentariis illustratus.
AMOS.
Vater, Halle, 1810.
W. O. E. Oesterley, Cambridge, 1902 (parallel texts of Q, 22).
JONAH.
S. Münster, 1524, 1543.
ISAIAH.
S. Münster, 1540 (in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin).
J. Curter, Paris, 1580 (in Procopii commentarii in Iesaiam—text based on Cod. Q).
R. R. Ottley, Cambridge, 1906 (text of Cod. A).
JEREMIAH.
S. Münster, 1540.
G. L. Spohn, Leipzig, 1794: Jeremias vates e vers. Judaeorum Alex. ac reliquorum interpretum Gr.; 2nd ed., 1824.
LAMENTATIONS.
Kyper, Basle, 1552: Libri tres de re gramm. Hebr. ling. (Hebr Gr., Lat.).
193EZEKIEL.
Ἰεζεκιὴλ κατὰ τοὺς οʹ, Rome, 1840.
DANIEL (Theod.).
Ph. Melanchthon, 1546.
Wells, 1716.
DANIEL (LXX.).
S. de Magistris (?), Rome, 1772. Daniel secundum lxx. ex tetraplis Origenis nunc primum editus a singulari Chrisiano codice. Reprinted at Göttingen, 1773, 1774; (Michaelis); at Utrecht, 1775 (Segaar); at Milan, 1788 (Bugati); and at Leipzig, 1845 (Hahn). Cozza, 1877. The LXX. text is also given in the editions of Holmes and Parsons, Oxf. ed. of 1848, 1875, Tischendorf, and Swete.
NON-CANONICAL BOOKS (in general)[1].
J. A. Fabricius, Frankfort and Leipzig, 1691: Liber Tobias, Judith, oratio Manasse, Sapientia, et Ecclesiasticus, gr. et lat., cum prolegomenis. Other complete editions were published at Frankfort on the Main, 1694, and at Leipzig, 1804 and 1837; the best recent edition is that by
O. F. Fritzsche, Leipzig, 1871: Libri apocryphi V. T. gr. . . . accedunt libri V. T. pseudepigraphi selecti (Psalmi Salomonis, —5 Esdras, Apocalypse of Baruch, Assumption of Moses]. This edition, besides the usual books, gives 4 Maccabees, and exhibits Esther in two texts, and Tobit in three; there is a serviceable preface and an extensive apparatus criticus.
WISDOM OF SOLOMON.
Older editions: 1586, 1601, 1733, 1827.
Reusch, Freiburg, 1858; Liber Sapientiae sec. exemplar Vaticanum.
W. J. Deane, Oxford, 1881: The Book of Wisdom, the Greek text, the Latin Vulgate, and the A. V.; with an introduction, critical apparatus, and commentary.
WISDOM OF SIRACH.
Hoeschel, Augsburg, 1604: Sapientia Sirachi s. Ecclesiasticus, collatis lectionibus var . . . . cum notis.
Linde, Dantzig, 1795: Sententiae Iesu Siracidae ad fidem codd: et versionum.
Bretschneider, Regensburg, 1806: Liber Iesu Siracidae.
Cowley-Neubauer, Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, &c. (Oxford, 1897); Schechter-Taylor, Wisdom of Ben Sira: (Cambridge, 1899)[1].
J. H. A. Hart, Cambridge, 191O (text of Cod. 248).
194TOBIT.
Reusch, Bonn, 1870: Libellus Tobit e cod. Sinaitico.
BARUCH.
Kneucker, Leipzig, 1879.
1 MACCABEES.
Drusius, Frankfort, 1600; Bruns, Helmstadt, 1784.
PSALMS OF SOLOMON.
J. L. de la Cerda, in an appendix to his Adversaria Sacra, Lyons, 1626.
J. A. Fabricius, in Codex pseudepigraphus V. T., Hamburg and Leipzig, 1715.
A. Hilgenfeld, in Zeitschrift für wissensch. Th. xi., and in Messias Iudaeorum, Leipzig, 1869.
E. E. Geiger, Augsburg, 1871: Der Psalter Salomo's herausegeben.
O. F. Fritzsche in Libri apocryphi V. T. gr.
B. Pick, Alleghany, Pens., in the Presbyterian Review, 1883.
H. E. Ryle and M. R. James, Cambridge, 1891: Psalms of the Pharisees commonly called the Psalms of Solomon; the Greek text with an apparatus, notes, indices, and an introduction.
H. B. Swete in O. T. in Greek, vol. iii., Cambridge, 1894; 2nd ed. 1899.
O. von Gebhardt, Leipzig, 1895: Die Psalmen Salomo's.
ENOCH (the Greek version of).
The fragments [in Ep.
LITERATURE (upon the general subject of this chapter).
Le Long-Masch, ii. p. 262 ff., Fabricius-Harles, p. 673 ff., Rosenmüller, Handbuch, i. p. 47 ff., Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, p. 242 ff:, Tischendorf, V. T. Gr:, prolegomena § vii. sqq., Van Ess [Nestle], epilegomena, § 1 sqq., Loisy, Histoire critique, 1. ii. p. 65 ff., Nestle, Septuaginta-studien, i. 1886, ii. 1896, iii. 1899; Urtext, p. 64 ff.
Part II.
195
196
197
Chapter I. Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of the Books.
THE Greek Old Testament, as known to us through the few codices which contain it as a whole, and from the lists which appear in the Biblical MSS. or in ancient ecclesiastical writings, differs from the Hebrew Bible in regard to the titles of the books which are common to both, and the principle upon which the books are grouped. The two collections differ yet more materially in the number of the books, the Greek Bible containing several entire writings of which there is no vestige in the Hebrew canon, besides large additions to the contents of more than one of the Hebrew books. These differences are of much interest to the Biblical student, since they express a tradition which, inherited by the Church from the Alexandrian synagogue, has widely influenced Christian opinion upon the extent of the Old Testament Canon, and the character and purpose of the several books.
1981. The following tables shew (A) the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin titles of the canonical books of the Old Testament; (B) the order and grouping of the books in (1) lists of Jewish origin, (2) the great uncial MSS. of the Greek Bible, (3) patristic and synodical lists of the (a) Eastern, (b) Western Church.
A. TITLES OF THE BOOKS.
Hebrew | Transliteration[1] | Septuagint | Vulgate Latin | ||
בְּרֵשִׁית | Βρησίθ | Γένεσις | Genesis | ||
וְאלֶּה שְׁמוֹת | Οὐηλε σμώθ | Ἔξοδος | Exodus | ||
וַיִקְרָא | Οὐικρά | Λευ[ε]ιτικόν | Leviticus | ||
וַיְדַבֵּר | Ἅμμες φεκωδείμ[1] | Ἀριθμοί | Numeri | ||
אֵלֵּה הַדְּבָרִים | Ἔλε ἁδδεβαρείμ | Δευτερονόμιον | Deuteronomium | ||
יְהוֹשֻׁעַ | Ἰωσοῦε βὲν Νούν | Ἰησοῦς | Iosue | ||
שׁוֹפְטִים | Σαφατείμ | Κριταί | Iudices | ||
שְׁמוּאֵל | Σαμουήλ | Βασιλειῶν{ |
αʹ, βʹ γʹ, δʹ |
Regum{ | 1, 2 3, 4 |
מְלַכִים | Οὐαμμὲλχ Δαβίδ[1] | ||||
יְשַׁעְיָה ,יְשַׁעְיָהוּ | Ἰεσσιά | Ἠσαίας | Isaias | ||
יִרְמְיָה ,יִרְמְיָהוּ | Ἰερεμιά | Ἰερεμίας | Ieremias | ||
יְחֶזַקֵאל | Ἰεζεκιήλ | Ἰεζεκιήλ | Ezechiel | ||
הוֹשֵׁעַ | Ὡσῆε | Osee | |||
יוֹאֵל | Ἰωήλ | Ioel | |||
עָמוֹס | Ἀμώς | Amos | |||
עֹבַדְיָה | Ὀβδειού, Ἀβδ[ε]ιού | Abdias |
יוֹנָה | Ἰωνᾶς | Ionas | |
מִיכָה | Μ[ε]ιχαίας | Michaeas | |
נָחוּם ,נַחוּם | Ναούμ | Nahum | |
חֲבַקּוּק | Ἁμβακούμ | Habacuc | |
צְפַנְיָה | Σοφονίας | Sophonias | |
חַגַּי | Ἁγγαῖος | Aggaeus | |
זְכַרְיָה | Ζαχαρίας | Zacharias | |
מַלְאָכִי | Μαλαχίας | Malachias | |
תְּהִלִּים | Σφὰρ θελλείμ | Ψαλμοί, Ψαλτήριον | Psalmi |
מִשְׁלֵי | Μελώθ[1] | Παροιμίαι | Proverbia |
אִיּוֹב | Ἰώβ | Ἰώβ | Iob |
שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים | Σὶρ ἁσσιρίμ | ᾼσμα, ᾄσματα [ᾀσμάτων] | Canticum canticorum |
רוּת[1] | Ῥούθ | Ruth | |
אֵיכָה[1] | Θρῆνοι | Threni, Lamentationes | |
קֹהֶלֶת | Κωέλθ | Ἐκκλησιαστής | Ecclesiastes |
אֶסְתֵּר | Ἐσθήρ | Ἐσθήρ | Esther |
דָּנִיֵּאל | Δανιήλ | Δανιήλ | Daniel |
צֶזְרָא | Ἐζρά | Ἔσδρας | Esdras 1, 2 |
דִּבְרֵי־הַיָמִים | Δαβρὴ ἰαμείν | Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ | Paralipomenon 1, 2 |
200
B (1). ORDER OF THE BOOKS IN JEWISH LISTS[1].
TALMUDIC | SPANISH MSS. | GERMAN & FRENCH MSS. | MASSORETIC MSS. | PRINTED BIBLES |
I Torah | " | " | " | " |
II Nebiim | " | " | " | " |
Joshua | Joshua | Joshua | Joshua | Joshua |
Judges | Judges | Judges | Judges | Judges |
Samuel | Samuel | Samuel | Samuel | 1, 2 Samuel |
Kings | Kings | Kings | Kings | 1, 2 Kings |
Jeremiah | Isaiah | Jeremiah | Isaiah | Isaiah |
Ezekiel | Jeremiah | Isaiah | Jeremiah | Jeremiah |
Isaiah | Ezekiel | Ezekiel | Ezekiel | Ezekiel |
xii Prophets | xii Prophets | xii Prophets | xii Prophets | Hosea |
Joel | ||||
Amos | ||||
Obadiah | ||||
Jonah | ||||
Micah | ||||
Nahum | ||||
Habakkuk | ||||
Zephaniah | ||||
Haggai | ||||
Zachariah | ||||
Malachi | ||||
III Kethubim | " | " | " | " |
Ruth | Chronicles | Psalms | Chronicles | Psalms |
Psalms | Psalms | Proverbs | Psalms | Proverbs |
Job | Job | Job | Job | Job |
Proverbs | Proverbs | Song of Songs | Proverbs | Song of Songs |
Ecclesiastes | Ruth | Ruth | Ruth | Ruth |
Song of Songs | Song of Songs | Lamentations | Song of Songs | Lamentations |
Lamentations | Ecclesiastes | Ecclesiastes | Ecclesiastes | Ecclesiastes |
Daniel | Lamentations | Esther | Lamentations | Esther |
Esther | Esther | Daniel | Esther | Daniel |
Ezra-Neh. | Daniel | Ezra-Neh. | Daniel | Ezra-Neh. |
Chronicles | Ezra-Neh. | Chronicles | Ezra-Neh. | 1, 2 Chronicles |
201
B (2). ORDER OF THE BOOKS IN UNCIAL MS. BIBLES.
Codex Vaticanus (B) | Codex sinaiticus (א) |
Γένεσις | Γένεσις |
Ἔξοδος | * |
Λευειτικόν | * |
Ἀριθμοί | Ἀριθμοί |
Δευτερονόμιον | * |
Ἰησοῦς | * |
Κριταί | * |
Ῥούθ | * |
Βασιλειῶν αʹ—δʹ | * |
Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ | Παραλειπομένων αʹ, [βʹ] |
Ἔσδρας αʹ, βʹ | Ἔσδρας [αʹ], βʹ |
Ψαλμοί | Ἐσθήρ |
Παροιμίαι | Τωβείθ |
Ἐκκλησιαστής | Ἰουδείθ |
ᾎσμα | Μακκαβαίων αʹ, δʹ |
Ἰώβ | Ἠσαίας |
Σοφία Σαλωμῶνος | Ἰερεμίας |
Σοφία Σειράχ | Θρῆνοι Ἰερεμίου |
Ἐσθήρ | * |
Ἰουδείθ | * |
Τωβείτ | * |
Ὡσῆε | * |
Ἀμώς | * |
Μειχαίας | * |
Ἰωήλ | Ἰωήλ |
Ὀβδειού | Ἀβδειού |
Ἰωνᾶς | Ἰωνᾶς |
Ναούμ | Ναούμ |
Ἁμβακούμ | Ἁμβακούμ |
Σοφονίας | Σοφονίας |
Ἁγγαῖος | Ἁγγαῖος |
Ζαχαρίας | Ζαχαρίας |
Μαλαχίας | Μαλαχίας |
Ἠσαίας | Ψαλμοὶ Δᾱδ ρναʹ (subscr.) |
Ἰερεμίας | Παροιμίαι [+ Σολομῶντος subscr.] |
Βαρούχ | Ἐκκλησιαστής |
Θρῆνοι | ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων |
Ἐπιστολὴ Ἰερεμίου | Σοφία Σαλομῶντος |
Ἰεζεκιήλ | Σοφία Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ |
Δανιήλ | Ἰώβ |
202
Codex Alexandrinus (A) | Codex Basiliano-Venetus (N+V) | |
Γένεσις κόσμου | * | |
Ἔξοδος Αἰγύπτου | * | |
Λευειτικόν | (N) | Λευιτικόν |
Ἀριθμοί | Ἀριθμοί | |
Δευτερονόμιον | Δευτερονόμιον | |
Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυή | Ἰησοῦς | |
Κριταί | Ῥούθ | |
Ῥούθ [ὁμοῦ βιβλία ηʹ] | Κριταί | |
Βασιλειῶν αʹ—δʹ | Βασιλειῶν αʹ—δʹ | |
Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ [ὁμοῦ βιβλία ςʹ] | Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ | |
Προφῆται ιςʹ | Ἔσδρας [αʹ], βʹ | |
Ὡσῆε α | Ἐσθήρ | |
Ἀμώς βʹ | * | |
Μιχαίας γʹ | * | |
Ἰωήλ δʹ | * | |
Ἀβδειού εʹ | (V) | Ἰώβ (subscr.) |
Ἰωνᾶς ςʹ | Παροιμίαι | |
Ναούμ ζʹ | Ἐκκλησιαστής | |
Ἁμβαούμ ηʹ | ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων | |
Σοφονίας θʹ | Σοφία Σολομῶντος | |
Ζαχαρίας ιαʹ | Ὡσῆε | |
Μαλαχίας ιβʹ | Ἀμώς | |
Ἠσαίας προφήτης ιγʹ | Ἰωήλ | |
Ιερεμίας προφήτης ιδʹ | Ἀβδιού | |
Βαρούχ | Ἰωνᾶς | |
Θρῆνος [+ Ἰερεμίου, subscr.] | Μιχαίας | |
Ἐπιστολὴ Ἰερεμίου | Ναούμ | |
Ἰεζεκιὴλ προφήτης ιεʹ | Ἁμβακούμ | |
Δανιήλ [+ προφήτης ιςʹ, catal.] | Σοφονίας | |
Ἐσθήρ | Ἁγγαῖος | |
Τωβίτ (Τωβείτ, subscr.) | Ζαχαρίας | |
Ἰουδείθ | Μαλαχίας | |
Ἔζρας αʹ ὁ ἱερεύς (Ἔσζρας αʹ ἱερεύς, catal.) | Ἡσαίας Ἰερεμίας |
|
Ἔζρας βʹ ἱερεύς (Ἔσζρας βʹ ἱερεύς catal.) | Βαρούχ Θρῆνοι |
|
Μακκαβαίων αʹ—δʹ | Ἰεζεκιήλ | |
Ψαλτήριον (Ψαλμοὶ ῥνʹ καὶ ἰδιόγραφος αʹsubscr., seq. ᾠδαὶ ιδʹ. Ψαλτήριον μετ᾿ ᾠδῶν catal.) | Δανιήλ Τωβίτ Ἰουδίθ |
|
Ἰώβ | Μακκαβαίων αʹ—δʹ | |
Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος | ||
Ἐκκλησιαστής | ||
ᾌσματα (ᾎσμα subscr.) ᾀσμάτων | ||
Σοφία Σολομῶντος (Σ. Σολομῶνος subscr.; + ἢ Πανάρετος, catal.) | ||
Σοφία Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σιράχ (Σειράχ, subscr.) | ||
Ψαλμοὶ Σολομῶντος, catal. |
203
B (3) (a). ORDER OF THE BOOKS IN PATRISTIC AND SYNODICAL LISTS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH.
1. Melito (ap. Eus. H.E. iv. 26). | 2. Origen (ap. Eus. H.E. vi. 25). |
Μωυσέως πέντε | Γένεσις |
Γένεσις | Ἔξοδος |
Ἔξοδος | Λευιτικόν |
Ἀριθμοί | Ἀριθμοί |
Λευιτικόν | Δευτερονόμιον |
Δευτερονόμιον | Ἰησοῦς υἰὸς Ναυή |
Ἰησοῦς Ναυή | Κριταί |
Κριταί | Ῥούθ |
Ῥούθ | Βασιλειῶν αʹ—δʹ |
Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα | Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ |
Παραλειπομένων δύο | Ἔσδρας αʹ, βʹ |
Ψαλμῶν Δαβίδ | Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν |
Σαλομῶνος Παροιμίαι, ἣ καὶ Σοφία[1] | Σολομῶντος Παροιμίαι |
Ἐκκλησιαστής | Ἐκκλησιαστής |
ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων | ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων |
Ἰώβ | Ἠσαίας |
Προφητῶν | Ἰερεμίας σὺν Θρήνοις καὶ τῇ Ἐπιστολῇ ἐν ἑνί |
Ἠσαίου | |
Ἰερεμίου | Δανιήλ |
Τῶν δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλῳ | Ἰεζεκιήλ |
Δανιήλ | Ἰώβ |
Ἰεζεκιήλ | Ἐσθήρ |
Ἔσδρας | Ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ |
Τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά |
3. Athanasius (ep. fest. 39, Migne, P.G. xxvi. 1436). | 4. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. iv. 35). |
Γένεσις | Αἱ Μωσέως πρῶται πέντε βίβλοι |
Ἔξοδος | Γένεσις |
Λευιτικόν | Ἔξοδος |
Ἀριθμοί | Λευιτικόν |
Δευτερονόμιον | Ἀριθμοί |
Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ναυή | Δευτερονόμιον |
Κριταί | Ἑξῆς δέ |
Ῥούθ | Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Ναυή |
Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα βιβλία | Τῶν Κριτῶν βιβλίον μετὰ τῆς Ῥούθ |
Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ | Τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν ἱστορικῶν βιβλίων |
Ἔσδρας αʹ, βʹ | Βασιλειῶν αʹ—δʹ |
Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν | Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ |
Παροιμίαι | Τοῦ Ἔσδρα αʹ, βʹ |
Ἐκκλησιαστής | Ἐσθήρ (δωδεκάτη) |
204
ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων | Τά δὲ στιχηρὰ τύγχανει πέντε |
Ἰώβ | Ἰώβ |
Προφῆται | Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν |
Οἱ δώδεκα | Παροιμίαι |
Ἠσαίας | Ἐκκλησιαστής |
Ἰερεμίας καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ Βαρούχ, Θρῆνοι, Ἐπιστολή |
ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων (ἑπτακαιδέκατον βιβλίον) |
Ἰεζεκιήλ | Ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις τὰ προφητικὰ πέντε |
Δανιήλ | Τῶν δώδεκα προφητῶν μία βίβλος |
Ἔστι καὶ ἕτερα βιβλία τούτων ἔξωθεν, |
Ἠσαίου μία |
οὐ κανονιζόμενα μὲν τετυπωμένα δὲ |
Ἰερεμίου [μία] μετὰ Βαροὺχ καὶ |
παρὰ τῶν πετέρων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι |
Θρήνων καὶ Ἐπιστολῆς |
τοῖς ἄρτι προσερχομένοις . . . |
Ἰεζεκιήλ |
Σοφία Σολομῶντος | Δανιὴλ (εἰκοστὴ δευτέρα βίβλος) |
Σοφία Σιράχ | Τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ πάντα ἔξω κείσθω ἐν δευτέρῳ |
Ἐσθήρ | |
Ἰουδίθ | |
Τωβίας |
5a. Epiphanius (haer. 1. i. 6). | 5b. Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 4). |
αʹ. Γένεσις | Πέντε νομικαί ἡ πεντάτευχος ἣ καὶ νομοθεσία) |
βʹ. Ἔξοδος | |
γʹ. Λευιτικόν | (Γένεσις—Δευτερονόμηον) |
δʹ. Ἀριθμοί | Πέντε στιχήρεις |
εʹ. Δευτερονόμιον | (Ἰώβ, Ψαλτήριον, Παροιμίαι Σαλομῶντος, Ἐκκλησιαστής, ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων) |
ςʹ. Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναυή | |
ζʹ. Τῶν Κριτῶν | |
ηʹ. Τῆς Ῥούθ | Ἄλλη πεντάτευχος, τὰ καλούμενα Γραφεῖα, παρά τισι δὲ Ἁγιόγραφα λεγόμενα (Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναυή, βίβλος Κριτῶν μετὰ τῆς Ῥούθ, Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ, Βασιλειῶν αʹ, βʹ, Βασιλειῶν γʹ, δʹ) |
θʹ. Τοῦ Ἰώβ | |
ιʹ. Τὸ Ψαλτήριον | |
ιαʹ. Παροιμίαι Τολομῶντος | |
ιβʹ. Ἐκκλησιαστής | |
ιγʹ. Τὸ ᾎσμα τῶν ᾀσμάτων | |
ιδʹ–ιζʹ. Βασιλειῶν αʹ—δʹ | Ἡ προφητικὴ πεντάτευχος (τὸ δωδεκαπρόφητον, Ἠσαίας, Ἰερεμίας, Ἰεζεκιήλ, Δανιήλ) |
ιηʹ, ιθʹ. Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ | |
κʹ. Τὸ Δωδεκαπρόφητον | |
καʹ. Ἠσαίας ὁ προφήτης | Ἄλλαι δύο (τοῦ Ἔσδρα δύο, μία λογιζομένη, τῆς Ἐσθήρ) |
κβʹ. Ἰερεμίας ὁ προφήτης, μετὰ τῶν Θρήνων καὶ Ἐπιστολῶν αὐτοῦ τε καὶ Βαρούχ |
|
Ἡ τοῦ Σολομῶντος ἡ Πανάρετος | |
κγʹ. Ἰεζεκιήλ ὁ προφήτης | λεγομένη |
κδʹ. Δανιὴλ ὁ προφήτης | Ἡ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ υἰοῦ Σειράχ |
κεʹ, κςʹ. Ἔσδρα αʹ, βʹ | |
κζʹ. Ἐσθήρ | |
Ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Σιράχ | |
Ἡ [Σοφία] τοῦ Σολομῶντος |
205
5c. Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 23). | 6. Gregory of Nazianzus (carm. 1. xii. 5 ff.). |
Γένεσις κόσμου | Βίβλοι ἱστορικαὶ ιβʹ |
Ἔξοδος τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου |
(Γένεσις, Ἔξοδος, Λευιτικόν, Ἀριθμοί, Δεύτερος νόμος, Ἰησοῦς Κριταί, Ῥούθ, Πράξεις βασιλήων, Παραλειπόμεναι, Ἔσδρας) |
Λευιτικόν | |
Ἀριθμῶν | |
Τὸ Δευτερονόμιον | |
Ἡ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναυή | Βίβλοι στιχηραὶ εʹ |
Ἡ τοῦ Ἰώβ | (Ἰώβ, Δαυίδ, τρεῖς Σολομωντίαι, Ἐκκλησιαστής, ᾎσμα, Παροιμίαι) |
Ἡ τῶν Κριτῶν | |
Ἡ τῆς Ῥούθ | |
Τὸ Ψαλτήριον | Βίβλοι προφητικαὶ εʹ |
Τῶν Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ | (Οἱ δώδεκα—Ὡσῆε, Ἀμώς, Μιχαίας, Ἰωήλ, Ἰωνᾶς, Ἀβδίας, Ναούμ, Ἁββακούμ, Σοφονίας, Ἁaγγῖος, Ζαχαρίας, Μαλαχίας—Ἡσαίας, Ἰερεμίας, Ἐζεκιήλ, Δανιῆλος) |
Βασιλειῶν αʹ—δʹ | |
Ἡ Παροιμιῶν | |
Ὁ Ἐκκλησιαστής | |
Τὸ ᾎσμα τῶν ᾀσμάτων | |
Τὸ Δωδεκαπρόφητον | |
Τοῦ προφήτου Ἠσαίου | |
Τοῦ Ἰερεμίου | |
Τοῦ Ἰεζεκιήλ | |
Τοῦ Δανιήλ | |
Τοῦ Ἔσδρα αʹ, βʹ | |
Τῆς Ἐσθήρ |
7. Amphilochius (ad Seleuc. ap. Greg. Naz. carm. 11. vii. Migne, P.G. xxxvii. 1593). | 8. Pseudo-chrysostom (syn. script. sacr. praef.). Migne, P.G. lvi. 513 sqq. | ||
Ἡ πεντάτευχος | Τό ἱστορικόν, ὡς | ||
(Κτίσις, Ἔξοδος, Λευιτικόν, Ἀριθμοί, Δευτερονόμιον) |
Ἡ Γένεσις | (ἡ ὀκτάτευχος) | |
Ἡ Ἔξοδος | |||
Ἰησοῦς | Τὸ Λευιτικόν | ||
Οἱ Κριταί | Οἱ Ἀριθμοί | ||
Ἡ Ῥούθ | Τό Δευτερονόμιον |
||
Βασιλειῶν αʹ—δʹ | Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ναυή | ||
Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ | Οἱ Κριταί | ||
Ἔσδρας αʹ, βʹ | Ῥούθ | ||
Στιχηραί βίβλοι εʹ | Αἱ Βασιλεῖαι αʹ—δʹ | ||
(Ἰώβ, Ψαλμοί, τρεῖς Σολομῶντος—Παροιμίαι, Ἐκκλησιαστής, ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων) |
Ἔσδρας | ||
Τὸ συμβουλευτικόν, ὡς | |||
Αἱ Παροιμίαι | |||
Προφῆται οἱ δώδοκα | Ἡ τοῦ Σιρὰχ Σοφία | ||
(Ὡσῆε, Ἀμώς, Μιχαίας, Ἰωήλ, Ἀβδίας, Ἰωνᾶς, Ναούμ, Ἁμβακούμ, Σοφονίας, Ἁγγαῖος, Ζαχαρίας, Μαλαχίας |
Ὁ Ἐκκλησιαστής | ||
Τὰ ᾌσματα τῶν ᾀσμάτων | |||
Τὸ προφητικόν, ὡς | |||
Οἱ δεκαὲξ προφηταί | |||
Προφῆται οἱ τέσσαρες | Ῥούθ (?) | ||
(Ἠσαίας, Ἰερεμίας, Ἰεζεκιήλ, Δανιήλ) |
Δαυείδ | ||
Τούτοις προσεγρκίνουρι τὴν Ἐσθήρ τινες |
206
9. Σύνοψις ἐν ἐπιτόμῳ ap. Lagarde, Septuagintast., ii. p. 60 f.[1] | 10. Anonymi dial. Timothei et Aquilae. | ||
αʹ. Γένεσις | Ἡ Μωσαικὴ πεντάτευχος | ||
Τὰ Μωσαϊκά | βʹ. Ἔξοδος | ||
αʹ. Γένεσις | γʹ. Τὸ Λευιτικόν | ||
βʹ. Ἔξοδος | δʹ. Οἱ Ἀριθμοί | ||
γʹ. Λευιτικόν | εʹ. Τὸ Δευτερονόμιον |
||
δʹ. Ἀριθμοί | ςʹ. Ὁ τοῦ Ναυή | ||
εʹ. Δευτερονόμιον | ζʹ. Οἱ Κροταί, μετὰ τῆ Ῥούθ | ||
Τὰ ἕτερα | ηʹ. Τὰ Παραλειπόμενα αʹ, βʹ | ||
ςʹ. Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ναυή | θʹ. Τῶν βασιλειῶν αʹ, βʹ | ||
ζʹ. Κριταί | ιʹ. Τῶν βασιλειῶν γʹ, δʹ | ||
ηηʹ. Ῥούθ | ιαʹ. Ἰώβ | ||
Τέλος τῆς ὀκτατεύχου | ιβʹ. Τὸ Ψαλτήριον τοῦ Δαυίδ | ||
Τὸ τετραβασίλειον | ιγʹ. Αἱ Παροιμίαι Τολομῶντος | ||
θʹ. Βασιλειῶν αʹ | ιδʹ. Ὁ Ἐκκλησιαστής, σὺν τοῖς ᾌσμασιν | ||
ιʹ. Βασιλειῶν βʹ. | |||
ιαʹ. Βασιλειῶν γʹ | ιεʹ. Τὸ δωδεκαπρόφητον· Ἠσαίας, Ἰερεμίας, Ἰεζεκιήλ, Δανιήλ, Ἔσδρας |
||
ιβʹ. Βασιλειῶν δʹ | |||
ιγʹ. Παραλειπόμενα αʹ | |||
ιδʹ. Παραλειπόμενα βʹ | καʹ. Ἰουδίθ | ||
ιεʹ. Ἔσδρα αʹ | κβʹ. Ἐσθήρ | ||
ιςʹ. Ἔσδρα βʹ | Ἀπόκρυφα | ||
ιζʹ. Ἐσθήρ | Τοβίας | ||
ιηʹ. Τωβίτ | Ἡ Σοφία Σολομῶντος | ||
ιθʹ. Ἰουδήθ | Ἡ Σοφία Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σιράχ | ||
κʹ. Ἰώβ | |||
Τοῦσολομῶντος | |||
καʹ. Σοφία | |||
κβʹ. Παροιμίαι | |||
κγʹ. Ἐκκλησιαστής | |||
κδʹ. ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων | |||
Οἱ ιβʹ προφῆται | |||
κεʹ. Ὠσηέ | |||
κςʹ. Ἀμώς | |||
κζʹ. Μιχαίας | |||
κηʹ. Ἰωιλ | |||
κθʹ. Ἀβδιού | |||
λʹ. Ἰωνᾶς | |||
λαʹ. Ναούμ | |||
λβʹ. Ἁββακούμ | |||
λγʹ. Σοφονίας | |||
λδʹ. Ἀγγαῖος | |||
λεʹ. Ζαχαρίας | |||
λςʹ. Μαλαχίας | |||
Οἱ δʹ μεaάλοι προφῆται | |||
λζʹ. Ἡσαΐας | |||
ληʹ. Ἱερεμίας | |||
λθʹ. Ἱεζεκιήλ | |||
μʹ. Δανιήλ | |||
Τέλος τῶν ἓξ καὶ δέκα προφητῶν |
|||
μαʹ. Σοφία Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Σιράχ |
207
11. Junilius de inst. reg. div. legis i. 3 ff. (ed. Kihn). | 12. Pseudo-Athanasii syn. scr. sacr. (Migne, P.G. xxviii. 283 ff.) |
Historia (xvii) | Γένεσις |
Genesis | Ἔξοδος |
Exodus | Λευιτικόν |
Leviticus | Ἀριθμοί |
Numeri | Δευτερονόμιον |
Deuteronomium | Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ναυή |
Iesu Nave | Κριταί |
Iudicum | Ῥούθ |
Ruth | Βασιλειῶν αʹ, βʹ |
Regnn. i—iv | Βασιλειῶν γʹ, δʹ |
[Adiungunt plures Paralipomenon ii, Iob i, Tobiae i. Esdrae ii, Iudith i, Hester i, Macchabaeorum ii] |
Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ |
Ἔσδρας αʹ, βʹ | |
Ψαλτήριον Δαβιτικόν | |
Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος | |
Prophetia (xvii) | Ἐκκλησιαστὴς τοῦ αὐτοῦ |
Psalmorum cl | ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων |
Osee | Ἰώβ |
Esaiae | Προφῆται δώδεκα εἰς ἓν ἀριθμούμενοι |
Ioel | Ὡσῆε, Ἀμώς, Μιχαίας, Ἰωήλ, Ἀβδιού, Ἰωνᾶς, Ναούμ, Ἁμβακούμ, Σοφωνίας, Ἁγγαῖος, Ζαχαρίας, Μαλαχίας |
Amos | |
Abdiae | |
Ionae | |
Michaeae | Ἑξῆς δὲ ἕτεροι τέσσαρες |
Naum | Ἠσαίας |
Habacuc | Ἰερεμίας |
Sophoniae | Ἐζεκιήλ |
Hieremiae | Δανιήλ |
Ezechiel | Ἐκτὸς δὲ τούτων εἰσὶ πὰλιν ἕτερα βιβλία κ.τ.λ. (as in Athanasius, but adding |
Daniel | |
Aggaei | |
Zachariae | Μακκαβάϊκα βιβλία δʹ |
Malachiea | Πτολεμαϊκά |
Proverbia (ii) | Ψαλμοὶ καὶ ᾠδὴ Σολομῶντος Σωσάννα) |
Salomonis Proverbiorum | |
Iesu filii Sirach | |
[Adiungunt quidam libr. Sapientiae et Cantica Canticorum] |
|
Dogmatica (i) | |
Ecclesiastes |
13. Leontius (de Sectis ii.) | 14. John of Damascus (de fide orthod. iv. 17). |
Τὰ ἱστορικὰ βιβλία (ιβʹ) | Πρώτη πεντάτευχος, ἣ καὶ νομοθεσία |
(Γένεσις Ἔξοδος, Ἀριθμοί, Λευιτικόν, Δευτερονόμιον· Ἰησοῦς τοῦ Ναυή, Κριταί, Ῥούθ, Λόγοι τῶν βασιλειῶν αʹ—δʹ, Παραλειπόμεναι, Ἔσδρας) |
(Γένεσις Ἔξοδος, Λευιτικόν, Ἀριθμοί, Δευτερονόμιον) |
Δευτέρα πεντάτευχος, τὰ καλούμενα Γραφεῖα, παρά τισι δὲ Ἁγιόγραφα (Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ναυή, Κριταὶ μετὰ |
Τὰ προφητικά (εʹ) | τῆς Ῥούθ, Βασιλειῶν αʹ, βʹ, Βασιλειῶν γʹ, δʹ, τῶν Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ) |
(Ἠσαίας, Ἰερεμίας, Ἰεζεκιήλ, Δανιήλ, τὸ Δωδεκαπρόφητον) |
|
Τὰ παραινετικά (δʹ) | Τρίτη πεντάτευχος, αἱ στιχηραὶ βίβλοι |
(Ἰώβ, Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος, Ἐκκλησιαστής, τὸ ᾎσμα τῶν ᾀσμάτων, τὸ Ψαλτήριον) |
(τοῦ Ἰώβ, τὸ Ψαλτήριον, Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος, Ἐκκλησιαστής, τοῦ αὐτοῦ, τὰ ᾌσμετα τῶν ᾈσμάτων τοῦ αὐτοῦ) |
Τετάρτη πεντάτευχος ἡ προφητική (τὸ Δωδεκαπόφητον, Ἠσαίας, Ἰερεμίας, Ἰεζεκιήλ, Δανιήλ) |
|
Ἄλλαι δύο |
|
(τοῦ Εσδρα αʹ, βʹ, ἡ Ἐσθήρ) | |
Ἡ Πανάρετος τ. ἐ. ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Σολομῶντος |
|
Ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ |
16. Ebedjesu (catal. libr. Eccl., Assemani, Bibl. Or. iii. 5 f.). | |
15. Nicephorus, Stichometria. | Genesis |
Α. Ὅσαι εἰσὶ γραφαὶ ἐκκλησιαζόμεναι καὶ κεκανονισμέναι |
Exodus |
Liber sacerdotum | |
αʹ. Γένεσις στίχ. ͵δτʹ | Numeri |
βʹ. Ἔξοδος στίχ. ͵βωʹ | Deuteronomii |
γʹ. Λευιτικόν στίχ. ͵βψʹ | Josue filii Nun |
δʹ. Ἀριθμοί στίχ. ͵γφλʹ | Iudicum |
εʹ. Δευτερονόμιον στίχ. ͵γρʹ | Samuel |
ςʹ. Ἰησοῦς στίχ. ͵βρʹ | Regum |
ζʹ. Κριταὶ καὶ Ῥούθ στίχ. ͵βυνʹ | Liber Dabariamin |
ηʹ. Βασιλειῶν αʹ, βʹ στίχ. ͵βσμʹ | Ruth |
θʹ. Βασιλειῶν γʹ, δʹ στιχ. ͵βσγʹ | Psalmi David Regis |
ιʹ Παραλειπόμενα αʹ, βʹ στιχ. ͵εφʹ | Proverbia Salomonis |
ιαʹ. Ἔσδρας αʹ, βʹ στιχ. ͵εφʹ | Cohelet |
ιβʹ. Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν στίχ. ͵εφʹ | Sirat Sirin |
ιγʹ. Παροιμίαι Τολομῶντος στίχ. ͵αψʹ |
Bar-Sira |
Sapientia Magna | |
ιδʹ. Ἐκκλησιαστής στίχ. ψνʹ | Iob |
ιεʹ. ᾎσμ ᾀσμάτων στίχ. σπʹ | Isaias |
ιςʹ. Ἰώβ στίχ. ͵αωʹ | Hosee |
ιζʹ. Ἠσαίας προφήτης στίχ. ͵γωʹ | Ioel |
ιηʹ. Ἰερεμίας προφήτης στίχ. ͵δʹ | Amos |
ιθʹ. Βαρούχ στίχ. ψʹ | Abdias |
κʹ. Ἰεζεκιήλ στίχ. ͵δʹ | Ionas |
καʹ. Δανιήλ στίχ. ͵βʹ | Michaeas |
κβʹ. Οἱ δώδεκα προφῆται στίχ. ͵γʹ | Nahum |
Ὁμοῦ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βίβλοι κβʹ. |
Habacuc |
Sophonias | |
Β. Ὅσαι ἀντιλέγονται καὶ οὐκ ἐκκλησιάζονται |
Aggaeus |
Zacharias | |
αʹ. Μακκαβαϊκὰ γʹ στίχ. ͵ζτʹ |
Malachias |
βʹ. Σοφία Σολομῶντος στίχ. ͵αρʹ |
Hieremias |
γʹ. Σοφία υἱοῦ τοῦ Σιρὰχ στίχ. ͵βωʹ |
Ezechiel |
Daniel | |
δʹ. Ψαλμοὶ καὶ ᾠδαὶ Σολομῶντος στίχ. ͵βρʹ |
Iudith |
Esther | |
εʹ. Ἐσθὴρ στίχ. τνʹ | Susanna |
ςʹ. Ἰουδὶθ στίχ. ͵αψʹ | Esdras |
ζʹ. Σωσάννα στίχ. φʹ | Daniel Minor |
η͵. Τωβίτ, ὁ καὶ Τωβίας στίχ. ψʹ |
Epistola Baruch |
Liber traditionis Seniorum | |
Josephi proverbia | |
Historia filiorum Samonae [i.e. Maccab. iv] | |
Liber Maccabaeorum (i—iii) |
17. Laodicene Canons (lx.). | 18. Apostolic Canons (lxxxiv.). |
αʹ. Γένεσις κόσμου | Μωυσέως πέντε |
βʹ. Ἔξοδος ἐξ Αἰγύπτου | (Γένεσις, Ἔξοδος, Λευιτικόν, Ἀριθμοί, Δευτερονόμιον) |
γʹ. Λευιτικόν | |
δʹ. Ἀριθμοί | Ἰησοῦς Ναυή |
εʹ. Δευτερονόμιον | Ῥούθ |
ςʹ. Ἰησοῦς Ναυή | Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα |
ζʹ. Κριταί, Ῥούθ | Παραλειπομένων δύο |
ηʹ. Ἐσθήρ | Ἔσδρα δύο |
θʹ. Βασιλειῶν αʹ, βʹ | Ἐσθήρ |
ιʹ. Βασιλειῶν γʹ, δʹ | Μακκαβαίων τρία |
ιαʹ. Παραλειπομένων αʹ, βʹ | Ἰώβ |
ιβʹ. Ἔσδρας αʹ, βʹ | Ψαλτήριον |
ιγʹ. Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν ρνʹ | Σολομῶντος τρία |
ιδʹ. Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος | (Παροιμίαι, Ἐκκλησιαστής, ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων) |
ιεʹ. Ἐκκλησιαστης | |
ιςʹ. ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων | Προφητῶν δεκάδυο ἕν |
ιζʹ. Ἰώβ | Ἠσαίου ἕν |
ιηʹ. Δώδεκα προφῆται | Ἰερεμίου ἕν |
ιθʹ. Ἠσαίας | Ἰεζεκιήλ ἕν |
κʹ. Ἰερεμίας καὶ Βαρούχ, Θρῆνοι καὶ Ἐπιστολαί |
Δανιὴλ ἕν |
Ἔξωθεν δὲ προσιστορείσθω μανθάνειν ὑμῶν τοὺς νέους τὴν Σοφίαν τοῦ πολυμαθοῦς Σιράχ |
|
καʹ. Ἰεζεκιήλ | |
κβʹ. Δαωιήλ |
19. List in Codd. Barocc. 206; B.M. Add. 17469; Coisl. 120. | |
Περὶ τῶν ξʹ βιβλίων, καὶ ὅσα τούτων ἐκτός |
εʹ. Δευτερονόμιον |
ςʹ. Ἰησοῦς | |
αʹ. Γένεσις | ζʹ. Κριταὶ καὶ Ῥούθ |
βʹ. Ἔξοδος | ηʹ—αʹ. Βασιλειῶν αʹ—δʹ |
γʹ. Λευιτικόν | ιβʹ. Παραλειπόμενα αʹ, βʹ |
δʹ. Ἀριθμοί | ιγʹ. Ἰώβ |
ιδʹ. Ψαλτήριον | κθʹ. Ζαχαρίας |
ιεʹ. Παροιμίαι | λʹ. Μαλαχίας |
ιςʹ. Ἐκκλησιαστής | λαʹ. Ἠσαίας |
ιζʹ. ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων | λβʹ. Ἰερεμίας |
ιηʹ. Ἔσδρας | λγʹ. Ἰεζεκιήλ |
ιθʹ. Ὡσῆε | λδʹ. Δανιήλ[1] |
κʹ. Ἀμώς | * * |
καʹ. Μιχαίας | * * |
κβʹ. Ἰωήλ | Καὶ ὅσα ἔξω τῶν ξʹ |
κγʹ. Ἰωνᾶς | αʹ. Σοφία Σολομῶντος |
κδʹ. Ἀβδιού | βʹ. Σοφία Σιράχ |
κεʹ. Ναούμ | γʹ—ςʹ. Μακκαβαίων [αʹ—δʹ] |
κςʹ. Ἁμβακούμ | ζʹ. Ἐσθήρ |
κζʹ. Σοφονίας | ηʹ. Ἰουδήθ |
κηʹ. Ἁγγαῖος | θʹ. Τωβίτ |
B (3) (b). ORDER OF THE BOOKS IN PATRISTIC AND SYNODICAL LISTS OF THE WESTERN CHURCH.
1. Hilary, prol. in libr. Psalm. | 2. Ruffinus (Comm. in symb. 36). |
i—v. Moysi[s] libri quinque | Moysi[s] quinque libri |
vi. Iesu Naue | (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium) |
vii. Iudicum et Ruth | |
viii. Regnorum i, ii | Iesus Naue |
ix. Regnorum iii, iv | Iudicum, simul cum Ruth |
x. Paralipomenon i, ii | Regnorum iv |
xi. Sermones dierum Esdrae | Paralipomenon (= Dierum liber) |
xii. Liber Psalmorum | Esdrae ii |
xiii—xv. Salomonis Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Canticum Canticorum |
Hester |
Prophetarum | |
xvi. Duodecim Prophetae | (Esaias, Ieremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, xii Prophetarum liber i) |
xvii—xxii. Esaias, Jeremias cum Lamentatione et Epistola, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Hester |
Iob |
Psalmi David | |
Salomon[is] iii | |
[xxiii—xxiv. Tobias, Judith][1] | (Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Cantica Canticorum) |
Sapienta Salomonis | |
Sapientia Sirach (= Ecclesiasticus) | |
Tobias | |
Iudith | |
Maccabaeorum libri |
211
3. Augustine (de doctr. Chr. ii. 23) | 4. Innocent I. (ep. ad Exsuperium). |
[Historiae:] | Moysi[s] libri quinque |
Quinque Moyseos [libri] (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium) |
(Genesis, Exodi, Levitici, Numeri, Deuteronomii) |
Iesu Naue | |
Iesu Naue | Iudicum |
Iudicum | Regnorum libri iv |
Ruth | Ruth |
Regnorum libri iv | Prophetarum libri xvi |
Paralipomenon libri ii | Salomonis libri v |
Iob | Psalterium |
Tobias | Historiarum: |
Esther | Job |
Iudith | Tobias |
Machabaeorum libri ii | Hester |
Esdrae libri ii | Iudith |
Prophetae: | Machabaeorum libri ii |
David liber Psalmorum | Esdrae libri ii |
Salamonis libri iii | Paralipomenon libri ii |
(Proverbiorum, Canticum Canticorum, Ecclesiastes) |
|
Sapienta, Eccleasiasticus[1] |
Prophetarum xii | ||
(Osee, Ioel, Amos, Abdias, Ionas, Michaeas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias) |
||
Prophetae iv maiorum voluminum |
||
(Isaias, Ieremias, Daniel, Ezechiel) |
5. Pseudo-Gelasius decret. de libr. | 6. Cassiodorius (de inst. Div. litt. 14). |
Moysis v libri: | Genesis |
Genesis | Exodus |
Exodus | Leviticus |
Leviticus | Numeri |
Numeri | Deuteronomium |
Deuteronomium | Iesu Nave |
Iesu Naue | Regum i—iv |
Iudicum | Paralipomenon i, ii |
Ruth | Psalterium |
Regum i—iv |
Item libri prophetarum numero xvi: | Salomonis libri v |
(Isaias, Ieremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Amos, Michas, Iohel, Abdias, Ionas, Naum, Abacu, Sofonias, Agaeus, Zacharias, Maleachias) |
(Proverbia, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Ecclesiastes, Canticum canticorum) |
Paralipomena i, ii | Prophetae |
Psalmorum cl | (Isaias, Hieremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Amos, Michaeas, Joel, Abdias, Jonas, Naum, Abbacuc, Sofonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias, qui et Angelus) |
Salamonis libri iii | Job |
(Proverbiorum, Ecclesiastes, Canticum Canticorum) |
Tobi[as] |
Liber Sapientiae filii Siracis | Esther |
Alius subsequens liber Sapientiae | Iudith |
Item historiarum: | Esdrae [libri] ii |
Iob | Machabaeorum libri ii |
Tobias | |
Hester | |
Iudith | |
Macchabaeorum libri ii |
7. Isidorus de ord. libr. s. scr. | |
1. Quinque libri Moyseos | 4. Prophetae: Psalmorum liber i, Salomonis libri iii (Proverbiorum, Ecclesiastes, Cantica Canticorum), Sapienta, Ecclesiasticus, libri xvi Prophetarum |
2. Iesu Nave, Iudicum, Ruth | |
3. Regum i—iv, Paralipomenon i, ii, Tobiae, Esther, Iudith, Esdrae, Machabaeorum libri duo |
8. Mommsen's List, cited by Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons, ii. p. 143 f.; Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii. p. 222 f.; Preuschen, Analecta, p. 138[1]. | |
Libri canonici | Regnorum liber ii ver ĪĪCC |
Genesis versus ĪĪĪDCC | Regnorum liber iii ver ĪĪDL |
Exodus ver ĪĪĪ | Regnorum liber iv ver ĪĪCCL |
Numeri ver ĪĪĪĪ | Fiunt versus VIIIID |
Leviticus ver ĪĪCCC | Paralipomenon liber i ver ĪĪXL |
Deuteronomium ver ĪĪDCC | liber ii ver ĪĪC |
Hiesu Nave ver MDCCL | Machabeorum liber i ver ĪĪCCC |
Iudicum ver MDCCL | liber ii ver MDCCC |
Fiunt libri vii ver XVIIIC | Iob ver MDCC |
Rut ver CCL | Tobias ver DCCCC |
Regnorum liber i ver ĪĪCCC | Hester ver DCC |
Iudit ver MC | Ieremias ver ĪĪĪĪCCCCL |
Psalmi Davitici cli ver V | Daniel ver MCCCL |
Salomonis ver VID | Ezechiel ver ĪĪĪCCCXL |
Prophetae maiores ver XVCCCLXX numero IIII |
Prophetae xii ver IIIDCCC |
Esaias ver IIIDLXXX | Erunt omnes versus numero LXVIIIID |
10. Liber sacramentorum (Bobbio, cent. vi. vii). | |
1. List in Cod. Claromontanus. | |
Versus scribturarum sanctarum | Liber Genesis |
ita Genesis versus IIIID | Exodum |
Exodus versus ĪĪĪDCC | Leviticum |
Leviticum versus ĪĪCCC | Numeri |
Numeri vrsus ĪĪĪDCL | Deuteronomium |
Deuteronomium ver. ĪĪĪCCC | Josue |
Iesu Nauve ver. ĪĪ | Judicum |
Iudicum ver. ĪĪ | Libri mulierum |
Rud ver. CCL | Ruth |
Regnorum ver | Hester |
primus liber ver. ĪĪD | Judith |
secundus lib. ver ĪĪ | Maccabeorum libri duo |
tertius lib. ver. ĪĪDC | Job |
quartus lib. ver ĪĪCCCC | Thobias |
Psalmi Davitici ver. V | Regum quattuor |
Proverbia ver. ĪDC | Prophetarum libri xvi |
Aeclesiastes DC | Daviticum v |
Cantica canticorum CCC | Solomonis iii |
Sapientia vers. Ī | Esdra i |
Sapientia IHU ver. ĪĪD | Fiunt libri Veteris numero xliiii |
XII Profetae ver ĪĪĪCX | |
Ossee ver DXXX | |
Amos ver CCCCX | |
Micheas ver CCCX | |
Ioel ver. CL | |
Abdias ver. LXX | |
Ionas ver. CL | |
Naum ver. CXL | |
Ambacum ver. CLX | |
Sophonias ver. CXL | |
Aggeus vers. CX | |
Zacharias ver. DCLX | |
Malachiel ver. CC | |
Eseias ver. IIIDC | |
Ieremias ver ĪĪĪĪLXX |
214
11. Council of Carthage, A.D. 397 (can. 47 = 39). | |
Ezechiel ver ĪĪĪDC | Genesis |
Daniel ver ĪDC | Exodus |
Maccabeorum sic. | Leviticus |
lib. primus ver. ĪĪCCC | Numeri |
lib. secundus ver ĪĪCCC | Deuteronomium |
lib. quartus ver. Ī | Iesu Naue |
Iudit vr. ĪCCC | Iudicum |
Hesdra ĪD | Ruth |
Ester ver Ī | Regnorum libri iv |
Iob ver. ĪDC | Paralipomenon libri ii |
Tobias ver. Ī | Job |
Psalterium Davidicum | |
Salomonis libri v | |
xii libri Prophetarum | |
Iesaias | |
Ieremias | |
Ezechiel | |
Daniel | |
Tobias | |
Iudith | |
Hester | |
Hesdrae libri ii | |
Machabaeorum libri ii[1] |
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'
(דִּבְי־הֵיָּטִים)
is changed into 'Omissions'
(Παραλειπόμενα[1]),
but the system of nomenclature is the same. But titles of the first class
disappear in the Greek, and in their place we find descriptive
names, suggested in almost every case by words in the version
215itself. Thus Genesis appears to come from
The Greek titles are probably of Alexandrian origin and
pre-Christian use. Not only were they familiar to Origen (Eus.
H. E. vi. 25), but they are used in Melito's list, although it
came from Palestine. Some of them at least appear to have
been known to the writers of the New Testament; cf.
Through the Old Latin version the Greek titles passed into the Latin Bible[1], and from the Latin Bible into the later versions of Western Christendom. In three instances, however, the influence of Jerome restored the Hebrew titles; 1, 2 Kingdoms 216have become 1, 2 Samuel, and 3, 4 Kingdoms, 1, 2 Kings, whilst 'Chronicles,' representing the Hebrew דִּבְרֵי־הַיָּמִים, has taken the place of Paralipomenon.
Cf Hieron. Prol. Gal.: "tertius sequitur Samuel, quem nos Regnorum primum et secundum dicimus; quartus Malachim, id est Regum, qui tertio et quarto Regnorum volumine continetur . . . septimus Dabre aiamim, id est 'Verba dierum,' quod significantius Chronicon totius divinae historiae possumus appellare."
The Greek titles vary slightly in different codices and lists. Besides the variations of cod. A which appear in Table B (2), the following are mentioned in the apparatus of Holmes and Parsons. Joshua: Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναυή, ὁ τοῦ Ναυή, Judges: Κριταὶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, αἱ τῶν κριτῶν πράξεις. Chronicles: Παραλειπομένων τῶν βασιλειῶν Ἰούδα. Psalms: Δαυὶδ προφήτου καὶ βασιλέως μέλος. When Nehemiah is separated from Ezra its title is: τὰ περὶ Νεεμίου or λόγοι Ν. υἱοῦ Ἁχαλία. A few further forms may be gleaned from the patristic lists. As an alternative for Παραλειπομένων the Apostolic Canons give τοῦ βιβλίου τῶν ἡμερῶν, while Ezra is known to Hilary as sermones dierum Esdrae. The Psalter is sometimes βίβλος Ψαλμῶν, liber Psalmorum, or Ψαλτήριον Δαβιτικόν, Psalmi David regis, Psalterium Daviticum. For ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων we have occasionally ᾄσματα ᾀσμάτων—a form rejected by Origen (ap. Eus. H.E. vi. 25 οὐ γάρ, ὡς ὑπολαμβάνουσί τινες, ᾌσματα ᾀσμάτων), but used by Pseudo-Chrysostom and John of Damascus, and found in cod. A and in several of the Latin lists[1]; cf. the English Article VI. "Cantica, or Songs of Solomon." The lesser Prophets are οἱ δώδεκα or δεκαδύο, τῶν δώδεκα προφητῶν μία βίβλος, τὸ δωδεκαπρόφητον, prophetae xii; the greater, οἱ τέσσαρες, prophetae iv, prophetae iv maiorum voluminum, or simply maiores; when the two collections are merged into one they become οἱ δεκαέξ or οἱ ἑκκαίδεκα, τὸ 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) transferred
to another[1]." Its three groups are known as the Law
217(תּוֹרָה), the Prophets
(נְבִאִים), and the Writings
(כְּתוּבִים).
The Massora recognised, however, certain subdivisions within
the second and third groups; the Prophets were classed
as Former (רִאשׁוֹנִים), i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings;
and Latter (אַחֲרוֹנִים), and among the 'Latter' the Twelve
minor Prophets formed a single collection[1]. Similarly 'the five
Rolls' (מְגִלּוׂת), i.e. Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations,
Esther, made a subsection among the Kethubim. The tripartite division of the canon was known at
Alexandria in the second century B.C., for the writer of the
prologue to Sirach refers to it more than once (
Only the first of the three Palestinian groups remains undisturbed[1] 218in the Alexandrian Greek Bible, as it is preserved to us in MSS. and described in Christian lists. When the Law was translated into Greek, it was already a complete collection, hedged round with special sanctions, and in all forms of the Greek Bible it retains its precedence and has resisted any extensive intrusion of foreign matter. It is otherwise with the Prophets and the Hagiographa. Neither of these groups escaped decomposition when it passed into the Greek Bible. The Former Prophets are usually separated from the Latter, the poetical books coming between. The Hagiographa are entirely broken up, the non-poetical books being divided between the histories and the prophets. This distribution is clearly due to the characteristically Alexandrian desire to arrange the books according to their literary character or contents, or their supposed authorship. Histories were made to consort with histories, prophetic and poetical writings with others of their respective kinds. On this principle Daniel is in all Greek codices and catalogues one of the Greater Prophets, while Ruth attaches itself to Judges, and Canticles to Ecclesiastes.
In many of the Greek patristic lists the Alexandrian principle of grouping receives express recognition. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Leontius, divide the books of the Old Testament into (1) historical—12, including the Mosaic Pentateuch; (2) poetical—5; (3) prophetical—5. Epiphanius, followed by John of Damascus, endeavours to combine this grouping with a system of pentateuchs[1]—(1) legal, (2) poetical, (3) historical[1], (4) prophetical 219—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[1]' (τὸ συιβουλευτικόν). Even in the eccentric arrangement of Junilius[1] the Greek method of grouping is clearly dominant.
The relative order of the groups in the Greek Bible, being of literary and not historical origin, is to some extent liable to variation. The 'five books of Moses' always claim precedence, and the 'rest of the histories' follow, but the position of the poetical and prophetical books is less certain. Codex B places the poetical books first, whilst in Codd. א and A the prophets precede. But the order of cod. B is supported by the great majority of authorities both Eastern and Western (Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius (1, 3), Gregory, Amphilochius, the Laodicene and 'Apostolic' canons, Nicephorus, Pseudo-Chrysostom, the Cheltenham list, the African canons of 397, and Augustine). Two reasons may have combined to favour this arrangement. 'David' and 'Solomon' were higher up the stream of time than Hosea and Isaiah. Moreover, it may have seemed fitting that the Prophets should immediately precede the Evangelists.
(3) THE NUMBER OF THE BOOKS. In our printed Hebrew Bibles the books of the Old Testament are 39 (Law, 5; Former Prophets (Joshua—2 Kings), 6; Latter Prophets, 15; Hagiographa, 13). But Samuel, Kings, Ezra-Nehemiah, and 220Chronicles[1], were originally single books[1], and the Minor Prophets were also counted as a single book. Thus the number is reduced to 24 (Law, 5; Former Prophets, 4; Latter Prophets, 4; Hagiographa, 11), and this answers to the prevalent Jewish tradition. On the other hand Josephus expressly limits the books to 22 (Law, 5; Prophets, i3; Hymns and moral pieces, 4). He has probably included the historical Hagiographa among the Prophets, and treated Ruth and Lamentations as appendices to Judges and Jeremiah respectively.
Both traditions were inherited by the Church, but the latter was predominant, especially in the East. In some lists indeed the twenty-two books became twenty-seven, the 'double books' being broken up into their parts (Epiph. 1)[1]; in some a similar treatment of the Dodecapropheton raised the number to 34 (the 'Sixty Books'), and there are other eccentricities of numeration which need not be mentioned here.
Josephus, c. Ap. i. 8: οὐ μυριάδες βιβλίων εἰσὶ παρ᾿ ἡμῖν ἀσυμφώνων καὶ μαχομένων, δύο μόνα πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι βιβλία . . . καὶ τούτων πέντε μέν ἐστι Μωυσέως . . . οἱ μετὰ Μωυσῆν προφῆται . . . συνέγραψαν 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. l.c. οὐκ ἀγνοητέον δ᾿ εἶναι τὰς ἐνδιαθήκους βίβλους ὡς Ἐβραῖοι παραδιδόασιν, ὅσος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν παῤ αὐτοῖς στοιχείων ἐστίν· and Cyril. Hier. catech. iv. 33 ἀναγίνωσκε τὰς θείας γραφάς, τὰς εἴκοςι δύο βίβλους τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης. Similarly Athanasius, ep. fest. 39 (Migne, P.G. xxvi. col. 1437). When another numeration was adopted, efforts were 221made to shew that it did not involve a real departure from the canon of twenty-two; cf. Epiph. haer. i. I. 8, αὗταί εἰσιν αἱ εἴκοσι ἑπτὰ βίβλοι αἱ ἐκ θεοῦ δοθεῖσαι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις, εἴκοσι δύο δὲ ὡς τὰ παῤ αὐτοῖς στοιχεῖα τῶν Ἐβραικῶν γραμμάτων ἀριθμούμεναι διὰ τὸ διπλοῦσθαι δέκα βίβλους εἰς πέντε λεγομένας· dial. Tim. et Aq. (ed. Conybeare, p. 66), αὗται αἱ βίβλοι αἱ θεόπνευστοι καὶ ἐνδιάθετοι, κςʹ μὲν οὖσαι, κβʹ δὲ ἀριθμούμεναι διὰ τὸ . . . ἐξ αὐτῶν διπλοῦσθαι.
On the other hand the numeration in
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[1], 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.
222The next list comes from Origen. It belongs to his commentary on the first Psalm, which was written at Alexandria[1], 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᾿ Ἑβραίους αἵδε). Yet among them are the first book of Esdras[1] 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[1], Judith, and Tobit[1]. Palestine was perhaps naturally conservative in this matter; Cyril will not allow his catechumens to go beyond the Canon, and Epiphanius mentions only, and that with some hesitation, the two books of Wisdom (εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλαι παῤ αὐτοῖς βίβλοι ἐν ἀμφιλέκτῳ[1] . . . 223αὗται χρήσιμοι μέν εἰσι καὶ ὠφέλιμοι, ἀλλ᾿ εἰς ἀριθμὸν ῥητῶν οὐκ ἀναφέρονται)[1]. And this was the prevalent attitude of the East even at a later time. There are exceptions; Pseudo-Chrysostom places Sirach among the Hortatory books of the canon; the Apostolic canons, while excluding Sirach, include three books of Maccabees. But John of Damascus reflects the general opinion of the Greek fathers when, while reckoning both books of Esdras[1] as canonical, he repeats the verdict of Epiphanius upon the two Wisdoms, Ἐηάρετοι μὲν καὶ καλαί, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἀριθμοῦνται[1].
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[1] were doubtless checked, the one by the influence of Eastern theologians, the other by the scholarship of Jerome; but Hilary mentions that there were those who wished to raise the number of the canonical books to twenty-four by including Tobit and Judith in the canon. From the end of the fourth century the inclusion of the non-canonical books in Western lists is a matter of course. Even Augustine has no scruples on the subject; he makes the books of the Old Testament forty-four (de doctr. Chr. ii. 13 "his xliv libris Testamenti Veteris terminatur auctoritas[1]"), 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 224Prophets. His judgement was that of his Church (Conc. Carth. iii. can. xlvii. "sunt canonicae scripturae Salomonis libri quinque . . . Tobias, Judith . . . Machabaeorum libri duo"). The African Church had probably never known any other canon, and its belief prevailed wherever the Latin Bible was read.
There can be little doubt that, notwithstanding the strict adherence of the Eastern lists to the number of the Hebrew books, the Old Latin canon truly represents the collection of Greek sacred books which came into the hands of the early Christian communities at Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. When Origen and the Greek fathers who follow him fix the number of the books at twenty-two or twenty-four, they follow, not the earlier tradition of the Church, but the corrected estimate of Christian scholars who had learned it from Jewish teachers. An earlier tradition is represented by the line of Christian writers, beginning with Clement of Rome, who quoted the 'Apocryphal' books apparently without suspecting that they were not part of the Canon. Thus Clement of Rome[1] places the story of Judith side by side with that of Esther; the Wisdom of Sirach is cited by Barnabas[1] and the Didache[1], and Tobit by Polycarp[1]; Clement of Alexandria[1] and Origen appeal to Tobit and both the Wisdoms, to which Origen adds Judith[1]. Our earliest MSS. of the Greek Bible confirm the impression derived from the quotations of the earliest Christian writers. Their canon corresponds not with that of the great writers of the age when they were written, but with that of the Old Latin version of the LXX. Codd. B א A contain the two Wisdoms, Tobit, and Judith; 1—2 Maccabees are added in א, and 1—4 Maccabees in A; cod. C still exhibits the two Wisdoms, and when complete may have contained other books of the same class. 225Moreover, 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[1]. But rolls of papyrus seldom contained more than a single work, and writings of any length, especially if divided into books, were often transcribed into two or more separate rolls[1]. The rolls were kept in boxes (κιβωτοί, κίσται, capsae, sistae)[1], which served not only to preserve them, but to collect them in sets. Now while the sanctity of the five books of Moses would protect the cistae which contained them from the intrusion of foreign rolls, no scruple of this kind would deter the owner of a roll of Esther from placing it in the same box with Judith and Tobit; the Wisdoms in like manner naturally found their way into a Salomonic collection; while in a still larger number of instances the two Greek recensions of Esdras consorted together, and Baruch and the Epistle seemed rightly to claim a place with the roll of Jeremiah. More rarely such a writing as the Psalms of Solomon may have found its way into the company of kindred books of the canon. It is not a serious objection to this hypothesis 226that Philo does not quote the Apocrypha, and has no certain allusion to it[1]. A great scholar would not be deceived by the mixture of heterogeneous rolls, which might nevertheless seriously mislead ordinary readers, and start a false tradition in an unlettered community such as the Christian society of the first century.
(4) THE INTERNAL ORDER OF THE GROUPS. Even in Jewish lists of the Hebrew Canon there are variations in the internal order of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. The 'Great Prophets' occur in each of the three orders (1) Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel; (2) Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah; (3) Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel[1]. 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[1].
In the lists of the Greek Bible and the sequence of its MSS. the Law and the 'Former Prophets' generally retain their Hebrew order, with the noteworthy exception that Ruth is always attached to Judges. But there are also minor exceptions which are of some interest. Even in the Pentateuch Melito, Leontius, and the Cheltenham list reverse the common order of Leviticus and Numbers[1]. The sequence is broken in some lists after Ruth (Laod., Epiph. 1), or even after Joshua 227(Epiph. 3[1]) or Deuteronomy (Epiph. 1). Occasionally Chronicles, which is an intruder from the Hagiographa, precedes 1—4 Regn. (Epiph. 2, Dial. Tim. et Aq.), or drops out altogether (Ps.-Chrys., Junilius, Cod. Clarom.). All these disturbances of the normal order may be ascribed to local or individual influences, and find no support in the uncial MSS. of the Greek Bible. But it is otherwise when we come to the 'Latter Prophets' and the Hagiographa. With regard to the Prophets, three questions of order arise. (1) There is the relative order of the Twelve and the Four. In the majority of patristic lists the Twelve precede (Ath., Cyr., Epiph., Greg., Amph., &c.), and this is also the order of Codd. A, B, N-V. But Cod. א begins with the Four, and it is supported by other authorities, chiefly Western (Ruff, Chelt., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius, Nicephorus); whilst in a few the subdivisions are mixed (Melito, Junilius, Ebedjesu[1]). (2) The internal order of the δωδεκαπρόφητον in most of the MSS. and catalogues[1] where it is stated differs from the Hebrew order in regard to the relative positions of the prophets in the first half of the group; the Hebrew order being Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, but the Greek, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah. The dominant Greek order may perhaps be due to "an attempt to secure greater accuracy in the chronological arrangement[1]." (3) The 228Greek order of the Greater Prophets follows the oldest Hebrew tradition (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), but it appends Lamentations to Jeremiah, and enlarges the group by placing Daniel either before (Melito, Origen, Hilary, Chelt., Augustine), or, more usually, after Ezekiel.
The relative order of the Hagiographa in the LXX. is more perplexing. For Ruth, Lamentations, and Daniel we have already accounted; there remain Chronicles, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, and Ezra. Chronicles, in accordance with the theory enshrined in its Greek name, usually follows Kings. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, for the most part hold together in that order, as a group of poetical books; but there are many exceptions. 'David' sometimes goes with the Prophets (Ps.-Chrys., Junilius, Augustine, Isidorus), and the group is then regarded as 'Salomonic,' or 'hortatory.' Lists which admit the two books of Wisdom usually join them to this subdivision (Ebedjesu, Carth., Augustine, Innocent, Cod. Clarom., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius, Isidorus). The internal order of the Salomonic books varies (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles; Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Proverbs; Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes); the Wisdoms usually follow, but sometimes break the sequence of the three canonical books. Much difficulty seems to have been felt as to the place of Job; the book normally appears in connexion with the poetical books, either last or first, but it is sometimes placed among the histories (Augustine, Innocent, Cod Clarom., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius), or after the Prophets (Origen). The position of Esdras is not less uncertain; its normal place is after Chronicles, but it is also found before or after the Prophets (Melito, Epiph., John of Damascus, Cod. Barocc.), or in connexion with a group of the apocryphal histories (cod. A, Carth., Augustine, &c.). Esther is still more erratic; sometimes it follows the poetical books, sometimes the Prophets, sometimes the 229histories; 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[1] and Tobit (codd. BאA, Chelt., Carth., Augustine, and the later Latin lists[1]). It seems as if the doubt which the Jewish authorities felt with regard to this book was inherited by many Christians. On the other hand Cyril, who represents the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem, makes it the twelfth of the canonical books, and in the Laodicene list it stands eighth.
Except in cases where an old or well-defined tradition fixed the internal order of groups of books, there was clearly room for every possible variation so long as the books were written on separate rolls. The cista might serve to keep a group together, but it offered no means of fixing the relative order of its contents. In the codex, on the other hand, when it contained more than one writing, the order was necessarily fixed[1], 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[1]; 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 230with Judith and Tobit. But these books occur in varying order in the oldest MSS.; in B we have Esther, Judith, Tobit, but in א 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[1]. Such variations, resting on no obvious principle, are doubtless ultimately due to the judgement or caprice of a few scribes, whose copies supplied the archetypes of the later Greek MSS. and the daughter-versions of the Septuagint.
LITERATURE. On the general subject of this chapter the student may consult C. A. Credner, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons (ed. Volkmar, Berlin, 1860); Th. Zahn, Gesch. d. N.T. Kanons, ii., p. 143 ff. (Erlangen, 1890); B. F. Westcott, Hist. of the Canon of the N. T.6 (Cambridge, 1891); W. Sanday, The Cheltenham List, in Studia Biblica, iii., pp. 226—243 (Oxford, 1891); Buhl, Kanon u. Text des A. T. (Leipzig, 1891); H. E. Ryle, Canon of the O.T. (London, 1892); E. Preuschen, Analecta (Leipzig, 1893); H. L. Strack, art. Kanon des. Alten Testamentes in P.R.E.3 ix. 741—767.
Chapter II. Books of the Hebrew Canon.
231THE books which are common to the Hebrew Bible and the Alexandrian Version[1] differ in regard to their contents as well as in their titles and order. Differences of contents may conveniently be considered under two heads, as they affect the sequence or the subject-matter.
(A) DIFFERENCES OF SEQUENCE.
1. The following table shews the principal instances in which the Greek and the Hebrew books are at variance in reference to the order of the contents. The chapters and verses in the left-hand column are those of the Cambridge Septuagint; the right-hand column follows the numeration of the printed Hebrew Bibles.
GREEK. | HEBREW. |
|
|
" xxxv. 16—21 | " xxxv. 16+21, 17—20, 22a |
|
|
" xxxv. 8—11, 12, 15—16, 17, 18, 19b | " xxxv. 9—12, 17, 13—14, 16, 19, 15 |
Exod. | xxxvi. 8b—40 | Exod. | xxxix. 1—31 |
" | xxxvii. 1—2 | " | xxxvi. 8—9 |
" | " 8—6 | " | " 35—38 |
" | " 7—21 | " | xxxviii. 9—23 |
" | xxxviii. 1—17 | " | xxxvii. 1—24 |
" | " 18—20 | " | xxxvi. 20—34 |
" | " 21—24 | " | xxxviii. 1—7 |
" | " 25 | " | xxxvii. 29 |
" | " 26 | " | xxxviii. 8 |
" | " 27 | " | xl. 30—32 |
" | xxxix. 1—10 | " | xxxviii. 24—31 |
" | " 11 | " | xxxix. 32 |
" | " 13—23 | " | " 33—43 |
" | xl. 6b—8, 10—25, 26, 27—32 | " | xl. 8—10, 12—27, 29, 33, 38 |
Num. | i. 24—10 | Num. | i. 26—37, 24—25 |
" | vi. 22—26 | " | vi. 22, 23, 27, 24, 25, 26 |
" | xxvi. 15—47 | " | xxvi. 19—27, 15—18, 44—47, 28—43 |
Josh. | ix. 3—33 | Josh. | viii. 30—33, ix. 3—27 |
" | xix. 47—48 | " | xix. 48, 47 |
3 Regn. | iv. 17, 18, 19 | 1 Kings | iv. 18, 19, 17 |
" | " 20—21, 22—24, 25—30 | " | " 7—8, 2—4, 9—14 |
" | v. 1—16, 17 | " | v. 15—30, 32b |
" | vi. 4—5, 6—7, 8, 9—15, 16—34 | " | vi. 37—38, 2—3, 14, 4—10, 15—36 |
" | vii. 1—6, 7, 8—9, 10—11, 12—13 | " | vii. 13—18, 21, 19—20, 23—24, 26, 25 |
" | vii. 14—37, 38—50 | " | vii. 27—51, 1—12 |
" | x. 23—24a, 24b, 25 | " | ix. 15, 17—19, 20—22 |
" | " 26—29 | " | x. 23—26 |
" | " 30 | " | v. 1a |
" | " 31—33 | " | x. 27—29 |
" | xi. 3—8 | " | xi. 4, 3, 7, 5, 8, 6 |
" | xx. xxi | " | xxi. xx |
Psalms | ix. 22—39 | Psalms | x. 1—18 |
" | x.—cxii | " | xi.—cxiii |
" | cxiii. 1—8 | " | cxiv. 1—8 |
" | cxiii. 9—12 | " | cxv. 1—4 |
" | cxiv | " | cxvi. 1—9 |
" | cxv | " | cxvi. 10—19 |
" | cxvi.—cxlvi | " | cxvii.—cxlvii. 11 |
" | cxlvii. 1—9 | " | cxlvii. 12—20 |
Prov. | xv. 27b—xvi. 4, 6, 9 | Prov. | xvi. 6, xv. 28, xvi. 7, xv 29 |
" | xvi. 8—9, xv. 30—33a | ||
" | xvi. 5, 4a | ||
" | xx. 10a—12, 13b—16, 17—24 | " | xx. 20—22, 10—13, 23—30 |
" | xxiv. 24—37, 3849, 50—68, 69—77, xxix. 28—49 |
" | xxx. 1—14, xxiv. 23—34, xxx. 15—33, xxxi. 1—9, 10 |
Jer. | xxv. 14—19 | Jer. | xlix. 34a—39 |
" | xxvi. 1 | " | " 36b |
" | " 2—28 | " | xlvi. 2—28 |
" | xxvii | " | l |
" | xxvii | " | li |
" | xxxvii. 1—2 | " | xxxvi. 8—9 |
" | xxix. 1—7 | " | xlvii. 1—7 |
" | " 8—23 | " | xlix. 7—22 |
" | xxx. 1—5, 6—11, 12—27 | " | " 1—5, 28—33, 23—27 |
" | xxxi. | " | xlviii |
" | xxxii. 1—24 | " | xxv. 15—38 |
" | xxxiii | " | xxvi |
" | xxxiv. 1—18 | " | xxvii. 2—22 |
" | xxxv | " | xxxviii |
" | xxxvi | " | xxix |
" | xxxvii | " | xxx |
" | xxxviii. 1—34, 35—37, 38—40 | " | xxxi. 1—34, 37, 35, 36, 38—40 |
" | xxxix | " | xxxii |
" | xl | " | xxxiii |
" | xli | " | xxxiv |
" | xlii | " | xxxv |
" | xliii | " | xxxvi |
" | xliv | " | xxxvii |
" | xlv | " | xxxviii |
" | xlvi | " | xxxix |
" | xlvii | " | xl |
" | xlviii | " | xli |
" | xlix | " | xlii |
" | l | " | xliii |
" | li. 1—30, 31—35 | " | xliv. 1—30, xlv. 1—5 |
Ezech. | vii. 3—9 | Ezek. | vii. 6—9, 3—5 |
2. Each of these contexts must be separately examined with the view of discovering the extent and the cause of the divergence. This can be done but briefly here; for further 234particulars the student is referred to the commentaries which deal with the several books.
In the following pages = the Greek text, and A, B, etc. = the Greek text as given in cod. A, cod. B, or as the case may be; = the Massoretic text as printed in the Hebrew Bibles.
The passage deals with the building and furniture of the Tabernacle, and the attire of the Priesthood: The following rough table will enable the student to see how the detail are arranged in the LXX. and Heb. severally.
Ornaments of the Ministers. | Structure of the Tabernacle. |
Ephod ( |
Hangings ( |
Onyx stones ( |
Boards ( |
Breastplate ( |
Veils ( |
Robe of Ephod ( |
|
Linen vestments ( |
Furniture of the Tabernacle and its Court. |
Crown plate ( |
Ark ( |
Table ( |
|
Structure of the Tabernacle, and Court. | Candlestick ( |
Hangings ( |
Altar of incense ( |
Veils ( |
Altar of Burnt-offering ( |
Court ( |
Laver ( |
Court ( |
|
Furniture of the Tabernacle, &c. | Ornaments of the Ministers. |
Ark ( |
Ephod ( |
Table ( |
Onyx stones ( |
Candlestick ( |
Breastplate ( |
Altar of Burnt-offering ( |
Robe of the Ephod ( |
Oil and Incense ( |
Linen vestments ( |
Laver ( |
Crown plate ( |
It is clear from this comparison that both and follow a system, i.e. that the difference of sequence is due to a deliberate rearrangement of the groups. Either the Alexandrian translator has purposely changed their relative order, giving precedence to the ornaments of the priesthood which are subordinated in the M. T. of cc. xxxv.—xl., as well as in both texts of cc. xxv.—xxx.; or he had before him in c. xxxv. ff. another Hebrew text in which the present Greek order was observed. Many O. T. scholars (e.g. Kuenen, Wellhausen, Dillmann) regard cc. xxxv.—xl. as belonging to a "secondary 236and posterior stratum of P[1]." Thus it is permissible to suppose that the Hebrew text before the original translators of Exodus did not contain this section, and that it was supplied afterwards from a longer Hebrew recension of the book in which the last six chapters had not yet reached their final form. That the translation of these chapters was not made by the same hand as the rest of Exodus has been gathered from the fact that the Hebrew technical terms which are common to xxv.—xxx. and xxxv.—xl. are in certain cases differently rendered in the two contexts[1].
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
Provision for the royal table ( |
Solomon's marriage ( |
Solomon's power ( |
Provision for the royal table ( |
His wisdom ( |
The King's power ( |
His marriage ( |
His wisdom ( |
His wife's dowry ( |
His negociations with King Hiram ( |
His negociations with King Hiram ( |
His corvée of workmen ( |
His corvée of workmen ( |
Foundations of the Temple laid ( |
Foundations of the Temple laid ( |
Dimensions of the Temple ( |
Dimensions of the Temple ( |
Details of the building ( |
Details of the building ( |
Building of the royal palaces ( |
Work of Hiram the artist ( |
Work of Hiram the artist ( |
Building of the royal palaces ( |
Solomon's wife's dowry ( |
As in the disturbed section at the end of Exodus, it is easy to see that each order follows a system: (1) Whilst places the marriage of Solomon to Pharaoh's daughter, and the use made by the king of his wife's marriage portion, in their historical settings, B brings the two incidents together, as the finishing strokes to the picture of Solomon's power. Again, whilst deals with the whole of Solomon's public works before it describes the skill of Hiram, B completes the history of the building of the Temple with the account of Hiram's labours before it describes the construction of the royal palaces.
The above comparison is necessarily rough; it does not shew' the minor differences of order, or the omissions and additions of the Greek text. A closer examination leaves little doubt that B has been translated from a recension of the book earlier than that which is preserved in the Massoretic text[1].
Throughout the greater part of the Psalter and 240follow different systems of numeration. This is due to certain consecutive Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter being counted as one in the Greek (ix. + x. Heb. = ix. LXX.; cxiv. + cxv. Heb. = cxiii. LXX.), and certain of the Hebrew Psalms being vice versa divided in the Greek into two (cxvi. Heb. = cxiv. + cxv. LXX.; cxlvii. Heb. = cxlvi. + cxlvii. LXX.).
In the Heb.
In the first great section of this book (cc. i.—ix.) there is
no important difference of order, nor does the second section
(x.—xxii. 1b) 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.
Words of Agur ( |
Sayings of the Wise ( |
Sayings of the Wise ( |
Proverbs of Solomon ( |
Rest of the Words of Agur
( |
Words of Agur ( |
Words of Lemuel ( |
Words of Lemuel ( |
Proverbs of Solomon ( |
Praise of the Virtuous Woman ( |
Praise of the Virtuous Woman ( |
Evidently the order of this portion of the book had not been finally settled when the Alexandrian translator did his work[1]. Moreover he has failed to understand the headings of the two sections attributed to Agur and Lemuel[1], 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.
(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 kaὶ ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ πολλοῖς ἁγίοις βιβλίοις εὕρομεν πὴ μὲν πλείονα παῤ ἡμῖν κείμενα ἢ παῤ Ἐβραίοις, πὴ δὲ λείποντα) and the Hexapla, as we have seen[1], was the result of a mistaken endeavour to assimilate the LXX. to the current 243Hebrew 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
[εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ,
καί προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ υἱοὶ θεοῦ·]
εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη, μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ,
[καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.]
ὅτι τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται,
[καὶ ἐκδικήσει] καί ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς,
[καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει, ]
καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ [Κύριος] τήν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ.
There is nothing in which corresponds with the bracketed
words of the version. Yet they are present in all
uncial MSS. of the LXX., and were probably
in the earlier copies of Deuteronomy which passed into the possession of the Christian
Church. Possibly the Song was circulated in a separate form in more than one translation.
The present Greek text seems to be the result of conflation, lines 1 and 3,
2 and 4, 6 and 7, being doublets; line 2 = 4 appears to be an adaptation of
244
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[1], there are in the last four chapters several important contexts in which and differ by defect or excess[1].
245
1 SAMUEL (1 REGN.).
ὁ φρόνιμος ἐν τῇ φρονήσει . . . ὁ δυνατὸς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει . . . τὸν Κύριον, καί ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐν μέσῳ τῆς γῆς. | ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ . . . ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι . . . ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι Κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ἔλεος καί κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. |
It has been noticed that
These omissions have been variously explained. According
to Wellhausen and Kuenen[1], the Greek translator, or the
scribe of the archetype followed by Cod B, has deliberately
246removed the missing verses, from a desire to harmonise. Certainly
the result of their absence is to reduce, if not altogether
to remove, the conflict between c.
The omissions are supplied in A, Luc., but probably from a non-Septuagintal source; the passages are marked with an asterisk in the Hexaplaric MSS. 64, 92[1].
1 KINGS (3 REGN.). In this book B contains a large quantity of additional matter, of varying character and worth[1].
247C.
Thus ii. 35 a—b = iv. 25—26, c = iv. 31, d = v. 15, e = vii. 10 ff., f—g = ix. 24—25 (), h = v. 16, i—k = x. 23 ff., l—o = ii. 8—9. Similarly, ii. 46 a = iv. 20 (), b = v. 2 (), c = iii. 1 (), d = ix. 18 (), e = iv. 22—23, f = iv. 24, g = v. 5 (), h = 2 ff., i—k = x. 29—30.
C.
τότε ἐλάλησεν Σ. ὑπὲρ τοῦ οἴκου ὡς συνετέλεσεν τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι αὐπόν Ἥλιον ἐγνώρισεν (Luc., ἔστησεν) ἐν οὐρανῷ Κύριος· | εἶπεν τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐκ γνόφου (A, ἐν γνόφῳ)· | οἰκοδόμησον οἶκόν μου, οἶκον ἐκπρεπῆ (A, εὐπρεπῆ) σαυτῷ | τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ καινότητος. | οὐκ ἰδοὺ αὕτη γέγραπται ἐν βιβλίῳ τῆς ᾠδῆς;
Though this occurs in cod. A and Lucian, it was wanting in the Hebrew text which was before the translators of the second century A.D., for in the Hexapla it appeared only in the LXX. column[1]. But (as its very errors shew) it is a translation of a Hebrew original, and the βιβλίῳ τῆς ᾠδῆς from which it came is doubtless none other than the Book of Jashar (סֵפֶר־הַיָּשָׁר, read as ס׳ הַשִּׁיר)[1]. Here has preserved 248for us a precious relic, which in has been first misplaced and then partly lost[1].
The parallels are xii. 24 a = xi. 43, xiv. 21—22; b = xi. 26—28; c = xi. 40; d—f = xi. 43b; xii. 2—5 (); g—na = xiv. 1—20 (); nb—z = xii. 3—24.
But the passage is no mere cento of verses to be found
elsewhere either in or ;
it is a second and distinct
recension of the story, resting equally with the first upon a
Hebrew original. So different and indeed in some respects
contradictory are the accounts that they "cannot possibly have
stood from the first in the same volume." The same action is
ascribed in the one "to Shemaiah, at Shechem, in the days of
Rehoboam"; and in the other "to Ahijah, at Jerusalem, in the
days of Solomon[1]." In fact, the present Greek version of 1 Kings
has preserved two ancient accounts of the dismemberment of
the Kingdom of David and Solomon, and though one of
these survives also in there is no a priori ground for
deciding which of the two is the more trustworthy. It is
worthy of notice that cod. B omits the reference to Jeroboam's
residence in Egypt in
C.
2 KINGS (4 REGN.).
C.
250
PSALMS.
In many of the Psalms receive titles, or additions to their titles, which are wanting in . The following is a list of those which occur in the uncial MSS.
On the questions raised by the Greek titles see Neubauer in Studia Bibl. ii. p. 1 ff., Driver, Intr. p. 348 ff., the commentaries, e.g. those of Perowne, Kirkpatrick, and Cheyne, and the last-named author's Origin of the Psalter. Valuable traditions are probably embodied in the liturgical notes which assign certain Psalms to particular days of the week τῇ μιᾷ σαββάτου, δευτέρᾳ σ., τετράδι σ.[1], εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ προσαββάτου (cf. Mc. xv. 42)), and in those which attribute others to the time of the Return (Ζαχαρίου, Ἁγγαίου) 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 Γολιάδ), whilst others are obscure (ἐκστάσεως, ἀναστ̩σεως).
For the Christian (mystical) interpretation of the Greek titles see Athan. de titulis Psalmorum (Migne, P. G. xxvii. 591 sqq.), the variorum prolegomena in Pitra's Analecta sacra ii. p. 411 sqq., and Corderii exp. Patr. Gr. in Psalmos, passim.
The Greek addition had a place in the κοινή, according to Jerome praef. in Isa.; cf. Field, ad loc. Whether it was brought into the text of the LXX. from the Epistle[1], or was already in the Greek Psalm as known to St Paul, cannot perhaps now be ascertained. But it doubtless had its origin in the Rabbinical practice of stringing together passages excerpted from various books of the Old Testament (Sanday and Headlam on Romans, l.c.), and it may have existed under this form in a collection of testimonia used by the Apostle (on such collections see Hatch, Essays, p. 203, Westcott, Hebrews, p. 476 ff.).
This Psalm is clearly based on
For the literature of
THE ECCLESIASTICAL CANTICLES.
In certain uncial MSS. and a large proportion of the cursives the Psalms are followed by a collection of liturgical ᾠδαί (cantica). The following table shews the sources and order of those which are given by codd. A, R, T.
A | R | T |
1. |
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. 1 Regn. ii. 1—10. | 1 Regn. ii. 1—10. | |
4. |
|
|
5. Ion. ii. 3—10. | Ion. ii. 3—10. | |
6. |
|
[6] 1 Regn. ii. [1]—10. |
7. |
Magnificat. | 7. Magnificat. |
8. Prayer of Manasseh[1]. |
|
8. |
9. |
9. Prayer of Manasseh[1]. | |
10. " " 52—88. | 10. |
|
11. Magnificat. | 11. " " 52—56. | |
12. Nunc dimittis. | 12. " " 57—90. | |
13. Benedictus. | 13. Benedictus. | |
14. Morning Hymn. | 14. Nunc dimittis. | |
15. Morning Hymn. |
254
The nine Odes now sung at Lauds in the Orthodox Church
are (following the order of cod. A) nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 4, 5, 9, 10,
11 + 13; the Roman Church uses at Lauds on successive days
of the week 10,
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:
The division of the Psalter into books[1] seems to have
been already made when it was translated into Greek, for
though the Greek codices have nothing to answer to the headings
ספר
ראשון, etc., which appear in the printed Hebrew Bible,
the Doxologies at the end of the first four books appear in the
255Greek as well as in the M. T. (
PROVERBS. The variations of and
in this book are
treated by Lagarde in his early book Anmerkungen zur griech.
Übersetzung der Proverbien. There is a considerable number of
Greek verses for which offers no Hebrew equivalent, and
there are some Hebrew verses or half-verses for which there is no
Greek. Of the Greek verses not in some (e.g.
JOB. The LXX. text of Job current in Origen's time is known to have been very much shorter than the Greek text preserved in extant MSS. and the M.T.
Ad African. 4 πλεῖστά τε ὅσα διὰ μέσου ὅλου τοῦ Ἰὼβ παῤ Ἐβραίοις μὲν κεῖται παῤ ἡμῖν δὲ οὐχί, καὶ πολλάκις μὲν ἔπη τέσσαρα ἢ τρία· ἔσθ᾿ ὅτε δὲ καὶ δεκατέσσαρα καὶ δεκαεννέα καὶ δεκαέξ (for. leg. ἐννέα καὶ ἕξ[1]). Cf. Hieron. praef. in Hiob: "cui [sc. libro Iob], si ea quae sub asteriscis addita sunt subtraxeris, pars maxima voluminis detruncabitur, et hoc duntaxat apud Graecos. ceterum apud Latinos . . . septingenti ferme aut octingenti versus desunt."
The asterisks are preserved in certain cursive MSS. of the 256Greek Job[1] 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[1] in his Essay On Origen's revision of the LXX. text of Job advocates the theory that the LXX. represents a shorter Hebrew text which was afterwards expanded into the longer form. Bickell, in his early book De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae (p. 42), maintained that the omissions were chiefly due to the translator, and this view is supported by recent critics. The evident desire of the translator to follow classical models suggests that he was an Alexandrian Hellenist[1] who intended his version for general reading, rather than for use in the synagogue[1]. Under such circumstances he may have been tempted to reduce the length of his original, especially in passages where it did not lend itself readily to his treatment. On the other hand he has not scrupled here and there to add to the original. Thus in c. ii. 9 he seeks to heighten the effect and at the same time to soften the harshness of the words uttered by Job's wife (χρόνου . . . πολλοῦ προβεβηκότος . . . λέγων Ἰδοὺ ἀναμένω κτλ.)[1].
The two notes at the end of the Greek Job (
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[1]. The Greek additions are distributed through the book in contexts as long as average chapters[1]. In the Latin Bible they are collected at the end of the canonical book, where they fill several consecutive chapters (x. 4—xi. 5 = F, xi. 2—xii. 6 = A, xiii. 1—7 = B, xiii. 8—xiv. 19 = C, xv. 4—19 = D, xvi. 1—24 = E). This arrangement is due to Jerome, who relegated the Greek interpolations to the end of the canonical book; but it has had the effect of making them unintelligible. In their Greek sequence they form part of a consecutive history; A, which precedes c. i., introduces the story by describing the events which led to the first advancement of Mordecai at the court of Artaxerxes; B and E, which 258follow iii. 13 and viii. 12, profess to give copies of the letters of Artaxerxes referred to in those verses; C and D, which come between c. iv. and c. v., contain the prayers of Mordecai and Esther, and a description of Esther's approach to the King; F is an epilogue, which completes the story by relating the institution of the feast of Purim. Such Haggadic accretions will not create surprise if it be remembered that Esther was among the latest of the Kethubim, and that its canonicity was matter of dispute in Jewish circles even in the last years of the first century A.D.[1].
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[1], as they called it, which had been translated (so they said) by one Lysimachus, son of Ptolemy, a resident at Jerusalem." As Fritzsche remarks[1], no fewer than four Ptolemies married a Cleopatra (Epiphanes, Philometor, Physcon, and Lathyrus), so that the date intended by the fourth year of Ptolemy and Cleopatra is by no means certain, though it is perhaps most naturally interpreted as = B.C. 178—7 (? 166—5), the fourth year of Philometor[1]. But the historical value of the note is more than doubtful[1].
The Greek text of Esther exists in two recensions (1) that of אABN 55, 93 b, 108 a, 249 al., (2) that of 19, 93 a, 108 b; both are exhibited by Ussher (Syntagma), Fritzsche (Ἐσθήρ, 1848; libri apocryphi, 1871), and Lagarde (libr. canon. V. T. i., 1883). The 259recensions differ considerably in the Greek additions as well as in the version. On the date of the Greek Esther the student may consult Jacob, Das Buch Esther bei dem LXX. in ZATW., 1890 (p. 241 ff.).
JEREMIAH. Besides the extensive transpositions already noticed, the LXX. text of Jeremiah differs widely from M.T. in the way of excess and defect. The subject has received careful treatment from Dr A. W. Streane (Double Text of Jeremiah, Cambridge, 1896), whose verdict is on the whole in favour of the LXX. text, especially with regard to its omissions. He points out that "the tendency to diffuseness, characteristic of later Judaism . . . [and] likely specially to affect the writing of Jeremiah, as a prophet whose memory was of marked interest to the post-exilic Jews . . . operated much more slightly among Egyptian Jews than with their brethren elsewhere[1]"; and concludes that "the 'omissions' to be observed in the LXX. of Jeremiah, speaking generally, exist only in consequence of its nearer approximation to the original form of the Hebrew text."
The Greek additions, in Jeremiah, rarely exceed a few words
in a verse (see the list in Streane, p. 19). Omissions are more
numerous, and sometimes extend over several consecutive verses
of ; the following are the most noteworthy:
LAMENTATIONS. The Greek translator has prefixed a heading which connects the book with Jeremiah (καὶ ἐγένετο . . . ἐκάθισεν Ἰερεμίας κλαίων κτλ.),
260
DANIEL. Like Esther the Book of Daniel in both its Greek
forms[1] contains large contexts which have no equivalent in .
There are three such passages in the Greek Daniel: (1) the
story of Susanna (Σουσάννα, Σωσάννα), which in the version of
Theodotion[1] as given by the great uncials precedes
Iren. iv. 26. 3 "et audient eas quae sunt a Daniele propheta voces" (Sus. 56, 52 f.), iv. 5. 2 "quem et Daniel propheta . . . annuntiavit" (Bel 4f., 25). Tert. de idololatria, 18 (Bel 4 f.). Hippol. in 261Sus. (Lagarde, p. 145) αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ ἱστορία γεγένηται ὕστερον, προεγράφη δὲ τῆς βίβλου πρώτης. Africanus, ep. ad Orig. θαυμάζω δὲ τῶς ἔλαθέ σε τὸ μέρος τοῦ βιβλίου τοῦτο κίβδηλον ὄν κτλ. Orig. ad African. παῤ ἀμφοτέροις (LXX. and Theodotion) ἔκειτο τὸ περὶ τὴν Σωσάνναν (ὡς 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 (σχῖνος, σχίζειν) in Sus. 54 f., Ball (Speaker's Comm., Apocrypha, ii. p. 330 f.) has given reasons for believing that both Susanna and Bel once existed in an Aramaic or a new-Hebrew original[1]. The LXX. version represents Bel as a fragment of Habakkuk (cod. 87, Syro-Hex., tit. ἐκ προφητείας Ἁμβακοὺμ υἱοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευί), an attribution evidently due to v. 33 ff., but inconsistent with the place of the story in the Gk. MSS.
The addition to
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.
LITERATURE upon the canonical books (considered separately or in groups).
PENTATEUCH. Amersfoordt, Dissert. philol. de variis lectionibus Holmes. Pentateuchi (1815). Hug, de Pentateuchi vers. Alexandrina commentatio (1818). Töpler, de Pentateuchi interpretationis Alexandrinae indole (1830). Thiersch, de Pentateuchi versione A1exandrina, libri iii (1841). Frankel, über den Einfluss der paläst. Exegese auf die alex. Hermeneutik (1851). Howorth, the LXX. and Samaritan v. the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch (Academy, 1894).
GENESIS. Lagarde, Genesis Graece (1868). Deutsch, exeg. Analecten zur Genesisübersetzung der LXX. (in Jüd. Litt. Blatt, 1879). Spurrell, Genesis, ed. 2 (1898).
EXODUS. Selwyn, Notae criticae in Versionem LXXviralem, Exod. i—xxiv (1856).
NUMBERS. Selwyn, Notae, &c., Liber Numerorum (1857). Howard, Numbers and Deuteronomy acc. to the LXX. translated into English (1887).
DEUTERONOMY. Selwyn, Notae, &c., Liber Deuteronomii (1858). Howard, op. cit. (1887). Driver, critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deut. (1895).
JOSHUA. Hollenberg, Der Charakter der alex. Übersetzung des Buches Josua (1876).
JUDGES. Fritzsche, Liber Iudicum sec. LXX. interpretes (1867). Schulte, de restitutione atque indole genuinae versionis graece Iudicum (1889). Lagarde, Septuagintast. i. (1891), (Jud. i—v., texts of A and B). Moore, critical and Exegetical Comm. on Judges (1895).
RUTH. Fritzsche, Ῥοὺθ κατὰ τοὺς οʹ (1867).
2631, 2 KINGDOMS. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis untersucht (1871). Woods, the light thrown by the LXX. on the Books of Samuel (in Studia Biblica, i. 21, 1885). Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (1890). Steinthal, zur Geschichte Sauls u. Davids (1891). Kerber, Syrohex. Fragmente zu den beiden Samuelisbüchern (ZATW., 1898). J. Méritan, la Version Grecque des livres de Samuel, précédée d’une introduction sur la critique textuelle (1898). H. P. Smith, Critical and exeg. comm. on the Books of Samuel (1899).
3, 4 KINGDOMS. Silberstein, Über den Ursprung der im Codex Alex. u. Vat. des dritten Königsbuches der Alex. Übersetzung überlieferten Textsgestalt (in ZATW., 1893). C. F. Burney, Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Kings (1903).
1, 2 CHRONICLES, EZRA-NEHEMIAH. Howorth, The true LXX. version of Chr.-Ezra-Neh. (in Academy, 1893). Nestle, Marginalien (1893), p. 29 ff.
PSALMS. Sinker, Some remarks on the LXX. version of the Psalms (1879). Baethgen, der text-kritisches Werth des alten Übersetz. zu d. Psalmen (1882). Lagarde, psalteri graeci specimen (1887); psalmorum quinquagena prima (1892). Mercati, un palimpsesto Ambrosiano dei Salmi Esapli (1896). Jacob, Beiträge zu einer Einleitung in die Psalmen (I. Exc. v.), (1896).
PROVERBS. Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griech. Übersetz. der Proverbien (1863). Pinkuss, die syr. Übersetzung des Proverbien . . . in ihrem Verhältniss zu dem Mass. Text, den LXX. u. dem Targ. untersucht (ZATW., 1894).
ECCLESIASTES. Wright, The book of Koheleth (1883). Grätz, Koheleth (1884). Klostermann (E.), de libri Coheleth. versione Alexandrina (1892). Dillmann, über die Gr. Übersetzung des Koheleth (1892). Köhl, observ. ad interpr. Gr. et Lat. vet. libri Job (1834).
JOB. Bickell, De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae Jobi (1862); der ursprüngliche Septuaginta-text des Buches Hiob (1886). Hatch, on Origen's revision of the Book of Job (in Essays, 1889). Dillmann, Text-kritisches zum B. Ijob (1890). Maude, die Peschittha zu Hiob nebst einem Anhang über ihr Verhältniss zu LXX. u. Targ. (1892). Beer, der Text des B. Hiob (1895). Driver, in Cont. Review (Feb. 1896). Cheyne, in Exc. Bibl., 2489 f. (1901).
ESTHER. Jacob, Esther bei dem LXX. (ZATW., (1890). On the Greek additions see Ryssel in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 193 ff.
264DODECAPROPHETON. Vollers, Das Dod. der Alexandriner (1880), continued in ZATW., 1883–4. Stekhoven, de alex. Vertaling van het Dod. (1887).
HOSEA. Treitel, Die alex. Übersetzung des Buches Hosea (1888).
MICAH. Ryssel, Untersuchungen über die Textgestalt des B. Micha (1887). Taylor, the Mass. text and the ancient versions of Micah (1891).
OBADIAH. Seydel, Vaticinium Obadiae . . . . . . ratione habita transl. Alex. (1869).
NAHUM. Reinke, Zur Kritik der ält. Vers. d. Proph. Nahum (1867).
HABAKKUK. Sinker, Psalm of Habakkuk (1890).
ZECHARIAH. Lowe, Comm. on Zech. (1882).
ISAIAH. Scholz, Die Masor. Text u. alex. Übersetzung des B. Jesaias (1880). Weiss, Peschitta zu Deuterojesaia u. ihr Verhältniss zu M. T., LXX. u. Targ. (1893).
JEREMIAH. Movers, De utriusque recens. Jeremiae indole et origine (1837). Wichelhaus, de Jeremiae vers. Alexandr. indole (1847). Schulz, de Ieremiae textus Hebr. et Gr. discrepantia (1861). Scholz, der Masor. Text u. die LXX. Übersetz. des B. Jeremias (1875). Kühl, das Verhältniss der Massora zur Septuaginta in Jeremia (1882). Workman, the text of Jeremiah (1889). Coste, die Weissagungen der Propheten Ieremias (1895). Streane, the double text of Jeremiah (1896). The question of the two recensions is dealt with at length in Bleek-Wellhausen, Einleitung, § 158 ff.
LAMENTATIONS. Goldwitzer, Übersetzung mit Vergleichung d. LXX. (1828).
EZEKIEL. Merx, Der Werth der LXX. für die Textkritik der AT am Ezechiel aufgezeigt (Jb. pr. Th., 1883). Cornill, das Buch des Proph. Ezechiel (1886); cf. Lagarde in Gött. gelehrte Anzeigen (1 June, 1886).
DANIEL. Bludau, De alex. interprete libri Daniel indole (1891); die alex. Übersetzung des B. Daniel (1897). Bevan, the Book of Daniel (1892). Löhr, textkrit. Vorarbeiten zu einer Erklärung des Buches Daniel (ZATW., 1895). On the Greek additions see Rothstein in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 172 ff.
Chapter III. Books not Included in the Hebrew Canon.
265THE MSS. and many of the lists of the Greek Old Testament include certain books which find no place in the Hebrew Canon. The number of these books varies, as we have seen; but the fullest collections contain the following: 1 Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, i.—iv. Maccabees. We may add the Psalms of Solomon, a book which was sometimes included in MSS. of the Salomonic books, or, in complete Bibles, at the end of the Canon; and the Greek version of Enoch, although by some accident it has been excluded from the Greek Bible, on other grounds claims the attention of every Biblical student. There is also a long list of pseudepigrapha and other apocrypha which lie outside both the Hebrew and the Greek Canons, and of which in many cases only the titles have survived. The present chapter will be occupied by a brief examination of these non-canonical writings of the Greek Old Testament.
1. 1 ESDRAS. In MSS. of the LXX. the canonical book Ezra-Nehemiah appears under the title "Ἔσδρας βʹ, Ἔσδρας αʹ being appropriated by another recension of the history of the Captivity and Return. The 'Greek Esdras' consists of an 266independent 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
The context
The relation of the two Greek recensions of Ezra to one another is a problem analogous to that which is presented by the two 'versions' of Daniel, and scarcely less perplexing. It has been stated with great care in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (i. p. 759 ff.), by Mr H. St J. Thackeray. He distinguishes three views, (1) that 1 Esdras is a compilation from the LXX. version of 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, (2) that it is based on an earlier Greek version of those books, and (3) that it is an independent translation of an earlier Hebrew text; and while refusing to regard any solution as final, he inclines to the second. The third has recently found a champion in Sir H. H. Howorth[1], who adds to it the suggestion that 1 Esdras is the true Septuagintal (i.e. the Alexandrian) version, whilst 2 Esdras is later, and probably that of Theodotion. Mr Thackeray is disposed to regard this contention as "so far correct that [1 Esdras] represents the first attempt to present the story of the Return in a Gr[eek] dress," 2 Esdras being "a more accurate rendering of the Heb[rew]" which was "subsequently . . . required and . . . supplied by what is now called the LXX. version[1]."
2. WISDOM OF SOLOMON. The Greek title is Σοφία Σαλωμῶνος (Σαλομῶντος, Σολομῶντος, Σαλωμών). But the book 268was often cited as ἡ Σοφία, 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 Sapienta or Sophia Salomonis (Cyprian, O. L.), but also simply liber Sapientiae (Lactantius, Vulg.).
No other book in the Greek Bible is so manifestly Alexandrian
in tone and style. Some early Christian writers
attributed it to Philo (Hieron. praef. in libros Salomonis:
"nonnulli scriptorum veterum hunc esse Iudaei Philonis affirmant"),
and it has been ingeniously conjectured that this view found a
place in the Greek archetype of the Muratorian fragment[1]. 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[1]. On
the other hand it clearly belongs to a period when the Jewish
scholars of Alexandria were abreast of the philosophic doctrines
and the literary standards of their Greek contemporaries. The
author is acquainted with the Platonic doctrine of the four
cardinal virtues[1] (c.
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—τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας . . . τὸ 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 Σειράχ[1], but codd. AC give the fuller and more accurate form Σοφία Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ (Cf. C. L. 27 παιδείαν . . . ἐχάραξα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς 270Σειράχ[1]). Jerome had seen a Hebrew Sirach which shared with the canonical book the title of Proverbs (praef. in libros Salom.: "Hebraicum reperi . . . Parabolas משלים praenotatum"). The later name, Ecclesiasticus, which appears in Cyprian (e.g. testim. ii. 1 "apud Salomonem . . . in Ecclesiastico"), marks the book as the most important or the most popular of the libri ecclesiastici—the books which the Church used for the purpose of instruction, although they were not included in the Jewish canon.
Cf. Rufin. in symb. 38: "alii libri sunt qui non canonici sed ecclesiastici a maioribus appellati sunt, id est, Sapientia quae dicitur Salomonis, et alia Sapientia quae dicitur filii Sirach, qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur, quo vocabulo non auctor libelli sed scripturae qualitas cognominata est."
The Wisdom of the Son of Sirach was the work of a Palestinian (c. L. 27 Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ἰεροσολυμείτης), and written in Hebrew; the Greek version was made by the grandson of the writer during a visit to Alexandria (prolog., ll. 5, 18 ff.). This visit is said to have begun ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐεργέτου βασιλέως—words which, simple as they seem, are involved in a double ambiguity, since there were two Ptolemies who bore the name Euergetes, and it is not clear whether the 38th year is to be reckoned from the commencement of the reign of Euergetes or from some other point of departure. But, assuming that the Euergetes intended is Euergetes II., i.e. Physcon[1], and that the translator is counting from the time when Physcon was associated in the government with his brother and predecessor Philometor, we arrive at B.C. 132 as the terminus a quo of the Greek version, and the original may have been composed some fifty years earlier.
Fragments of the original are preserved in Rabbinic 271literature. These are in the dialect of the Talmud; but recent discoveries have brought to light a large part of the book in classical Hebrew. A comparison of the Greek version with the Hebrew text, so far as it has been printed, reveals considerable differences, especially when the Greek text employed is that of cod. B, which was unfortunately chosen for the purpose by the Oxford editors of the Hebrew fragments. It must be remembered that these fragments come from a MS. of the 11th or 12th century, which may present a corrupt form of the Hebrew text; and on the other hand, that there are considerable variations in the Greek text of Sirach, cod. B differing widely from the majority of the MSS.[1] 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[1]. At present few experts accept this theory, but the question must perhaps be regarded as sub iudice.
In all the known MSS. of the Greek Sirach[1], there is
a remarkable disturbance of the sequence. They pass from
c.
4. JUDITH (Ἰουδείθ,
-δίθ, -δήθ, = יְהוּדִית,
cf.
Origen's Jewish teachers knew nothing of a Semitic original (cf. ad African. 13: Ἐβραῖοι τῷ Τωβίᾳ οὐ χρῶνται οὐδὲ τῇ Ἰουδήθ, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ ἐν ἀποκρύφοις Ἐβραιστί, ὡς ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν μαθόντες ἐγνώκαμεν). Jerome, on the other hand, not only says expressly (praef. in Iudith): "apud Hebraeos liber Iudith inter apocrypha (v.l. hagiographa) legitur," but he produced a version or paraphrase from an Aramaic source ("ea quae intellegentia integra ex verbis Chaldaeis invenire potui, Latinis expressi")[1]. The relation of this Aramaic text to the original of the Greek book remains uncertain.
273The Greek Judith is said by Fritzsche[1] to exist in three recensions: (1) that of the Uncials and the majority of the cursives, (2) that of codd. 19, 108, and (3) that which is represented by cod. 58, and is in general agreement with the Old Latin and Syriac versions, which are based upon a Greek text.
5. TOBIT (Τωβείτ (-βίτ, -βήτ), Τωβείθ, Tobias, liber Tobiae, utriusque Tobiae), a tale of family life, the scene of which is laid at Nineveh and Ecbatana, the hero being an Israelite of the tribe of Naphtali, who had been carried into captivity by Shalmanezer. The book appears to have been written for Jewish readers, and in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Jews of Origen's time, however, refused to recognise its authority (Orig. de orat. 14 τῇ δὲ τοῦ 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 αἱ ἐκκλησίαι), and there is abundant evidence of its popularity among Christians (cf. Ps. Clem. 2 Cor. 16. 4, Polyc. ad Smyrn. 10. 2, Clem. Alex. strom. ii. 23, vi. 12, Orig. de orat. 11, in Rom. viii. 11, c. Cels. v. 19, Cypr. testim. iii. 1, 6, 62). Gnostics shared this feeling with Catholics; the Ophites placed Tobit among their prophetical books (Iren. i. 30. 11).
Jerome translated Tobit as he translated Judith, from a 'Chaldee,' i.e. Aramaic, copy, but with such haste that the whole was completed in a single day (praef. in Tob. "exigitis ut librum Chaldaeo sermone conscriptum ad latinum stylum tradam . . . feci satis desiderio vestro . . . et quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni Hebraico, utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem reperiens unius diei laborem arripui, et quidquid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego 274accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui[1]"). 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 א.
In c.
6. BARUCH and THE EPISTLE OF JEREMIAH Βαρούχ, Ἐπιστολὴ Ἰερεμίου, [prophetia] Baruch) were regarded by the Church as adjuncts of Jeremiah, much in the same way as Susanna and Bel were attached to Daniel. Baruch and the Epistle occur in lists which rigorously exclude the non-canonical books; they are cited as 'Jeremiah' (Iren. v. 35. 1, Tert. scorp. 8, Clem. Alex. paed i. 10, Cypr. testim. ii. 6); with Lamentations they form a kind of trilogy supplementary to the prophecy (Athan. ep. 39 Ἰερεμίας καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ Βαρούχ, Θρῆνοι, Ἰπιστολή, Cyril. Hier. catech. iv. 33 Ἰερεμίου μετὰ Βαροὺχ καὶ Θρήνων καὶ Ἐπιστολῆς[1]). 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.
275The Epistle (ἀνρίγραφον ἐπιστολῆς ἧς ἀπέστειλεν Ἰερεμίας
πρὸς τοὺς ἀχθησομένους [v.1. ἀπαχθέντας]
αἰχμαλώτους εἰς Βαβυλῶνα) seems to have been suggested by
The problem presented by Baruch is less simple. This
book is evidently a complex work consisting of two main
sections (1.
An investigation by Professor Ryle and Dr James[1] 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
Const. Ap. v. 20 καὶ γὰρ καὶ νῦ͙ δεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς Γαρπιαίου συναθροιζόμενοι τοὺς Θρήνους Ἰερεμίου ἀναγινώσκουσιν . . . καὶ τὸν Βαρούχ. Hieron. praef. comm. in Ierem. "vulgo edition; Septuaginta copulatur, nec habetur apud Hebraeos"; praef. vers. Ierem. "apud Hebraeos nec legitur nec habetur." Epiph. de mens. et pond. 5 οὐ κεῖνται αἱ ἐπιστολαὶ [Βαροὺχ καὶ Ἰερεμίου] παῤ Ἐβραίοις.
7. BOOKS OF MACCABEES (Μακκαβαίων αʹ, βʹ, γʹ, δʹ, Machabaeorum libri; τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά, Hippol. in Dan. iv. 3; Orig. ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 25). The four books differ widely in origin, character, and literary value; the bond which unites them is merely their common connexion with the events of the age which produced the heroes of the Hasmonaean or Maccabean[1] family.
1 MACCABEES. This book seems to have been used by Josephus (ant. xii. 6. 1 sqq.), but it is doubtful whether he was acquainted with its Greek form. On the other hand, the Greek 1 Macc. was undoubtedly known to the Christian school of Alexandria; cf. Clem. Alex. strom. i. § 123 τὸ τῶν 277Μακκαβαϊκῶν Origen ap. Eus. l.c. τὰ Μακκαβαϊκὰ ἅπερ ἐπιγέγραπται Σαρβὴθ σαβαναιέλ (v.l. Σ. σαβανὲ ἔλ). Whatever may be the meaning of this title[1], it is clearly Semitic, and may be taken as evidence that the book was circulated in a Semitic original. Jerome appears to have seen a copy of this Hebrew or Aramaic text (prol. gal. "Maccabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum repperi"), but it has long disappeared[1], 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[1].
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.
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 (in ep. ad
Rom., t. viii. 1 "in primo libro Machabaeorum scriptum est");
the title itself occurs in Eus. praef. ev. viii. 9
(ἡ δευτέρα τῶν Μακκαβαίων).
But the evidence goes further back. Philo
shews some knowledge of the book in Quod omnis probus liber,
§ 13, and the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews has a clear
reminiscence of its Greek (
The writer is described by Clement of Alexandria (strom. v.
14) as ὁ συνταξάμενος τὴν τῶν Μακκαβαϊκῶν ἐπιτομήν. This
is precisely what he claims to do (c.
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[1].
3 MACCABEES. A third book of Μακκαβαικά finds a place 279in some Eastern lists (can. Apost., Niceph. stichom.). A Greek book under that title is found in codd. AV and a few cursives[1]. 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. א 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[1]. The story belongs to the reign of Ptolemy Philopator (B.C. 222—205), and the scene is laid at Alexandria. The king, infuriated by the refusal of the Jerusalem priesthood to admit him to the Holy of Holies, returns to Egypt with the intention of avenging himself on the Alexandrian Jews; but by the interposition of Providence his plans are defeated, and he becomes, like Darius in Daniel and Artaxerxes in Esther, the patron of the people he had purposed to destroy.
There are reasons for believing that this romance rests
upon some historical basis. "The author . . . evidently has good
knowledge of the king and his history . . . the feast kept by the
Egyptian Jews at a fixed date [c.
4 MACCABEES. According to Eusebius and Jerome this book was the work of Josephus[1],
Eus. H. E., iii. 10 πεπόνηται δὲ καὶ ἄλλο οὐκ ἀγεννὲς σπούδασμα τῷ ἀνδρὶ (sc. Ἰωσήπῳ) περὶ αὐτοκράτπρος λογισμοῦ, ὅ τινες Μακκαβαϊκὸν ἐπέγραψαν τῷ τοὺς ἀγῶνας τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὕτω καλουμένοις Μακκαβαϊκοῖς συγγράμμασιν ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰς τὸ θεῖον εὐσεβείας ἀνδρισαμένων Ἐβραίων περιέχειν. Hieron. de virr. ill. 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 ὁ εὐσεβὴς λογισμός
But the
greater part of it[1] is occupied by a rhetorical panegyric upon
the Jewish martyrs, Eleazar, and the seven brothers and their
mother, who perished in the Maccabean troubles. This
portion appears to be based on
The style of 4 Macc. abounds in false ornament and laboured periods. But on the whole it is "truly Greek[1]," 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 (τὰ 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 τὰ περὶ (leg. πέρα) τούτων ἔξω (the two Wisdoms, 1—4 Maccabees, Esther, Judith, Tobit), continues: Καὶ ὅσα ἀπόκρυφα· Ἀδάμ, Ἑνώχ, Λάμεχ, Πατριάρχαι, Προσευχὴ Ἰωσήφ, Ἐλδάδ, Διαθήκη Μωυσέως, Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως, Ψαλμοὶ Σολομῶντος, Ἠλίου ἀποκάλυψις, Ἠσαίου ὅρασις, Σοφονίου ἀποκάλυψις, Ζαχαρίου ἀποκάλυψις, Ἔσδρα ἀποκάλυψις. The Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis and the Stichometry of Nicephorus count among the ἀπόκρυφα τῆς παλαιᾶς, together with certain of the above, Ἀβραάμ . . . Βαρούχ, Ἁββακούμ, Ἐζεκιήλ, καὶ Δανιήλ, ψευδεπίγραφα[1]. Ebed Jesu mentions also a book called Traditions of the Elders, the History of Asenath, and 282even the Fables of Aesop disguised under the title Proverbs of Josephus. Besides these writings the following are censured in the Gelasian notitia librorum apocryphorum: Liber de filiabus Adae Leptogenesis, Poenitentia Adae, Liber de Vegia nomine gigante, qui post diluvium cum dracone . . . pugnasse perhibetur, Testamentum Iob, Poenitentia Iambre et Mambre, Solomonis interdictio.
Though the great majority of these writings at one time existed in Greek, they were not admitted into collections of canonical books. A partial exception was made in favour of the PSALMS OF SOLOMON. This book is mentioned among the ἀντιλεγόμενα of the O.T. in the Stichometry of Nicephorus and in the Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis. An earlier authority, the compiler of the catalogue at the beginning of Codex Alexandrinus, allows it a place in his list, although after the final summary of the books of the Old and New Testaments[1]. If the Codex itself contained these Psalms, they have perished together with a portion of Ps. Clem. ad Cor. ii., the book which in the list immediately precedes them. It has been conjectured[1] that they once had a place in Cod. Sinaiticus, which like Cod. A has lost some leaves at the end of the N.T. Their absence from the other great uncials and from the earlier cursives may be due to the influence of the Laodicean canon (lix.), ὅτι οὐ δεῖ ἰδιωτικοὺς ψαλμοὺς[1] 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 283late 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[1].
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
One other apocryphon of the Greek Old Testament claims attention here. The BOOK OF ENOCH has since 1838 been in the hands of scholars in the form of an Ethiopic version based upon the Greek. But until 1892 the Greek version was known only through a few fragments—the verse quoted by St Jude (cf. 14 f.), a brief tachygraphic extract in cod. Vat. gr. 1809, published in facsimile by Mai (patr. nov. biblioth. ii.), and deciphered by Gildemeister (ZDMG., 1855, p. 622 ff.), and the excerpts in the Chronographia of Georgius Syncellus[1]. But in 1886 a small vellum book was found in 284a Christian grave in Akhmîm (Panopolis), in Upper Egypt, ee which contained inter alia the first thirty-two chapters of Enoch in Greek—nearly the whole of the first section of the book. This large fragment was published by M. Bouriant in the ninth volume of Mémoires publiés par les membres de la mission archéologique Française au Caire (Paris, 1er fasc. 1892; 3e 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.[1]. The Greek version is the parent of the Ethiopic, and of pre-Christian date, since it was in the hands of St Jude. Thus it possesses a strong claim upon the attention of the student of Biblical Greek, while the book itself possesses an almost unique value as an exposition of Jewish eschatology.
The Greek version of Enoch seems to have been circulated in the ancient Church; cf. Barn. 4. 16; Clem. Alex. ecl. proph. 2; Orig. de princ. i. 3. 3, iv. 35, hom. in Num. 28. 2. The book was not accepted by authority (Orig. c. Cels. v. 54 ἐν τα̯ς ἐκκλησίαις οὐ πάνυ φέρεται ὡς θεῖα τὰ ἐπιγεγραμμένα τοῦ Ἑνὼχ βιβλία: in Ioann. t. vi. 25 εἴ τῳ φίλον παραδέχεσθαι ὡς ἅγιον τὸ βιβλία. Hieron. de virr. ill. 4 "apocryphus est"), but opinion was divided, and Tertullian was prepared to admit the claims of a writing which had been quoted in a Catholic Epistle (de cult. faem. i. 3 "scio scripturam Enoch . . . non recipi a quibusdam quia nec in armarium Iudaicum admittitur . . . a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est quod pertineat ad nos . . . eo accedit quod E. apud Iudam apostolum testimonium possidet)." In the end, however, it appears to have been discredited both in East and West, and, if we may judge by the almost total disappearance of the Greek version, it was rarely copied by Catholics even for private 285study. A mere chance has thrown into our hands an excerpt made in the eighth or ninth century, and it is significant that in the Akhmîm book Enoch is found in company with fragments of a pseudonymous Gospel and Apocalypse[1].
LITERATURE of the non-canonical Books .
The Variorum Apocrypha, edited by C. J. Ball (London, 1892).
1 ESDRAS. De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch, §§ 363—4; König, Einleitung, p. 146; Dähne, Gesch. Darstellung, iii. p. 116 ff.; Nestle, Marginalien, p. 23 f.; Bissell, Apocrypha of the O. T., p. 62 ff.; H. St J. Thackeray, art. 1 Esdras in Hastings' D. B., i.; Schürer3, iii. p. 326 ff. ; Büchler, das apokr. Ezra-Buchs (MGWJ., 1897). Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, t. v.; Fritzsche, libri apocr. V. T. Gr., pp. viii.—x., 1—30; Lagarde, libr. V. T. canon., p. i. (Lucianic); O. T. in Greek, ii. (text of B, with variants of A); W. J. Moulton, über die Überlieferung u. d. textkrit. Werth des dritten Ezra-Buchs, ZATW., 1899, 2, 1900, I. Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch z. d. Apokr., i.; Lupton, in Speaker's Comm., Apocrypha, i.; Guthe, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 1 ff.
WISDOM OF SOLOMON. Fabricius-Harles, iii. 727. De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch, §§ 378—382; König, Einleitung, p. 146; Dähne, Darstellung, ii. p. 152 ff.; Westcott, in Smith's D. B. iii. p. 1778 ff.; Drummond, Philo Judaeus, i. p. 177 ff. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche, libr. apocr. V. T. Gr., pp. xxiv. f., 522 ff.; O. T. in Greek, ii. p. 604 ff. (text of B, variants of אAC). Commentaries: Bauermeister, comm. in Sap. Sol. (1828); Grimm, exeg. Handbuch, vi.; Reusch, observationes Criticae in libr: Sapientiae (Friburg, 1858); Deane, the Book of Wisdom (Oxf., 1881); Farrar, in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., i.; Siegfried, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 476 ff. On the Latin version see Thielmann, die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches der Weisheit (Leipzig, 1872).
286WISDOM OF THE SON OF SIRACH. Fabricius-Harles, iii. 718; De Wette-Schrader, § 383 ff.; König, p. 145. Westcott and Margoliouth, Ecclesiasticus in Smith's D. B.2 i. 841; Schürer3, iii. p. 157 ff. (where a full list of recent monographs will be found). Text with apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche; 0. T. in Greek, ii. (text of B, variants of אAC); cf. J. K. Zenner, Ecclesiasticus nach cod. Vat. 346 (Z. K. Th., 1895). Bretschneider, liber Iesu Siracidae Gr., Ratisbon, 1806. Cf. Hatch, Essays, p. 296 ff. Nestle, Marginalien (1893), p. 48 ff. Klostermann, Analecta, p. 26 f. Commentaries: Bretschneider (ut supra); Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch, v.; Edersheim in Speaker's Comm., Apocr. ii.; Ryssel, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 230 ff.
On the newly discovered Hebrew text with relation to the versions see Cowley and Neubauer, The original Hebrew of a portion of Ecclesiasticus, Oxford, 1897; Smend, das hebr. Fragment der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 1897; Halévy, Étude sur la partie du texte hébreu de l’Ecclésiastique (Paris, 1897); Schlatter, das neu gefundene hebr. Stück des Sirach (Güterslob, 1897), I. Lévi, L’Eccelésiastique, Paris, 1898, 1901; C. Taylor, in JQR., 1898; D. S. Margoliouth, The origin of the 'Original Hebrew' of Ecclesiasticus, Oxford, 1899; S. Schechter and C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, Cambridge, 1899; S. Schechter, in JQR. and Cr. R., Oct. 1899; various articles in Exp. Times, 1899; A. A. Bevan in JThSt., Oct. 1899; H. Herkenne, De Veteris Latinae Ecclesiastici capp. i—xliii (Leipzig, 1899); E. Nestle in Hastings, D. B. iv. 539 ff.
JUDITH. Fabricius-Harles, iii. p. 736; De Wette-Schrader, § 373 ff.; König, p. 145 f.; Nestle, Marginalien, p.43 ff.; Westcott-Fuller in Smith's D. B.2 1. ii. p. 1850 ff.; F. C. Porter in Hastings' D. B. ii. p. 822 ff.; Schürer3 iii. p. 167. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche, p. xviii f., 165 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, ii. (text of B, variants of אA). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch, ii.; Wolff, das Buch Judith . . . erklärt (Leipzig, 1861); Scholz, Commentar zum B. Judith (1887, 1896); cf. Ball in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., i.; Löhr, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 147 ff.
TOBIT. Fabricius-Harles, iii. 738; De Wette-Schrader, § 375 ff.; König, p. 145 f.; Westcott in Smith's D. B. iii. p. 1523; Schürer3, iii. p. 174. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.: Fritzsche, pp. xvi ff., 108 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, ii. (texts of B and א, with variants of A); Reusch, libellus Tobit e cod. Sin. editus (Bonn, 1870); Neubauer, the Book of Tobit: a Chaldee text (Oxford, 1878). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg Handbuch, Apokr., ii.; Reusch, das Buch Tobias übersetzt u. erk1ärt (Friburg, 1857); Sengelmann, das Buch Tobits erklärt (Hamburg, 1857); Gutberlet, das Buch Tobias übersetzt u. erklärt 287(Munster, 1877); Scholz, Commentar z. Buche Tobias (1889); Rosenmann, Studien z. Buche Tobit (Berlin, 1894); J. M. Fuller in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., i.; Löhr, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 135 ff. Cf. E. Nestle, Septuagintastudien iii. (Stuttgart, 1899); J. R. Harris in American Journal of Theology, July, 1899.
BARUCH and EPISTLE. Fabricius-Harles, iii. p. 734 f.; De Wette-Schrader, § 389 ff.; König, p. 485 f.; Westcott-Ryle, in Smith's D. B.2 i. p. 359 ff.; J. T. Marshall, in Hastings' D. B. i. p. 249 ff. ii. p. 579 ff.; Schürer3, iii. p. 338 ff.; A. A. Bevan, in Encycl. Biblica, i. 492 ff. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche, pp. xv f., 93 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, iii. (text of B, with variants of AQΓ). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch, Apokr., i.; Reusch, Erklärung des Buchs Baruch (Freiburg, 1853); Hävernick, de libro Baruch (Königsberg, 1861); Kneucker, das Buch Baruch (Leipzig, 1879); E. H. Gifford in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., ii.; Rothstein, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 213 ff.
1—4 MACCABEES. Fabricius-Harles, iii. p. 745 ff.; De Wette-Schrader, § 365 ff.; König, p. 482 ff.; Westcott in Smith's D. B.1 ii. p. 170 ff.; Schürer3, iii. pp. 139 ff., 359 ff., 393 ff.; Rosenthal, das erste Makkabäerbuch (Leipzig, 1867); Willrich, Juden u. Griechen vor der makkab. Erhebung (1895); Freudenthal, die Fl. Josephus beigelegte Schrift. (Breslau, 1869); Wolscht, de Ps. Josephi oratione . . . (Marburg, 1881). Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v. (books i.—iii.); Fritzsche, pp. xix ff., 203 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, iii. (text of A with variants of אV in books i. and iv. and V in ii., iii.). Commentaries: Keil, Komm. über die Bücher der Makk. (Leipzig, 1875) ; Bensly-Barnes, 4 Maccabees in Syriac (Cambridge, 1895)[1]; Grimm in Fritzsche's exeg. Handbuch, Apokr., iii., iv.; Bissell, in Lange-Schaff's Comm.; G. Rawlinson in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., ii. (books i.—ii.); Fairweather and Black, 1 Maccabees (Cambridge, 1897); Kautzsch and Kamphausen, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 24 ff.
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA. The student will find fuller information on this subject in Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus V. T. (Hamburg, 1722): Herzog-Plitt, xii. p. 341 ff. (art. by Dillmann on Pseudepigrapha des A. T.); Deane, Pseudepigrapha (Edinburgh, 1891); J. E. H. Thomson, Books which influenced our Lord and His Apostles (Edinburgh, 1891); Smith's and Hastings' Bible Dictionaries; Schürer3, iii. pp. 150 ff., 190 ff.; the works of Credner and Zahn; M. R. James, Testament of Abraham in Texts and Studies (II. ii. p. 7 ff.); Encyclopaedia Biblica, artt. Apocalyptic 288Literature and Apocrypha (i. 213—58). For the literature of the several writings he may refer to Strack, Einleitung, p. 230 ff. In Kautzsch's Apokr. u. Pseudepigraphen the following O. T. pseudepigrapha are included: Martyrdom of Isaiah (Beer), Sibylline Oracles, iii.—v., and prooem. (Blass), Ascension of Moses (Clemen), Apocalypse of Moses (Fuchs), Apocalypse of Esdras (Gunkel), Testament of Naphtali, Heb. (Kautzsch), Book of Jubilees (Littmann), Apocalypse of Baruch (Ryssel), Testaments of XII Patriarchs (Schnapp). On the eschatology of this literature see Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian (London, 1899).
PSALMS OF SOLOMON. Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. V.T., i. p. 914 ff.; Fritzsche, libr. apocr. V. T. gr., pp. xxv ff., 569 ff.; Ryle and James, Psalms of the Pharisees (Cambridge, 1891); O. v. Gebhardt, die Psalmen Salomo's (Leipzig, 1895); Old Testament in Greek2 (Cambridge, 1899[1]). Ryle and James' edition is specially valuable for its full Introduction, and Gebhardt's for its investigation into the pedigree and relative value of the MSS. On the date see Frankenberg, die Datierung den Psalmen Salomos (Giessen, 1896). An introduction and German version by Dr R. Kittel will be found in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 127 ff.
BOOK OF ENOCH. Laurence, Libri Enoch versio aethiopica (Oxford, 1838); Dillmann, Liber Henoch aethiopice (Leipzig, 1851); Bouriant, Fragments du texte grec du livre d’Énoch . . . in Mémoires, &c. (see above); Lods, le livre d’Énoch (Paris, 1892); Dillmann, über den neugefundenen gr. Text des Henoch-Buches (Berlin, 1892); Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford, 1893), The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch (Oxford, 1906), and art. in Hastings' D. B. i. p. 705 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, iii.2 (Cambridge, 1899). For a fragment of a Latin version see James, Apocr. anecdota in Texts and Studies, ii. 3, p. 146 ff. An introduction and German version by Dr G. Beer will be found in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 217 ff.
Chapter IV. The Greek of the Septuagint.
2891. 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[1], have unhappily disappeared. In modern times the ground has been broken by Sturz and Thiersch[1], and within the last few years Deissmann[1] 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[1] and the Abbé J. Viteau[1] in the way of determining the relation of Septuagint Greek to the classical and later usage, and to the Greek of the N.T.; and the N.T. grammars of Winer-Moulton, Winer-Schmiedel, and Blass contain incidental references to the linguistic characteristics of the Alexandrian version. But a separate grammar of the Greek Old Testament was long a real want, and the time has now come for attempting to supply it. Biblical scholars have now at 290their 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[1]. Meanwhile in this chapter nothing more can be attempted than to set before the beginner some of the linguistic problems presented by the Greek of the Septuagint, and to point out the chief features which distinguish it from other forms of the language.
2. The student who enters upon this subject with some knowledge of the Greek New Testament must begin by reminding himself of the different conditions under which the two parts of the Greek Bible were produced. The Greek Old Testament was not like the New Testament the work of a single generation, nor are its books as homogeneous in their general character. The Septuagint is a collection of translations interspersed with original Greek works, the translations belonging partly to the third century B.C., partly to the second and first, and the original works chiefly to the end of this period. Even in the case of the Pentateuch we are not at liberty to assume that the translators worked at the same time or under the same circumstances. These considerations complicate our enquiry, and lead us to expect in the LXX., great varieties of manner and language. In the earlier work we shall meet with the colloquial Greek which the Jews learnt to speak shortly after their settlement in Egypt. Later translations will approximate to the literary style of the second century, except in cases where this tendency has been kept in check by a desire to follow the manner of the older 291books. Lastly, in the original writings, many of which are relatively late, and in which the writers were free from the limitations that beset the translator, the Greek will be nearly identical with that which was written by the Jewish-Alexandrian historians and philosophers of the time.
3. We begin by investigating the literary conditions under which both the translators and the writers lived at Alexandria.
In the middle of the second century B.C. Polybius[1] found Alexandria inhabited by three races, the native Egyptians, who occupied the site of the old seaport Rhacôtis, the mercenary 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 ἀνηκαθεν ἦσαν, καὶ ἐμέμνηντο τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔθους). This fusion of various elements in the Greek population of the city must have existed from the first. The original colony was largely made up of the veterans of Alexander's Macedonian army, volunteers from every part of Greece, and mercenaries from the Greek colonies of Asia Minor, and from Syria. Even in the villages of the Fayûm, as we now know, by the side of the Macedonians there were settlers from Libya, Caria, Thrace, Illyria, and even Italy[1], and Alexandria presented without doubt a similar medley of Hellenic types. Each class brought with it a dialect or idiom of its own. The Macedonian dialect, e.g., is said to have been marked by certain phonetic changes[1], and the use of barbarous terms such as 292ἀδή = οὐρανός, βεθύ[1] = ἀήρ, δανός = θάνατος and of Greek words in unusual senses, as παρεμβολή, 'camp,' ῥύμη, street[1]. Some of these passed into the speech of Alexandria, and with them were echoes of the older dialects—Doric, Ionic, Aeolic—and other less known local varieties of Greek. A mongrel patois, ἡ Ἀλεξανδρέων 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 Fayûm, and given to the world under the auspices of the Royal Irish Academy[1]; similar collections have been published by Drs Grenfell and Hunt[1]. 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: ἀναδενδράς, ἀναφάλακρος, ἀναφάλαντος, ἀρχισωματοφύλαξ, ἀρχιτεκτονεῖν, ἄχυρον, βασίλισσα, γένημα, διῶρυξ, ἐπιγονή, ἐργοδιώκτης, εὐίλατος, ἐφιδεῖν, ἐφιορκεῖν, θέριστρον, ὀλιγοψυχεῖν, ὀχύρωμα, ὀψώνιον, παιδίον, παραδεῖξαι, παρεπίδημος, περιδέξιον, περιοδεύειν, πράκτωρ, πρεσβύτεροι, στενοχωρεῖν, χῶμα. The Berlin papyri yield many other such words, e.g. ἀναμέτρησις, γλύμμα, δικαίωμα, ἱεροψάλτης, ἱματισμός, καταλοχισμός, κτηνοτρόφος, μισοπονηρία, ὁλοσχερής, συμπλήρωσις, ὑπομνηματισμός.
293The 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 ἀδικούμεθα· τά γὰρ ὁμολογηθέντα ὑπὸ Ἀπολλωνίου 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 ἐνλειφθῇ, καθὰ καὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐγένετο. ἐὰν γὰρ αἴσθωνται οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι οὐθὲν ἡμᾶς εἰληφότας τὸν σιδηρὸν ἐνέχυρα θήσουσιν.[1]
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[1]. To Soter is also attributed the establishment of the great library which is said to have contained 400,000 MSS[1]. Under his successor the Museum and Library became a centre of literary activity, and the age to which the inception of the Greek Bible is usually ascribed produced Aratus, Callimachus, Herondas, Lycophron, and Theocritus. There is however no reason to suppose that the Jewish translators were officially connected with the Museum, or that the classical revival under Soter and Philadelphus affected them directly. Such traces of a literary style as we find in the Greek Pentateuch are probably 294due 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[1]—was based on Attic Greek, but embraced elements drawn from all Hellenic dialects. It was the literary language of the cosmopolitan Hellas created by the genius of Alexander. The change had begun indeed before Alexander. Even Xenophon allows himself to make free use of words of provincial origin, and to employ Attic words with a new connotation; and the writings of Aristotle mark the opening of a new era in the history of the Greek language[1]. 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[1].' A 'Hellenist[1]' is properly a foreigner who affects Greek manners and speaks the Greek tongue. Thus the Jewish Greek spoken in Palestine was 'Hellenistic' in the strictest sense. The word is often used to describe the Greek of such thoroughly Hellenised 295writers 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 translation
as a whole. Reading these contexts in the Cambridge
manual edition, and underlining words which are not to be
found in the Greek prose of the best period, we obtain the
following results. In
The following are the Septuagintal words observed in the above-named passages. Verbs: ἀνδριοῦν, δευτεροῦν, διοδεύειν, ἐνευλογεῖσθαι, ἐξολεθρεύειν, ἐξουθενεῖ[1], εὐοδοῦν, κατακληρονομεῖν, κατασκοπεύειν, κατεμβλέπειν, κατοδυνᾷν, ὀλεθρεύειν, ὀρθοτομεῖν, ὀρθρίζειν, πνευματοφορεῖσθαι, πτωχίζειν, σκοπεύειν, συνεδριάζειν, τριετίζειν, τροφεύειν, φιλεχθρᾷν. Nouns: ἀγάπη, ἀσυνθεσία, ἀσφαλτόπισσα, βδέλυγμα, γένημα, δόμα, ἐργοδιώκτης, θλιμμός, καταπέτασμα, κρίμα, λατόμος, μέθυσμα, ὁλοκαύτωμα, ὁλοκαύτωσις, ὀρόφωμα, παντοκράτωρ, 296προσ͕λυτος πρόσκομμα, ῥοίσκος, σύντριμμα. Foreign words (a) with Greek terminations: ἅβρα, θῖβις, σίκλος· (b) transliterated: αἰλάμ, δαβείρ, ἐφοὺδ βάρ, νέβελ, ἐλωὲ σαβαώθ, οἰφι, σερσέρεθ, χερουβείμ.
A similar experiment has been made by Dr H. A. A.
Kennedy in reference to one of the books of the Pentateuch.
Of 110 late words and forms observed in
A complete list of the late words in the LXX. is still
desideratum. Lists which have been made for the N.T. shew
that out of 950 post-Aristotelian words about 314—just under
one third—occur also in the Greek O.T.[1] 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[1],
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, παρεμβολή, 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 Macedonian[1].
As our knowledge of Alexandrian Greek increases, it may be that the greater part of the words which have been regarded as peculiar to the LXX. will prove to belong to the usage of Egyptian Greek. Deissmann has already shewn that many well-known 297Septuagintal 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 γογγύζειν occurs in a papyrus of 241—239 B.C.; ἐργοδιώκτης, 255 B.C.; παρεπίδημος, 225 B.C.; forms such as ἦλθα, ἐπήλθοσαν, γέγοναν, οἶδες, can be quoted from the papyri passim; ἀναστρέφεσθαι and ἀναστροφή in an ethical sense, ʏειτουργεῖν in reference to the service of a deity, περιτέμνεσθαι of circumcision, πρεσβύτερος of an official, are shewn to have been in use in Egypt under the Ptolemies. In many cases however words receive a new connotation, when they pass into Biblical Greek and come into contact with Hebrew associations. As examples the following may suffice: 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, -σία | νοσσός, -σία |
γενέσθαι | γενηθῆναι | νουμηνία | νεομηνία |
γλωσσοκομεῖον | γλωσσόκομον | ὄρθριος | ὀρθρινός |
διψῆν | διψᾷν | οὐδείς | οὐθείς[1] |
δυοῖν | δυσί | πεινῆν | πεινᾷν |
ἐδεῖτο | ἐδέετο | πήχεων | πηχῶν |
εὕρημα | εὕρεμα | ποδαπός | ποταπός |
καθά | καθώς | ταχύτερον | τάχιον |
καταμύειν | καμμύειν |
7. But the vocabulary of the LXX. is not its most characteristic feature. With no other vocabulary than that of the Alexandrian translators, it might be possible to produce a fairly good piece of Greek prose in the style of the later prose writers. It is in its manner, in the construction of the sentences and the disposition of the words, that the Greek of the LXX. is unique, and not only or chiefly in its lexical eccentricities. This may perhaps be brought home to the student most effectually by a comparison of the Greek Bible with two great Hellenistic writers of the first century A.D. (a) In the 298works of Philo we have a cultured Hellenist's commentary on the earlier books of the LXX., and as he quotes his text verbatim, the student can discern at a glance the gulf which divides its simple manner, half Semitic, half colloquial, from the easy command of idiomatic Greek manifested by the Alexandrian exegete. We will give two brief specimens.
Philo de opif. mundi 7: φησὶ δ᾿ ὡς ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ 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 γέγονεν ἢ μετ᾿ αὐτόν· ἐπεὶ γὰρ διάστημα τῆς τοῦ κόσμου κινήσεώς ἐστιν ὁ χρόνος, προτέρα δὲ τοῦ κινουμένου κίνησις οὐκ ἄν γένοιτο, ἀλλ᾿ ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὴν ἢ ὕστερον ἢ ἅμα συνίστασθαι, ἀναγκαῖον ἄρα καὶ τὸν χρόνον ἢ ἰσήλικα κόσμου γεγονέναι ἢ νεώτερον ἐκεινου· πρεσβύτερον δ᾿ ἀποφαίνεσθαι τολμᾷν ἀφιλόσοφον. De migr. Abrahami 39: ἐὰν μέντοι σκοπούμενος μὴ ῥᾳδίως καταλαμβάνῇς ἃ ζητεῖς, ἐπίμενε μὴ κάμνων . . οὗ χάριν ὁ φιλομαθὴς τοῦ τόπου 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 ὀκλάσῃς, ἀλλὰ κἄν τι δοκῇ δυσθεώρητον εἶναι, τὸ ἐν σαυτῇ βλέπον διανοίξασα διάκυψον εἴσω.
(b) Josephus is not a commentator, but a historian who uses the LXX. as an authority, and states the facts in his own words. We will contrast a few passages of the Greek Bible with the corresponding contexts in the Antiquities.
Joseph. ant. ii. 9. 4. | |
ἐσκέπασαν αὐτὸ μῆνας τρεῖς . . . ἔλαβεν αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ θῖβιν, καὶ κατέχρισεν αὐτὴν ἀσφαλτοπίσσῃ καὶ ἐνέβαλεν τὸ παιδίον εἰς αὐτὴν . . . καὶ κατεσκόπευεν ἡ ἀδελφὴ αὐτοῦ μακρόθεν μαθεῖν τί τὸ ἀποβησόμενον αὐτῷ. | τρεῖς μὲν μῆνας παῤ αὐτοῖς τρέφουσι λανθάνοντες . . . μηχανῶνται πλέγμα βίβλινον . . ἔπειτα χρίσαντες ἀσφάλτῳ . . ἐντιθέασι τὸ παιδίον . . . Μαριάμη δὲ τοῦ παιδὸς ἀδελφὴ . . ἀντιπαρεξῄει φερόμενον ὅποι χωρήσει ὀψομένη τὸ πλέγμα. |
Joseph. ant. v. 10. 2. | |
ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐξ Ἁρμαθάιμ . . ἐξ ὄρους Ἐφράιμ . . καὶ τούτῳ δύο γυναῖκες· ὄνομα τῇ μιᾷ Ἅννα καὶ τῇ μιᾳ Φεννάνα. καὶ ἦν τῇ Φεννάνᾳ παιδία, καὶ τῇ Ἅννα οὐκ ἦν παιδίον . . πλὴν ὅτι τὴν Ἅνναν ἠγάπα Ἐλκανὰ ὑπὲρ ταύτην. | ἀνὴρ τῶν ἐν μέσῳ πολιτῶν τῆς Ἐφράμου κληρουχίας Ῥαμαθὰν πόλιν κατοικῶν ἐγάμει δύο γυναῖκας Ἅνναν τε καὶ Φεννάναν. ἐκ δὲ ταύτης καὶ παῖδες αὐτῷ γίνονται, τὴν δὲ ἑτέραν ἄτεκνον οὖσαν ἀγαπῶν διετέλει. |
Joseph. ant. viii. 3. 1. | |
καὶ ἤρξατο Σαλωμὼν τοῦ οἰκοδομεῖν τὸν οἶκον Κυρίου . . καὶ ἤρξατο οἰκοδομὴ ἐν τῷ μηνὶ τῷ δευτέρῳ ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ τετάρτῳ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ. | τῆς δὲ οἰκοδομίας τοῦ ναοῦ Σολομὼν ἤρξατο τέταρτον ἔτος ἤδη τῆς βασιλείας ἔχων μηνὶ δευτέρῳ. |
Joseph. ant. x. 2. 2. | |
ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται καὶ λήμψονται πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου καὶ . . . εἰς Βαβυλῶνα ἥξει . . . καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων σου ὧν γέννήσεις λήμψονται, καὶ ποιήσουσιν σπάδοντας ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Βαβυλωνίων. | ἴσθι οὐ μετ᾿ ὀλίγον χρόνον εἰς Βαβυλῶνά σου τοῦτον μετατεθησόμενον τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ τοὺς ἐκγόνους εὐνουχισθησομένους καὶ ἀπολέσαντας τὸ ἄνδρας εἶναι, τῷ Βαβυλωνίῳ δουλεύσοντας βασιλεῖ. |
Josephus, it will be seen, has rewritten each passage, and in doing so, has not only modified the vocabulary, but revolutionised the style. On turning from the left hand to the right hand column we pass from a literal translation of Semitic texts to an imitation of classical Greek. But the contrast is not entirely due to the circumstance that the passages taken from the Septuagint are translations, while the Antiquities is an original work. Translations, however faithful, may be in the manner of the language into which they render their original. But the manner of the LXX. is not Greek, and does not even aim at being so. It is that of a book written by men of Semitic descent, who have carried their habits of thought into their adopted tongue. The translators write Greek largely as they doubtless spoke it; they possess a plentiful vocabulary and are at no loss for a word, but they are almost indifferent to idiom, and seem to have no sense of rhythm. Hebrew constructions and Semitic arrangements of the words are at times employed, even when not directly suggested by the original. These remarks apply especially to the earlier books, but they are true to a great extent in regard to the translations of the second century; the manner of the older translations naturally became a standard to which 300later translators thought it right to conform themselves. Thus the grandson of Jesus son of Sirach writes his prologue in the literary style of the Alexandrian Jews of the time of Euergetes, but in the body of the work he drops into the Biblical manner, and his translation differs little in general character from that of the Greek version of Proverbs.
8. From the general view of the subject we proceed to a detailed account of some of the more characteristic features of the language of the LXX. They fall under three heads—orthography, accidence, syntax. Under the second head a full list of examples from the Pentateuch will be given, with the view of familiarising the beginner with the vocabulary of the earlier books.
I. ORTHOGRAPHY.
In the best MSS. of the LXX. as of the N.T. a large number of peculiar spellings occur, of which only a part can be assigned to itacism and other forms of clerical error. In many of the instances where the great uncial MSS. of the Greek Bible persistently depart from the ordinary orthography they have the support of inscriptions contemporary with the translators, and it is manifest that we have before us specimens of a system which was prevalent at Alexandria[1] and other centres of Greek life[1] during the third and second centuries before Christ.
To a considerable extent the orthography of the MSS. is the same in the LXX. and the N.T. The student may find ample information with regard to the N.T. in the Notes on Orthography appended to Westcott and Hort's Introduction, and in the best N. T. grammars (Ph. Buttmann, Winer-Moulton, 301Winer-Schmiedel, Blass). But even in MSS. which like אBAC originally contained the whole of the Greek Scriptures, the Greek Old Testament possesses an orthography which is in part peculiar to itself, and certain features which are common to both Old and New Testaments are found with greater frequency and with a wider application in the LXX. than in the N.T. The reader of the Cambridge manual LXX. who is interested in this question, can readily work out the details from the apparatus criticus, and more especially from the appendix, where he will find all the spellings of the uncial MSS. employed which were not thought worthy of a place in the footnotes to the text. For those to whom orthography is of little interest the specimens given below will probably suffice.
Consonants. Assimilation neglected in compounds:
ἐνγαστρίμυθος, συνκατακληρονομεῖν, συνσεισμός,
ἐνκαίνια, 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 ς in ἄχρις, μέχρις, οὕτως, ἄντικρυς.
Retention of the μ in
fut. and aor. pass. of λαμβάνειν
(λήμψομαι, ἐλήμφθην),
and in words formed from it, e.g. πρόσλημψις.
Οὐθείς, μηθείς (see p. 297, note)
for οὐδείς, μηδείς. Γ
dropped in the middle of a word between vowels, as
κραυή, ὀλίος, φεύειν
(especially in cod. א). Ῥ not
doubled in compounds, e.g. ἐπιραντίζειν, κολοβόρις, κατάρακτος,
and reduplicated in the augment (ῥεραντισμένος); σσ
for ττ in ἐλάσσων, ἥσσων,
ἄρσην, θαρσεῖν. In some verbal
forms consonants are doubled, e.g. βέννειν, κτέννειν, χύννειν.
Rough and smooth consonants are occasionally exchanged, e.g.
κύθρα (
Vowels. Ει for ι in syllables where ι is long, e.g. Semitic words such as Λευεί, Λευείτης, Δαυείδ, Σειών, and Greek words as τραπεζείτης, γείνεσθαι, γεινώσκειν. Also (perhaps by itacism) in innumerable instances of ῐ[1]; e.g. ὅρειον, ἀληθεινός, ἀδικεία, κρεινεῖν. Ι for ει, e.g. τίχος, λιτουργεῖν, ἀλίφειν, ἄλιμμα, κατελίφθην, παράδιγμα, δανίζειν, ὀφιλέτης, αἴγιος, and esp. in nouns in -εία, -εια, e.g. ἀπωλία, ἐνδία, παιδία, Σαμαρία, στρατία, and those in εῖον, as δάνιον, εἰδώλιον. Α for ε, as ἐραυνᾷν; ε for α, as ἐκαθερίσθην, μιερός, τεσσεράκοντα. 302Omission of a syllable consisting of ι, as in πεῖν, ταμεῖον. Prefixing of a vowel, as in ἐχθές.
Breathings. Rough breathing for smooth: e.g.
οὐχ ὁλίγος, ἐφ᾿ ἑλπίδι, ἔφιδε, οὐχ εἱσακούσομαι
(
Abnormal spellings such as these occur on every page of an uncial MS. of the LXX. and sometimes cause great perplexity to an editor of the text. So far as they correctly represent the written or spoken Greek of the period, their retention is, generally speaking, desirable. In some cases the MSS. are unanimous, or each MS. is fairly persistent in its practice; in others, the spelling fluctuates considerably. The Cambridge manual LXX. usually adopts a spelling which is persistently given by the MS. whose text it prints, and on the same principle follows the fluctuations of its MS. where they are of any special interest. But the whole question of orthography is far from having reached a settlement.
II. ACCIDENCE. We will deal with (i.) the formation of words, (ii.) the declension of nouns, (iii.) the conjugation of verbs.
(i.) Formation of words.
(a) Words formed by termination:
Verbs. In -οῦν from nouns in -ος: ἀμαυροῦν, ἀποδεκατοῦν, ἀπολυτροῦν, ἀποτυφλοῦν, ἀσφαλτοῦν, διαβιοῦν, ἐκτυποῦν, ἐλαττονοῦν, ἐπιδιπλοῦν, ἐπιπεμπτοῦν, ἐρυθροδανοῦν, εὐοδοῦν, θανατοῦν, καταχρυσοῦν, κυροῦν, παλαιοῦν, παραζηλοῦν, περικυκλοῦν, συγκυροῦν. In -ίζειν, -άζειν -ιάζειν, -ύζειν: ἁγιάζειν, αἱρετίζειν, ἀκουτίζειν, ἀναβιβάζειν, ἀναθεματίζειν, ἀπογαλακτίζειν, αὐγάζειν, ἀφαγνίζειν, ἀφανίζειν, ἀφορίζειν, βαδίζειν, γελοιάζειν, γρύζειν, δανίζειν, διαγογγύζειν, διασκεδάζειν, διασκορπίζειν, διαχωρίζειν, ἐκθερίζειν, ἐκκλησιάζειν, ἐκμυελίζειν, ἐκσπερματίζειν, ἐκτοκίζειν, ἐνταφιάζειν, ἐνυπνιάζειν, ἐνωτίζεσθαι, ἐξεικονίζειν, ἐξετάζειν, ἐξοπλίζειν, ἐξορκίζειν, ἐπικλύζειν, ἐπιραντίζειν, ἐπισκιάζειν, ἐπιστοιβάζειν, ἐπιφημίζειν, θυσιάζειν, καταβιάζειν, κατασκιάζειν, κατασοφίζειν, κληδονίζειν, κομίζειν, κουφίζειν, λεπίζειν, λευκαθίζειν, μακαρίζειν, μελίζειν, οἰωνίζειν, ὀνυχίζειν, ὀπτάζειν, ὀρθρίζειν, παραδειγματίζειν, παραδοξάζειν, παραλογίζειν, περιασπίζειν, 303 περιονυχίζειν, περιραντίζειν, πλεονάζειν, πολυχρονίζειν, προσεγγίζειν, προσοχθίζειν, σαββατίζειν, σκεπάζειν, σπερματίζειν, στηρίζειν, στοχάζειν, συμποδίζειν, συναθροίζειν, συνοικίζειν, σφακελίζειν, σχολάζειν, τειχίζειν, φαυλίζειν, φλογίζειν, χλωρίζειν, χρονίζειν, ψωμίζειν.
In -εύειν: ἀγχιστεύειν, διοδεύειν, ἐξολεθρεύειν, ἱερατεύειν, καταδυναστεύειν, κατακυριεύειν, καταφυτεύειν, κατοχεύειν, μεταλλεύειν, προφητεύειν, πρωτοτοκεύειν, στρατοπεδεύειν, τροφεύειν, ὑδρεύειν.
Nouns. In -μα, from verbs: ἁγίασμα, ἅγνισμα, ἀδίκημα, αἴνιγμα, ἄλλαγμα, ἀνάστεμα, ἀνόμημα, ἀνταπόδομα, ἀπόδομα, ἀσέβημα, αὔγασμα, ἀφαίρεμα, βδέλυγμα, διήγημα, δικαίωμα, διόρυγμα, διχοτόμημα, δόμα, ἐγκατάλιμμα, ἔδεσμα, ἐκκόλαμμα, ἐκτύπωμα, ἐπίθεμα, ἐπικάλυμμα, ἐπιτήδευμα, ἕψεμα, ἡμίσευμα, θήρευμα, θυμίαμα, θυσίασμα, ἱεράτευμα, κάρπωμα, κατάκαυμα, καταπέτασμα, καύχημα, κλέμμα, λέπισμα, ὁλοκαύτωμα. ὅραμα, ὀφείλημα, ὀχύρωμα, παράδειγμα, παράθεμα, παράρυμα, περίθεμα, περίψωμα, προσόχθισμα, πρόσταγμα, πρωτογένημα, στερέωμα, συνάντημα, συνκάλυμμα, σύστεμα, τάγμα, τίμημα, τόξευμα, φαλάκρωμα, φύλαγμα, φύραμα, χόρτασμα, χώνευμα.
In -μός, from verbs: ἀφανισμός, γογγυσμός, ἐνδελεχισμός, ἐνπορισμός, ἐξιλασμός, ἐπισιτισμός, ἱματισμός, καθαρισμός, μηρυκισμός, οἰωνισμός, ὁρισμός, ὁρκισμός, παροξυσμός, πειρασμός, σταθμός, στεναγμός, φραγμός, χωρισμός.
In -σις, from verbs: ἀναίρεσις, ἀνάμνησις, ἀποκιδάρωσις, ἄφεσις, βεβαίωσις, γόγγυσις, γύμνωσις, δήλωσις, διάβασις, διασάφησις, ἐκδίκησις, ἔκστασις, ἔκχυσις, ἐπερώτησις, κατακάρπωσις, κατάλειψις, κατάσχεσις, κατοίκησις, ὁλοκάρπωσις, ὁλοκαύτωσις, ὁμοίωσις, πλήρωσις, πόρευσις, πρᾶσις, σύγκρασις, συνάντησις, συντίμησις, σύστασις, ταπείνωσις, ὑπερόρασις, ὑπέροψις, ὑπόστασις, φαῦσις, χαράκωσις, χήρευσις.
In -ή, from verbs: ἀλοιφή, ἀναζυγή, ἀποσκευή, ἀποστολή, ἀποστροφή, ἀφή, διασκευή, δοχή, ἐκτριβή, ἐντολή, ἐπαγωγή, ἐπισκοπή, καταφυγή, ὁλκή, παραβολή, προνομή, προφυλακή, συναγωγή, τροπή.
In -τής, from verbs (m.): αἰνιγματιστής, ἐνταφιαστής, ἐξνγητής, ἐπιθυμητής, ἑρμηνευτής, πολεμιστής, ῥαφιδευτής, σκεπαστής, σχολαστής.
Adjectives. In -ινος: δειλινός, δερμάτινος, καρύινος, ὀστράκινος, πράσινος, στυράκινος, φλόγινος.
In -ιος: ἐνιαύσιος, ὁμομήτριος, πολυχρόνιος, ὑποχείριος.
In -ικός: ἀρσενικός, εἰρηνικός, λαμπηνικός, λειτουργικός, λιθουργικός, μυρεψικός, πατρικός, ποικιλτικός, πολεμικός, προφασιστικός.
In -τος: ἀκατασκεύαστος, ἁλυσιδωτός, ἀόρατος, ἀπερικάθαρτος, ἐπικατάρατος, εὐλογητός, λαξευτός, μισθωτός, ὀνομαστός, πλεοναστός, φορολογιστός.
(b) Words formed by composition:
Verbs compounded with two prepositions: ἀνθυφαιρεῖν, ἀνταποδοῦναι, ἀποκαθιστᾷν, ἐνκαταλείπειν, ἐνπεριπατεῖν, ἐξαναστέλλειν, ἐπισυνιστᾷν, κατεμβλέπειν, παρεμβάλλειν, συναναλαμβάνειν, συναναστρέφεσθαι, 304συναπολλύειν, συνεκπολεμοῦν, συνεπακολουθεῖν, συνεπισκέπτειν, συνκατακληρονομεῖν, συνπαραλαμβάνειν, συνπροπέμπειν.
Nouns. Compounded with nouns: ἀσφαλτόπισσα, δασύπους, ἑτερόζυγος, καμηλοπάρδαλις, κολοβόρις, μακροήμερος, μακροχρόνιος, μικρόθυμος, ὁλόκληρος, ὁλοπόρφυρος, πολυέλεος, πολυχρόνιος, σκληροτράχλος, χοιρογρύλλιον.
Compounded with a prefix or preposition : ἀντιπρόσωπος, Ἀντιλίβανος, 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, διχοτομεῖν, ζωογονεῖν, κλοποφορεῖν, κρεανομεῖν, λιθοβολεῖν, λιμαγχονεῖν, νευροκοπεῖν, ὀρνιθοσκοπεῖν, συμβολοκοπεῖν, τεκνοποιεῖν, ψωραγριᾷν.
(ii.) Declension of nouns:
Declension 1. Nouns in -ρᾰ, -υῖa,
form gen. in ης, dat. ῃ, μαχαίρῃ,
μαχαίρης
Declension 2. Certain nouns in -οῦς end also in
-ος, e.g.
χείμαρρος, ἀδελφιδός. The Attic form in
-εώς disappears; e.g. λαός
and ναός are written for λεώς
and νεώς—the latter however occurs
in 2 Macc. (A). Nouns in -αρχος pass occasionally into the first
declension, e.g. τοπάρχης
Declension 3. Uncontracted forms are frequent, as βαθέα
Proper nouns. Many are mere transliterations and indeclinable,
e.g. Ἀδάμ, Ἀβραάμ, Ἰωσήφ, Σαμουήλ, Δαυείδ, Ἀχαάβ, Ἠλειού,
Ἐλεισαῖε, Δανιήλ.
On the other hand some well-known names
receive Greek terminations and are declined, as Μωυσῆς or
Μωσῆς, Ἰησοῦς, Ἑζεκίας, Ἠσαίας, Ἰερεμίας; while some are found in both
forms, e.g. we have both Ἠλειού and
Ἠλ(ε)ίας, Μανασσή, and
Μανασσῆς, Σολομών indecl. and
Σολομών gen. -μῶνος or
-μῶντος. But
in the translated books the indeclinable forms prevail, and
there is no appearance of the forms Ἄβραμος, Ἰσράηλος, Ἰώσηπος,
305which are familiar to the reader of Josephus. In the case of
local names transliteration is usual, e.g. Ἰερουσαλήμ, Βηθλέεμ,
Βαιθήλ, Σειών. A few however have Greek terminations, as
Σαμάρεια or Σαμαρία, Ἰόρδανος, and some names of foreign localities
are Hellenised, as Βαβυλών, Συρία, ἡ ἐρυθρὰ θὰλασσα, Ἰδουμαία,
Αἴγυπτος, and the two Egyptian towns Ἡρώων πόλις
(
(iii.) Conjugation of verbs
Augments. Doubled, as in κεκατήρανται
Tenses and Persons. (1) Verbs in -ω. New presents, as ἀμφιάζω,
γρηγορῶ, βέννω, κτέννω. Futures and aorists[1] with reduplication:
κεκράξομαι (
III. SYNTAX.
Many of the irregularities which fall under this head are 306due to the influence of the Hebrew text or of Semitic habits of thought. These will be treated in the next section. In this place we shall limit ourselves to constructions which appear to be characteristic of the Greek idiom used by the translators.
Cases and Numbers. Nom. for voc., e.g.
ὁ θεός for θεέ,
Comparison. Use of a preposition with the positive for the
comparative, e.g. μέγας παρὰ πάντας,
Numerals. Ἑπτά =
ἑπτάκις,
Verbs. Relative rarity of the optative mood[1], and disappearance
of that mood in dependent clauses. Periphrasis with εἰμί,
e.g. πεποιθὼς ἔσομαι,
Connexion of the sentence. Use of gen. abs. in reference to
the subject of the verb: e.g. πορευομένου σου . . . ὅρα,
9. Besides the non-classical forms and constructions which may fairly be placed to the credit of Alexandrian Greek, the translated books of the Greek Bible naturally exhibit a large 307number 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, σκανδαλίζειν, σπλαγχνίζειν.
3. Phrases answering to the Hebrew idiom: e.g. άρτον φαγεῖν = אָכַל לֶחֶם, ἔλεος ποιεῖν μετά τινος = עָשָׂה חֶסֶד עִם, ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου = לִפְנֵי־יְהוָֹה, ζητεῖν ψυχήν = בִּקֵּשׁ נֶפֶשׁ, θυσία σωτηρίου = שְׁלָמִים זֶבַח, λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον = נָשָׂא פָנִים, πᾶσα σάρξ = כָּל־בָּשָׂר, υἱὸς τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἑνὸς ἐνιαυτῶν = בֶּן־אַרְבָּעִים וְאַחַת שָׁנָח.
4. Words with a new connotation: ἅγιος, ἁμαρτωλός, ἀρετή, ἀφόρισμα, ἄφρων, διάβολος, διαθήκη, δικαιοσύνη, ἐκκλησία, ἐλεημοσύνη, ἐξιλασμός, καρδία, Κύριος or ὁ κύριος, λειτουργεῖν, ματαιότης, ὁσιότης, πειράζειν, προφήτης, πτωχός, σάρξ, φυγαδευτήριον.
(b) Grammatical[1].
Nouns. Repeated to express distribution, e. g.
ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος = אִישׁ אִישׁ,
Pronouns. Otiose use, e.g.
Verbs. The following Hebraisms may be specially noted.
Various phrases used to represent the Heb. inf. abs. when prefixed
to a finite verb, e.g.
Particles. Pleonastic use of καὶ and
δέ, (1) in an apodosis,
e.g.
Prepositions. See under Verbs. Peculiar uses of the Heb.
prepositions are often reflected in the Greek; e.g.
10. Both the vocabulary and the syntax of the LXX. exhibit remarkable affinities with the modern language. Mr Geldart (Modern Greek Language, p. 102 f.) urges the study of modern Greek upon Biblical students on the ground that "the Greek of the present day affords a better commentary on the language of the LXX. and of the N.T. than the writings of contemporary historians, rhetoricians, grammarians and philosophers[1]." He adds: "The phraseology of the LXX. is modern to an extent which is quite marvellous . . . let me mention a few well-known words common to the LXX. and modern Greek: ἐπισκέπτομαι, ἀποκρίνομαι, ἐπιστρέφω, προσκυνῶ, ἐνώπιον, πρόσκομμα, πειράζω, ἀκολουθῶ, κοιμῶμαι, ὅλος, κατοικῶ, καθέζομαι, καθίζω, τὰ ἱμάτια, ὑπ̩άγω . . . 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[1]. 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.
310
11. Some of the non-canonical books of the Greek Old Testament, which were either (a) loosely translated or paraphrased from a Hebrew original, or (b) originally written in Greek, need separate treatment in regard to their lexical and grammatical character. Such are (a) 1 Esdras, Daniel (LXX.), (b) Wisdom, 2—4 Maccabees.
The lexicography of the 'Apocrypha' has been separately treated by C. A. Wahl (Clavis Abr. V. T. apocryphorum philologica, Leipzig, 1853), and with the help of the Oxford Concordance it may be studied independently. But, for the sake of the student who has not the necessary leisure to examine the subject in detail, it is desirable to notice here the more conspicuous words in each of the books referred to above.
1 ESDRAS. | |
ἀκολούθως = κατά, dat. (2 Esdr., 2 Macc.) |
εὐφυής (Sap., 2 Macc.) |
ἱερόδουλος | |
ἀναγνώστης = γραμματεύς, 2 Esdr. | ἱεροψάλτης |
ἀναμφισβητήτως | ἱστορεῖν |
ἀναπλήρωσις (Dan.) | καταλοχισμός (1, 2, Chr.) |
ἀνιεροῦν (3 Macc.) | κολακεύειν (Job¹, Sap.¹) |
ἀντίγραφον (Esth., Ep.-Jer., 1, 2 Macc.) | λῃστεύειν |
ἀντιπαρατάσσειν | μανιάκη (Dan.) |
ἀπονοεῖσθαι (2 Macc.) | μεγαλειότης |
ἀποσημαίνειν | μεριδαρχία |
ἀποστατίς (2 Esdr.) | μεταγενέστερος |
βιβλιοφυλάκιον | ὀνοματογραφία |
δημαγωγεῖν, -γία | ὁρκωμοσία (Ez.) |
διαδημα (Esth. Sap., Isa., 2, 4 Macc.) | πειθαρχεῖν (Jer., Dan.) |
προκαθηγεῖσθαι (cod. B) | |
δογματίζειν (Esth., Dan., 2, 3 Macc.) | προπομπή |
προσκεφάλαιον (Ez.) | |
δυσσέβεια, -βημα (2 Macc.) | συνβραβεύειν |
εἰδωλεῖον (Dan., 1 Macc.) | σωματοφύλαξ (Judith, 2 Macc.) |
ἐμφυσιοῦν | ὑπομνηματίζειν |
ἐπακουστός | φορολογία (1 Macc.) |
ἐπιδόξως | χαμαιπετής |
ἐπισπεύδειν (Esth.¹ , Prov.¹ ) | χάσκειν |
ἐρωμένη, ἡ (cod. B) | χρηματιστήριον |
εὐθαρσής (1, 2, Macc.) | χρυσοχάλινος (2 Macc.) |
εὐπρεπῶς (Sap.) |
311
DANIEL. | |
ἀποθαυμάζειν (Sir.) | κοπανίζειν (3 Regn.) |
ἀποτυμπανίζειν (3 Macc.) | μανιάκης (1 Esdr.¹ ) |
ἀρχιεύνουχος | μεγαλειότης (1 Esdr.) |
ἀρχιπατριώτης (Jos.¹ ) | πρόσοψις (2 Macc.) |
δαμάζειν | σαμβύκη |
δημεύειν | σοφιστής (Exod.¹ ) |
διαμελίζειν | συναλοᾷν |
διάπυρος (3 Macc.) | συνμολύνεσθαι |
διοικητής (2 Esdr., Tob.) | σύριγξ |
ἐγκύκλιος | ὕπατος |
ἐποργίζεσθαι (2 Macc.) | ὑπεραινετός |
ἐστιατορία (4 Regn.) | ὑπερένδοξος |
εὐκαταφρόνητος | ὑπερμεγεθής (1 Chr.) |
εὐσήμως | ὑπερυψοῦν (Ps.2) |
θερμασία (Jer.¹ ) | ὑπερφερής |
κηλιδοῦσθαι (Jer.) | φιλόσοφος (4 Macc.) |
κονίαμα |
WISDOM.
This book contains an unusually large vocabulary, consisting in great part of compound words. The following list, taken from c. i.—vi., will suffice to shew its lexical character[1].
ἀγερωχία (2, 3 Macc.) | αὐτοσχεδίως |
ἀδιάπτωτος | ἀφθόνως |
ἀθανασία (4 Macc.) | βασκανία (4 Macc.) |
ἀκαταμάχητος | δεκαμηνιαῖος |
ἀκηλίδωτος (Ps.¹ ) | διορθωτής |
ἀκοίμητος | δύσχρηστος (Isa.¹ ) |
ἀλαζονεύεσθαι (Ps.¹ ) | ἐπισφαλῶς |
ἀμάραντος | ἐπιτήδειος (1 Chr., 1—3 Macc.) |
ἀμόλυντος | ἐπιφημίζειν (Deut.¹ ) |
ἀναποδισμός | ἐργατεία |
ἀνεκλιπής | εὐκλεής (Jer.¹ ) |
ἀνεξικακία | εὔκυκλος |
ἀνυπόκριτος | εὐμορφία (3 Macc.) |
ἀπήμαντος | εὔστοχος |
ἀπολογία | θυμήρης |
ἀπότομος, ἀποτόμως | ἰδιότης (3 Macc.) |
ἀτέλεστος | κακοπραγία |
ἀτίμητος (3 Macc.) | κακότεχνος |
καταδαπανᾷν | πολύγονος (4 Macc.) |
κατάλυπος | πομπεύειν |
κατάχρεως | πρωτόπλαστος |
μακρόβιος (Isa.¹ ) | στεφανηφορεῖν |
μονοήμερος | συγγνωστός |
ὁμοιοπαθής (4 Macc.) | συλλογισμός (Ex.¹ ) |
ὁπλοποιεῖν | τεκμήριον (3 Macc.) |
παράδοξος (Judith, Sir., 2, 4 Macc.) | φιλάνθρωπος |
In 2—4 Maccabees the reader finds himself at length face to face with the full richness of the Alexandrian literary style, as it was written by cultured Hellenists of the second and first centuries B.C. The writers, especially the writer of 4 Maccabees, may be said to revel in the use of compound words, many of which may have been of their own coinage. Specimens follow.
2 MACCABEES. | |
ἀγορανομία | εὐαπάντητος |
ἀκαριαῖος | θεομαχεῖν |
ἀκρόπολις | θωρακισμός |
ἀκρωτηριάζειν | κατευθεκτεῖν |
ἀλλοφυλισμός | λεληθότως |
ἀναλημπτέος | λιτανεία |
ἀπευθανατίζειν | ὁπλολογεῖν |
ἀρχηγενέτης | πατρῷος |
ἀσυλία | πολεμοτροφεῖν |
αὐθαίρετος | πολυπραγμονεῖν |
βαρβαροῦν | προσαναλέγεσθαι |
δειλανδριᾷν | προσυπομιμνήσκειν |
δευτερολογεῖν | σπλαγχνισμός |
διάσταλσις | συμμισοπονηρεῖν |
δοξικός | συνεκκεντεῖν |
δυσπέτημα | τερατοποιός |
ἐπευλαβεῖσθαι | ψυχαγωγία |
δοξικός | συνεκκεντεῖν |
δυσπέτημα | τερατοποιός |
ἐπευλαβεῖσθαι | ψυχαγωγία |
3 MACCABEES. | |
ἀλογιστία | ἀνέφικτος |
ἀμνησικακία | ἀσινής |
ἀνείκαστος | βαρυηχής |
ἀνεπίστρεπτος | βυθοτρεφής |
γραφικός | 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 style of the originally Greek books there is little to remind us of the Semitic origin of the writers. The Wisdom of Solomon follows generally the parallelisms of Hebrew poetry, and its language is moulded to some extent by the LXX., of the Psalms and of Proverbs. In 1—4 Maccabees the influence of the canonical books appears in the retention of transliterated names such as Ἀβραάμ, Ἰσραήλ, Δανιήλ. But Ἰερουσαλήμ, has become Ἰεροσόλυμα, and Eleazar is usually Ἐλεάζαρος. Of Hebrew constructions or modes of thought there is only an occasional instance, whilst it is obvious 314that the writers lose no opportunity of exhibiting their skill in the literary style of contemporary Alexandrian Greek.
LITERATURE. F. W. Sturz, De dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina (1808); H. W. J. Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina, libri iii. (1841); Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (1841); F. W. A. Mullach, Gramm. d. Vulgarsprache in historischer Entwicklung (1856); G. v. Zezschwitz, Profangräcität u. hellenist. Sprachgeist (1859); E. Reuss, art. Hellenistisches Idiom (in Herzog-Plitt, vi., 1880); W. Schmid, Der Atticismus . . . von Dionysius v. Halikarnass bis auf d. zw. Philostratus (Stuttgart, 1889—97); K. Meisterhans, Gramm. d. Attischen Inschriften (1881); R. C. Jebb, App. to Vincent and Dickson's Handbook to modern Greek (1881); E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (1889), pp. 1—130; H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek (1895); G. A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien (1895), and Neue Bibelstudien (1897),—also his art., Hellenistisches Griechisch, in Hauck, vii. p. 627 ff. (Leipzig, 1899), where a full bibliography will be found. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck (1820); W. G. Rutherford, The new Phrynichus (1881); Du Cange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis (Lyons, 1688); J. C. Biel, Novus thesaurus philologicus, sive lexicon in LXX. (The Hague, 1779); J. F. Schleusner, Novus thesaurus philologico-criticus . . . V. T. (Leipzig, 1820); E. A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon for the Roman and Byzantine periods² (1888); H. Anz, Subsidia . . . e Pentateuchi vers. Alex. repetita (in Diss. philolog. Hal. xii. Halle, 1894); J. Viteau, Étude sur le Grec du N.T. comparé avec celui des Septante (Paris, 1896); E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint (1897); Th. Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T., i., pp. 24 ff. (1897); Byzantinische Zeitschrift (1892 ff.); Archiv für Papyrusforschung (Leipzig, 1899 ff.); G. A. Deissmann, Die sprachl. Erforschung der griech. Bibel, and Die Sprache der griech. Bibel (Th. Rundschau i., p. 463 ff.); A. Thumb, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (Strassburg, 1901).
Much information on points of grammar and orthography may also be gleaned from the N.T. grammars—A. Buttmann, Grammatik d. NTlichen Sprachgebrauchs (Berlin, 1859); Winer-Moulton, Treatise on the Greek of the N.T.8 (1877); Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik d. NTlichen Sprachidioms, Theil i.—ii. (1894—8); F. Blass, Grammatik d. NTlichen Griechisch (1896, or the same translated by H. St J. Thackeray, 1898); A. R. Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar (1897); and from the Introduction and Appendix to Westcott and Hort's N. T. in Greek (Intr., pp. 302—313, App., pp. 148—180). The Gramm. Untersuchungen über die biblische Gräcität of K. H. A. Lipsius is limited to such matters as accentuation, punctuation, and the abbreviations used in Biblical Greek MSS.; but within its own scope it is a serviceable book.
Chapter V. The Septuagint as a Version.
315THE purpose of this chapter is to prepare the beginner for grappling with the problems presented by the Septuagint when it is regarded as a translation of the Hebrew Bible. Almost at the outset of his study of the Alexandrian version he will find himself confronted by difficulties which can only be met by a study of the general purpose and character of the work, the limitations by which the translators were beset, and the principles which guided them in the performance of their task.
I. The reader of the Septuagint must begin by placing before his mind the conditions under which it was produced, and the relation of the original work to our present texts, Hebrew and Greek.
1. (a) Strictly speaking the Alexandrian Bible is not a
single version, but a series of versions produced at various
times and by translators whose ideals were not altogether alike.
Internal evidence[1] 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[1] and more especially
316the Book of Isaiah shew obvious signs of incompetence. The
translator of Job was perhaps more familiar with Greek pagan
literature[1] 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[1] of being a work of the 4th century
A.D.; the Greek Ecclesiastes savours of the school of Aquila[1].
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
A single specimen may be given from
|
|
3Κύριος στερέωμά μου καὶ καταφυγή μου καὶ ῥύστης μου· ὁ θεός μου βοηθός καὶ ἐλπιῶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4αἰνῶν ἐπικαλέσομαι Κύριον, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου σωθήσομαι. 5περιέσχον με ὠδῖνες θανάτου, καὶ χείμαρροι ἀνομίας ἐξετάραξάν με· 6ὠδῖνες ᾅδου περιεκύκλωσάν με, προέφθασάν με παγίδες θανάτου. 7καὶ ἐν τῷ θλίβεσθαί με ἐπεκαλεσάμην τὸν κύριον, καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεόν μου ἐκέκραξα· ἤκουσεν ἐκ ναοῦ ἁγίου αὐτοῦ φωνῆς μου, καὶ ἡ κραυγή μου [ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ εἰσελεύσεται] εἰς τὰ ὦτα αὐτοῦ. | 2Κύριε πέτρα μου καὶ ὀχύρωμά μου καὶ ἐξαιρούμενός με ἐμοί· 3ὁ θεός μου φύλαξ ἔσται μου, πεποιθὼς ἔσομαι ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ . . . . 4αἰνετὸν ἐπικαλέσομαι Κύριον, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου σωθήσομαι. 5ὅτι περιέσχον με συντριμμοὶ θανάτου, χείμαρροι ἀνομίας ἐθάμβησάν με· 6ὠδῖνες θανάτου ἐκύκλωσάν με, προέφθασάν με σκληρότητες θανάτου. 7ἐν τῷ θλίβεσθαί με ἐπικαλέσομαι Κύριον, καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεόν μου βοήσομαι, καὶ ἐπακούσεται ἐκ ναοῦ αὐτοῦ φωνῆς μου, καὶ ἡ κραυγή μου ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν αὐτοῦ. |
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
מְצוּדָה סֶלֵע
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 פְּלִשְׁתִּים is uniformly represented in the
Hexateuch by Φυλιστιείμ, but in Judges and the later books by
ἀλλόφυλοι;
פֶּסַח is
φάσεκ or φάσεχ
in Chronicles(18) and Jeremiah1, but
πεσχα in all other books;
אוּרִים is
δήλωσις or δῆλοι
in the Pentateuch, but in Ezra-Nehemiah φωτίζοντες, φωτίσων;
תִּמִּים is
ἀλήθεια in Exodus, but in Ezra τέλειον;
in Isaiah צְבָאׂת
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;
קָהָל is
συναγωγή in Gen., Exod., Lev., Num., and again in the Prophets,
but ἐκκλησία
in Deuteronomy (with one exception) and
onwards to the end of the historical books. The singular[1]
phrase ἐγώ εἰμι =
אָנֹכִי is limited to Judges, Ruth, and 2—4 Regn.;
σύν = אֵת of the object occurs in the true LXX. only in Ecclesiastes;
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 (אֵלִיָּהוּ) is
Ἠλειού in the Books of
Kings, but Ἠλίας in Malachi and Sirach. The lists in
Chronicles use the Hebrew form of Gentile names (Θεκωεί,
Ἀναθωθεί, &c.), where other books adopt the Greek (Θεκωείτης,
318Ἀναθωθείτης, &c.). In Ezra
אֲחַשְׁוֵדוֹש becomes
Ἀσσούηρος, but
Ἀρταξέρξης is substituted by the translator of Esther, and
Ξέρξης by the LXX. translator of
(b) Further it is clear that the purpose of the version in the later books is not altogether that which the translators of the Pentateuch had in view. The Greek Pentateuch, as we have seen, was intended to supply the wants of the Alexandrian Synagogue. The Book of the Twelve Prophets, and the three major Prophets, were probably translated with the same general purpose, but under a diminished sense of responsibility, since the Prophets, even after their admission to the Canon, were not regarded as sharing the peculiar sanctity of the Law. But the Hagiographa, excepting perhaps the Psalter, stood on a much lower level, and such books as Job, Esther, and Daniel were perhaps viewed by the Alexandrians as national literature[1] which was not yet classical and might be treated with the freedom allowed by custom in such cases to the interpreter and the scribe. Our estimate of the translator's work must clearly take account of his attitude towards the book upon which he is engaged.
(c) It is important also to bear in mind the peculiar difficulties which beset the translators in their attempts to render the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. To translate a Semitic book into the language of the West was a new venture when it was undertaken at Alexandria; the Greek Pentateuch "was the work of pioneers and necessarily had the defects of such work[1]." No wonder if even in the later books the Hebrew 319idiom refused to lend itself to the forms even of Hellenistic Greek without losing to some extent its identity, as the translator of Sirach complains[1]. Moreover the majority of the translators had probably learnt the sacred language in Egypt from imperfectly instructed teachers, and had few opportunities of making themselves acquainted with the traditional interpretation of obscure words and contexts which guided the Palestinian Jew[1]. 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[1]. Such things may well make the reader smile at the claim of inspiration which was set up for the LXX., but they ought neither to mislead his judgement, nor to lessen his admiration for the courage and the general success of the Alexandrian translators.
2. The student must also endeavour to realise the condition of the Hebrew text which lay before the Alexandrian translators.
(a) The text of the Hebrew Bible has undergone no material change since the beginning of the second century A.D. A vast store of various readings has been collected from the MSS. by the diligence of Kennicott and De Rossi, but few among them appear to be more than the omissions or corruptions which spring from the accidents of transcription. All existing MSS. belong to one type of text, and it is, in the main, the type which was known to Jerome, to Origen, and to Aquila, and which is reflected in the Targums and the Talmud. 320But 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[1]. The subject, as a whole, will be treated in a later chapter; meanwhile it is sufficient to warn the beginner that in the LXX. he has before him the version of an early text which often differed materially from the text of the printed Hebrew Bible and of all existing Hebrew MSS.
(b) The palaeographical character of the MSS. employed by
the translators requires consideration. It will be remembered
that the newly discovered fragments of Aquila present the
Tetragrammaton in archaic letters[1]. 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[1] which are used in existing
Hebrew MSS. and in the printed Bibles must have been practically
complete in our Lord's time, since He refers to the yodh
as the smallest letter, and to the κερέαι which are peculiar to
the square alphabet (
A few examples may be given from Driver's list.
(1)
Another cause of confusion was the scriptio defectiva in the
case of ו and י where they represent long vowels, e.g.
In the case of numerals errors appear to have arisen from
the use of similar letters as numerical signs: e.g.
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[1] and in the Siloam inscription[1] a point has been used for this purpose, but the Phoenician 322inscriptions 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 ץ ף ן ם ך.
Thus
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[1].
A few examples may suffice:
(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 323oldest of our uncial MSS., and the greater number of Greek codices are more or less influenced by the Hexapla. The Lucianic text is subject to another vice, the Antiochian passion for fulness, which encouraged the blending or the accumulation of various renderings and thus created doublets[1]. Besides these recensional errors there are the mistakes, itacistic or other, which are incident to the transmission of ancient books. The state of the Greek text has been touched upon already, and will form the subject of a chapter in the third part of this book. Here it is sufficient to notice the presence of mixture and corruption as a factor in the problem which the student of the LXX. must keep in view.
II. We are now prepared to deal with those features of the version which are not incidental but characteristic of the translators' principles and methods.
1. The reader of the Alexandrian Greek Bible is continually reminded that he has before him a translation of a Semitic writing.
(a) As a whole the version aims at fidelity, and often
pursues this aim to the extent of sacrificing the Greek idiom.
The first chapter of Genesis will supply instances of extreme
literalness, e.g.
(b) To the same spirit of loyalty may be ascribed in part
the disposition to transliterate words which present unusual
difficulty. The number of transliterations other than those of
proper names is considerable[1], and they are to be found in
nearly all the translated books. In some cases they are due
to misunderstanding, as in
2. The Alexandrian translators, however, while loyal to their original, sometimes even to a fault, manifest nothing like the slavish adherence to the letter with which Aquila has been charged. They often amplify and occasionally omit; they interpret, qualify or refine; they render the same Hebrew words by more than one Greek equivalent, even in the same context; they introduce metaphors or grammatical constructions which have no place in the Hebrew text and probably at no time had a place there, or they abandon figures of speech where they exist in the original.
(a) Slight amplifications, which are probably not to be
ascribed to a fuller text, occur frequently in all parts of the
LXX.; e.g. the insertion of 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
(b) The translators frequently interpret words which call
for explanation. Hebraisms are converted into Greek phraseology, e.g.
בֶּן־נֵכָר
becomes ἀλλογενής (
(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
(d) In reference to metaphors the Alexandrians allow
themselves some discretion. Thus in
(e) Lastly, the reader of the Septuagint must expect to find a large number of actual blunders, due in part perhaps to 330a faulty archetype, but chiefly to the misreading or misunderstanding of the archetype by the translators. Letters or clauses have often been transposed; omissions occur which may be explained by homoioteleuton; still more frequently the translation has suffered through an insufficient knowledge of Hebrew or a failure to grasp the sense of the context. It follows that the student must be constantly on his guard against errors which may easily result from too ready an acceptance of the evidence offered by the Alexandrian version. Taken as a whole, and judged in the light of the circumstances under which it was produced, it is a monument of the piety, the skill, and the knowledge of the Egyptian Jews who lived under the Ptolemies, and it is an invaluable witness to the pre-Christian text of the Old Testament. But whether for textual or for hermeneutical purposes it must be used with caution and reserve, as the experience of the Ancient Church shews. With this subject we shall deal in a future chapter; it is sufficient to note the fact here.
III. The beginner, for whose use this chapter is chiefly intended, will now be prepared to open his Septuagint and his Hebrew Bible, and to compare the two in some familiar contexts. The following notes may assist him in a first effort to grapple with the problems which present themselves.
1. Τὰ ῥήματα . . . ῥῆμα,
Heb. דְּבָרִים . . . דְבַר.
Λέγων = לֵאמֹר; cf.
16. Ἐγένετο δὲ . . . καὶ ἐγένοντο =
וַיְהִי. . . וַיְהִי.
Γενηθέντος πρὸς ὄρθρον =
בִּהְיֹת הַבֹּקֶר.
Ἐπ᾿ ὄρους Σεινά, Heb.
'on the mountain.' Φωνή, cod. F with
pr. καὶ. 17. Ὑπὸ τὸ ὄρος Σ.
(om. Σ. AF),
Heb. 'at the nether part (בְּתַחְתִּית) of the mountain:'
18. διὰ τὸ καταβεβηκέναι, an idiomatic rendering of
מִפְּנֵי־אֲשֶׁר יָרַד.
Τὸν θεὸν =
יהוה, cf. 21.
Ὁ καπνός, Heb. 'the smoke of it.'
Ἐξέστη, Heb.
as
7. Παραβολήη: here for the first time = מְשָׁל.
Lyons Pent., parabula. Μεσοποταμίας, i.e.
אֲרָם נַהֲרַיִם (
This passage illustrates both the greater freedom which the Greek translators allowed themselves in poetical contexts, and their comparative incompetence to deal with them.
1. Αὗται αἱ ἐντολαὶ,
Heb. 'this is the commandment.' Ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν,
Heb. 'your God.' Οὕτως ∧ Heb.
Εἰσπορεύεσθε,
Heb. 'go over'; the Greek has lost the local reference, as in
12. ᾟ ἡμέρᾳ παρέδωκεν . . . ὑποχείριον—idiomatic rendering of
בְּיוֹם תֵּת . . . לִפְנֵי. The words that follow
(ἡνίκα . . . Ἰσραήλ) seem to
be a gloss derived from
לֹא אָץ לָבוֹא כְּיוֹם תָּמִים.
14. Ἠμέρα τοιαύτη οὐδὲ τὸ πρότερον οὐδὲ τὸ ἔσχατον, a good example of a conscientious
compromise between idiomatic and literal modes of rendering (cf. Heb.).
Ἀνθρώπου, בְּקוֹל אִישׁ.
Συνεπολέμησεν τῷ Ἰ., Heb. 'fought for Israel.'
28. B here omits the difficult word
ותיבב (A,
καὶ κατεμάνθανεν).
334ἐκτὸς τοῦ τοξικοῦ,
'forth from the loophole'; cf. Symm.
in
This passage is a severe test of the translator's knowledge and skill, and shews him perhaps at his worst.
37. begins וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד, A, Luc.
καὶ εἶπεν Δ. Ἐκ χειρὸς τοῦ λέοντος . . . τῆς ἄρκου,
an exact rendering; cf.
11. Αὐτῶν πορευομένων ἐπορεύοντο καὶ
ἐλάλουν—an 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. ἱππεύς, Heb. 'horsemen,'
1. [Ὁ] κύριος
τῷ κυρίῳ μου,
יְהוָֹה לַאדֹנִי.
Ἐκ δεξιῶν,
לִימִינִי;
in
22. Ἔκτισέν με. So
אBA etc.
O.L. (
condidit, creavit
); codd.
23 = V, 252, with Aq. Symm. Th. Vulg. (
possedit
), give
ἐκτήσατο—both possible meanings of קנה. The former rendering
supplied the Arians with one of their stock arguments (cf. Athan. or.
c. Arian. ii. 44 sqq.). Εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ, a loose and partial translation,
probably a confession of inability to understand the Heb.; Th.
337πρὸ τῆς ἐργασίας ἀπὸ τότε. 23.
Ἐθεμελίωσέν με, reading apparently
יסדני where has
נִסַּכְתִּי;
cf.
JOB xix. 23—27.
23. Τίς γὰρ ἂν δῴη;
See above p. 308; the phrase is repeated
in the Hebrew, but the translator contents himself with using it
once. אֵפוֹ is ignored; its usual equivalent in the
LXX., is νῦν or
οὖν, unless it is transliterated (p. 324).
Εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
seems to represent לָעַד, which in
belongs to the next verse; Th.
translates it εἰς μαρτύριον, reading the word as לְעֵד.
24. B* omits
ἐν πέτραις ἐνγλυφῆναι
which appears to be necessary to the sense; in supplying it BabאA prefix
ἤ, a manifest gloss. 25. Ἀέναός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλύειν με μέλλων,
a paraphrase of Heb. 'my Goel lives';
ἀέναος in the LXX.
elsewhere = עֹלָם, and גֹּאֵל is
ἀγχιστεύς
(
1. Ἐμφραχθήσεται θυγάτηρ ἐμφραγμῷ, i.e.
תתגדרי בת גדר.
Τὰς φυλὰς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ:
LXX. read שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
for שֹׁפֵט י׳.
2. Βηθλέεμ οἶκος τοῦ Ἐφράθα: did
LXX. read בֵּית־לֶחֶם
בֵּית אֶפְרָתָה?
Ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι
'art little to be,' as Heb. The passage is quoted
in
Vv.
340
The student who has gone through these extracts, or who is able to dispense with help of this kind, is recommended to begin the careful study of some one book or group of books. For several reasons the Books of Samuel (1—2 Regn.) offer a promising field for work of this kind. They are on the whole the part of the Old Testament in which the value of the Septuagint is most manifest and most generally recognised[1], 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[1]. But whatever book may be selected, the method and the aims of the reader will be the same. He will read the Greek in the first place as a version, and he will use all the means at his disposal for ascertaining the original text which lay behind it. But he will read it also as a monument of early Hellenistic Greek, and mark with growing interest its use of words and phrases which, originating at Alexandria in connexion with the work of translating the Hebrew Scriptures, eventually became the vehicle of a fuller revelation in the writings of the Apostolic age.
LITERATURE on the general subject of this chapter: Pearsoni praefatio paraenetica (Cambridge, 1665; cum notulis E. Churton, 1865); Hody, De Bibl. textibus originalibus (Oxford, 1705); Dr T. Brett, A Letter showing why our English Bibles differ from the Septuagint, London, 1743 (dated Oct. 17, 1729); A Dissertation on the Ancient Versions of the Bible, London, 1760; Thiersch, De Pent. vers. Alexandrina (Erlangen, 1841); Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841); Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alex. Hermeneutik, 1857; Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 73 ff. (Berlin, 1875—8); Selwyn, art. Septuagint in Smith's D. B. ii. (London, 1863); Wellhausen, do. in Encyclopaedia Britannica (London, 1886); 341W. R. Smith, Old Testament in Jewish Church (1881, ed. 2, 1892); Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford, 1889); Driver, Notes on the Books of Samuel, Intr. (Oxford, 1890; second ed., 1913); Buhl, Kanon u. Text des O. T. (Leipzig, 1891); Nestle, Marginalien (Tübingen, 1893); Streane, Double Text of Jeremiah (Cambridge, 1896); Kirkpatrick in Expositor, April 1896: Redpath in A. J. Th. VII. (1903); the various Introductions to the Old Testament; Commentaries on particular books, esp. those of Dillmann and Spurrell (Genesis), Driver (Deuteronomy), Moore (Judges), Wellhausen, Driver, and H. P. Smith (Samuel), Burney (Kings), Mozley (Psalter), Toy (Proverbs), Ryssel (Micah), Oesterley (Amos), Ottley (Isaiah), Cornill (Ezekiel). A complete commentary on the LXX., or on any of the groups of books which compose it, is still a desideratum.
On the Semitic style of the LXX. the reader may consult the Εἰσαγωγή of Adrianus (Migne, P. G. xcviii. or ed. F. Gössling).
Text-Divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, Catenae.
342THE Greek Old Testament, as it appears in the editions of the last three centuries, is divided into chapters and verses which correspond generally with those of the printed Hebrew Bible.
The traditional text-divisions of the Hebrew and the Greek Bible are not, absolutely identical. Besides the more serious differences described in Part II. c. i., it not unfrequently happens that a Greek chapter is longer or shorter than the corresponding chapter of the Hebrew by a verse or more, and that as a consequence there are two systems of verse-numeration throughout the succeeding chapter[1].
A system of verse-division[1] is mentioned in the Mishnah (Meg. 4. 4, Kidd. 30. 1). The Massorets noted the number of verses (פְּסוּקִים) 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 פרשיות. The parashahs are of two kinds, open and closed, i.e. paragraphs, 343which begin a new line, and sub-paragraphs[1], which are preceded only by a space. They are still registered in the printed Bibles by the פ (for פְּתוּחָה, 'open') and ס (for סְתוּמָה, 'closed') which occur at intervals throughout the Torah[1]. (b) A second system of parashahs breaks up the text into longer sections for the use of the synagogue. The Law was divided into 54 Sabbath lessons according to the Babylonian tradition, but into 154 according to the tradition of Palestine. With few exceptions[1] the beginning of a lesson coincides with that of an open or closed parashah; the coincidence is marked in the Torah by a thrice repeated פ or ס. The Prophets were similarly divided for synagogue reading, but the prophetic lections were known as haphtaroth (הַפְטָרוֹת) and were not, like the liturgical parashahs, distinguished by signs inserted in the text. (c) Lastly, the printed Hebrew Bibles are divided into chapters nearly identical with those of the English versions. This system of capitulation is relatively modern, and was applied first to the Latin Vulgate in the thirteenth century, probably by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury († 1228)[1]. It was adapted to the Hebrew Bible in R. Isaac Nathan's Concordance, a work of the fifteenth century, in which use was also made of the older division into verses or pesukim.
Of printed editions the Bomberg Hebrew Bible of 1521 was the first to employ the mediaeval system of chapters; the verse-division found a place in the Latin version of Pagnini (1528), and the Latin Vulgate of Robert Stephen (1555), and finally in the Hebrew Bible of Athias (1661). Both chapters 344and verses were applied to the text of the Septuagint before the sixteenth century; the capitulation appeared in the Complutensian Polyglott and in the Aldine edition of 1518, and the verse-numeration in the Frankfort edition of the Aldine text[1].
Neither the verses nor the chapters of the existing text-division occur in MSS. of the Greek Old Testament, except in relatively later copies[1], 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, or κόμματα.
(a) Στίχος, Lat. versus, is properly a series of objects
placed in a row. The word is used in the LXX. of the stones
in the High Priest's breastplate (στίχος λίθων,
(b) Besides this conventional measurement there existed another system which regulated the length of the line by the sense. Sense-divisions were commonly known as κῶλα or κόμμετα. The colon, according to Suidas, is a line which forms a complete clause (ὁ ἀπηρτισμένην ἔννοιαν ἔχων στίχος; the comma is a shorter colon[1].
This arrangement was originally used in transcribing poetry, but before Jerome's time it had been applied to the great prose 346authors; cf. Hieron. praef. ad Isa.[1]: "nemo cum prophetas versibus viderit esse descriptos, metro eos aestimet apud Hebraeos ligari, et aliquid simile habere de Psalmis vet operibus Salomonis; sed quod in Demosthene et Tullio solet fieri, ut per cola scribantur et commata, qui utique prosa et non versibus conscripserunt, nos quoque, utilitati legentium providentes, interpretationem novam scribendi genere distinximus"; praef. in Ezech.[1]: "legite igitur et hunc iuxta translationem nostram, quoniam per cola scriptus et commata manifestiorem legentibus sensum tribuit." Cf. Cassiod. de inst. div. litt., praef. Hesychius of Jerusalem († c. 433) treated the Greek text of the Dodecapropheton in the same way[1]: ἔστι μὲν ἀρχαῖον τοῦτο τοῖς θεοφόροις τὸ σπούδασμα στιχηδόν, ὡς τὰ πολλά, πρὸς τὴν τῶν μελετωμόνων σαφήνειαν τὰς προφητείας ἐκτίθεσθαι. οὕτω τοιγαροῦν ὄψει μὲν τὸν Δαβὶδ κιθαρίζοντα, τὸν Παροιμιαστὴν δὲ τὰς παραβολὰς καὶ τὸν Ἐκκλησιαστὴν τὰς προφητείας ἐκθέμενον· οὕτω συγγραφεῖσαν τὴν ἐπὶ τῷ Ἰὼβ βίβλον, οὕτω μερισθέντα τοῖς στίχοις τὰ τῶν ᾈσμάτων ᾄσματα . . . οὐ μάτην ἐν ταῖς δώδεκα βίβλοις τῶν προφητῶν καὶ αὐτὸς ἠκολούθησα.
Specimens of colometry may be seen in Codd. א B, where the poetical books are written in cola of such length that the scribe has been compelled to limit himself in this part of his work to two columns instead of dividing his page into three or four.
Among the lists of the books of the O. T. canon printed in an earlier chapter of this book (Part II. c. i.) there are three which are accompanied by a stichometry. We will now collect their measurements and exhibit them in a tabular form.
Book. | Stichometry of Nicephorus. | Stichometry of Cod. Clarom. | Stichometry of Mommsen's list. |
Genesis. | 4300 | 4500 | 3700 |
Exodus | 2800 | 3700 | 3000 |
Leviticus | 2700 | 2800 | 2300 |
Numbers | 3530 | 3650 | 3000 |
Deuteronomy | 3100 | 3300 | 2700 |
Joshua | 2100 | 2000 | 1750 |
Judges | } 2450 { | 2000 | 1750[1] |
Ruth | 250 | 250 |
1 Kingdoms | } 2240 { | 2500 | 2300 |
2 Kingdoms | 2000 | 2200 | |
3 Kingdoms | } 2203 { | 2600 | 2250 |
4 Kingdoms | 2400 | 2250[1] | |
1 Paralip. | } 5500 { | 2040 | |
2 Parlip. | 2100 | ||
1 Esdras | } 5500 { | 1500 | |
2 Esdras | |||
Psalms | 5100 | 5000 | 5000 |
Proverbs | 1700 | 1600 | |
Ecclesiastes | 750 | 600 | |
Song | 280 | 300 | |
Job | 1800 | 1600 | 1700; |
Wisdom | 1100 | 1000 | |
Sirach | 2800 | 2500 | |
Esther | 350 | 1000 | 700 |
Judith | 1700 | 1300 | 1100 |
Tobit | 700 | 1000 | 900 |
Hosea | 530 | ||
Amos | 410 | ||
Micah | 310 | ||
Joel | 90 | ||
Obadiah | 70 | ||
Jonah | 150 | ||
Nahum | 140 | ||
Habakkuk | 160 | ||
Zephaniah | 140 | ||
Haggai | 110 | ||
Zechariah | 660 | ||
Malachi | 200 |
(Dodecapropheton | 3000 | [2970] | 3800) |
Isaiah | 3800 | 3600 | 3580 |
Jeremiah | 4000 | 4070 | 4450 |
Baruch | 700 | ||
Ezekiel | 4000 | 3600 | 3340 |
Daniel | 2000[1] | 1600 | 1350 |
1 Maccabees | } 7300 { | 2300 | 2300 |
2 Maccabees | 2300 | 1800 | |
3 Maccabees | |||
4 Maccabees | 1000 |
348
The figures given above correspond to those in the lists printed in c. i., which follow the text of Preuschen (Analecta, pp. 156 f., 142 ff., 138 f.). Some variants and suggested rectifications may be seen in Zahn, Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, ii., pp. 295 ff., 143 ff., and Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii., pp. 266 ff.
Many MSS. of the Greek Bible contain more or less
complete stichometries of the several books of the canon.
Either the total number of stichi is registered at the end of the
book, or a record is kept throughout the book by placing a
figure or figures in the margin at the end of each centenary of
lines. Some of our oldest MSS: reproduce in this form the
stichometry of their archetypes; in other cases, a stichometry
which has been copied into the margin by a second or later
hand. Thus in Cod. B, the margins of 1—4 Regn. and Isaiah
present a nearly complete record[1] of stichi written prima
manu, and doubtless transcribed from the MSS. to which the
scribe owed his copy of those books. A marginal register of
stichi is also found in part of Cod. F, beginning with Deuteronomy,
and in Cod. Q, where it is due to the hand which has
added the Hexaplaric matter. The entries in B and Q agree
generally in Isaiah; in both MSS. the last entry occurs at
Stichometrical variation is doubtless chiefly or largely due to divergent types of text. But other causes of disparity were at work. It was easy for scribes to misread the letters which represented the number of the lines, especially when they were mechanically copied from an archetype. The older signs may have been sometimes misunderstood[1], or those which were intelligible may have been confused by careless copying. A glance . at the comparative table on p. 346 f. will shew that several of the larger discrepancies can only be explained in some such way.
The following stichometry is derived chiefly from Dr E. Klostermann's Analecta[1], giving the result of his researches among cursive MSS., with some additions supplied by the Editors of the larger LXX.
Genesis | 4308[1] | H.-P. 30, 52, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Vat. gr. 746; Pal. gr. 203; Athos, Pantocr. 24, Laur. γ 112; Athens, Nat. 44 |
Exodus | 3400 | H.-P. 30, 52, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Athens, Nat. 44 |
Leviticus | 2700 | H.-P. 30, 52, 54, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Paris, Reg. gr. 2; 2000, Athens, Nat. 44 |
Numbers | 3535[1] | H.-P. 30, 52, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Vat. gr.2122; Athens, Nat. 44; Paris, Reg. gr. 2 |
Deuteronomy | 3100 | H.-P. 30, 52, 54, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Vat. gr. 2122; Paris, Reg. gr. 2 |
Joshua | 2100 | H.-P. 30, 54, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Paris, Reg. gr. 2 |
Judges | 2100[1] | Barb. iii. 36; 2156, Paris, Reg. gr. 2; Athos, Pantocr. 24 |
|
Ruth | 300 | Barb. iii. 36; Paris, Reg. gr. 2 |
|
1 Kingdoms | 2500 | Barb. iii. 36 (500, Ven. Marc. gr. xvi) |
|
2 Kingdoms | 2343 | Barb. iii. 36; 2042, Ven. Marc. gr. xvi |
|
3 Kingdoms | 2400 | Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi |
|
4 Kingdoms | 2600 | Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi |
|
1 Paralip. | 2000 | Barb. iii. 36 | } 5000, Ven. Marc. gr. xvi |
2 Paralip. | 3000 | Barb. iii. 36 | |
1 Esdras | 1300 | Barb. iii. 36 | } 3100, Ven. Marc. gr. xvi |
2 Esdras | 1800 | Barb. iii. 36 | |
Psalms | 5100 | Barb. iii. 36[1] | |
Proverbs | 1750 | H.-P. 16l, 248; Barb. iii. 36 |
|
Ecclesiastes | 750 | H.-P. 161, 248; Barb. iii. 36; 753, H.-P. 253 |
|
Song | 286 | H.-P. 161, 248; Barb. iii. 36; 353, H.-P. 253 |
|
Job | 2200 | (including asterisked lines, 1600 without them) H.-P. 161(?), 248; Barb. iii. 36 |
|
Wisdom | 1250 | Barb. iii. 36; Ven. gr. i. 13 |
|
Sirach | 2650 | Barb. iii. 36; Ven. gr. i. 13 |
|
Esther | 750 | Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi, Ven. gr. i. 13 |
|
Judith | 1300 | Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi |
|
Tobit | 750 | Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi, Ven. gr. i. 13 |
|
Hosea | 750 | H.-P. 86 |
|
Joel | 210 | H.-P. 86 |
|
Habakkuk | 150 | H.-P. 86 |
|
Zephaniah | 160 | H.-P. 86 |
|
Haggai | 120 | H.-P. 86 |
|
Zechariah | 670 | H.-P. 86; 776, H.-P. 231 |
|
Malachi | 190 | H.-P. 86; 204, H.-P. 231[1] |
|
Isaiah | 3700 | H.-P. 231; 3820, Barb. iii. 36 |
|
Jeremiah | 4500 | H.-P. 231; 3800, Barb. iii. 36 |
|
Baruch | 514 | H.-P. 231; 350, Barb. iii. 36 |
|
Lamentations[1] | ΗΦ (?) | H.-P. 86; μ (?) H.-P. 231; 860, Barb. iii.36 |
|
Ep. of Jeremiah | 200 | Barb. iii. 36 |
|
Ezekiel | 4500 | H.-P. 231; 4000, Barb. iii. 36 |
|
Daniel | 1800 | H.-P. 231; 1720, Barb. iii. 36 |
|
Susanna | 224 | H.-P. 231 |
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[1]. It begins with Proverbs, and from that book onwards chapter-numbers appear in the margin of the canonical writings, whilst in some instances there is a double capitulation, as the following table will shew.
Proverbs | 61 | 16 | Zephaniah | 5 | ||
Ecclesiastes | 25 | 7 | Haggai | 3 | ||
Song | 40 | 5 | Zechariah | 18 | ||
Job | 33 | Malachi | 6 | |||
Hosea | 11 | Isaiah | 74 | |||
Amos | 6 | Jeremiah | 100 | 98 | ||
Micah | 7 | Baruch | 9 | |||
Joel | 3 | Lamentations | 85[1] | |||
Obadiah | 1 | Ep. of Jeremiah | 6 | |||
Jonah | 3 | Ezekiel | 56 | |||
Nahum | 3 | Daniel | [21] | 21[1] | ||
Habakkuk | 4 |
The figures in the left-hand column are prima manu; those on the right are in a hand of perhaps the eleventh century (? that of 'Clement the Monk,' the industrious instaurator who has left his name on pp. 238 and 264 of the MS.[1]). In Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song the capitulation of the later hand differs widely, as will be observed, from the system which the original scribe reproduced from his archetype. But in the Prophets the corrector seems simply to have followed the numbers inscribed in the margin by B; the latter can be detected here and there under the large coarse characters of the later hand, and towards the end of Jeremiah and throughout 352Daniel the two sets of numbers are distinctly visible. In Jeremiah the instaurator here and there breaks away from the guidance of the first hand, and the totals are slightly different. But the difference is probably accidental, and it is certainly slight; whereas in the Salomonic books another system is followed, in which the chapters are three or four times as long as those of the older capitulation.
Cod. A is broken into paragraphs throughout the prose books, the beginning of each paragraph being indicated not only by paragraph-marks, but by the use of a capital letter which projects into the margin. Besides the paragraphing certain books—Deuteronomy, Joshua, 3—4 Kingdoms, Isaiah—retain traces of a capitulation imperfectly copied from the archetype. In Deuteronomy chapter-marks occur at cc. i. 1, 9, 19; 40; ii. 1, 7, 14; in Joshua they begin at ix. 1 (ιβ) and proceed regularly (x. 1, 16, 29, 31, 34, 36, 38; xi. 1, &c.) down to xix. 17 (λη); in 3 Regn. the first numeral occurs at c. viii. 22 (κβ), and the last at xxi. 17 (νθ); 4 Regn. returns only one or two numbers (e.g. θ stands opposite to c. iii. 20). In Isaiah, again, the entries are few and irregular; β appears at c. ii. 1, and θ at xxi. 1.
Cod. א seems to have no chapter-marks prima manu, but in Isaiah they have been added by אc.c throughout the book[1].
Jeremiah, the Epistle of Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are capitulated in cod. Q, and in the two last-named books the capitulation of Q agrees with that of B. In Jeremiah, where the agreement is less complete, the chapters in Q do not proceed beyond c. xxiv., a circumstance which suggests a Hexaplaric origin[1].
Cod. M like cod. B exhibits two systems of capitulation[1], 353one 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 completeness in the Hexateuch and in 1—3 Kingdoms[1], differ considerably, as the following table will shew:
Marginal Capitulation. | Capitulation accompanied by titles. | ||
Genesis | 106 | 99 | |
Exodus | 84 | 110 | |
Leviticus | 54 | 61 | |
Numbers | 53 | 51 | |
Deuteronomy | 65[1] | 94[1] |
Cod. Sin. I. (x.) is divided into κεφάλαια which number as follows: Genesis, 150; Exodus, 88; Leviticus, 63; Deuteronomy, 69; Joshua, 30; 1 Regn., 66; 2 Regn., 63[1].
A list of sections quoted by Dr Klostermann[1] from the cursive MS. cod. Barberini iii. 36 (cent. x. or xi.) exhibits another widely different scheme[1]:
Genesis | 26 | 3 Kingdoms | 16 | Habakkuk | 2 | ||
Exodus | 8 | 4 Kingdoms | 17 | Zephaniah | 3 | ||
Leviticus | 12 | Hosea | 5 | Haggai | 3 | ||
Numbers | 21 | Amos | 6 | Zechariah | 13 | ||
Deuteronomy | 35 | Micah | 6 | Malachi | 2 | ||
Joshua | 8 | Joel | 4 | Isaiah | 43 | ||
Judges | 4 | Obadiah | 2 | Jeremiah | 41 | ||
1 Kingdoms | 15 | Jonah | 3 | Ezekiel | 21 | ||
2 Kingdoms | 11 | Nahum | 2 | Daniel | 9 |
354
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[1]. It is probable, however, that the systems, which at present seem to be nearly as numerous as the capitulated copies of the LXX., will prove to be reducible to a few types reproduced by the scribes with many variations in detail.
The 'titles' deserve separate consideration. In the few instances where we are able to institute a comparison these headings seem to be independent. In Numbers, e.g., the following table shews little correspondence between those in codd. K, M, even when the chapters coincide.
Cod. K. | Cod. M. | |
Num. | ||
vii. 10. | Τὰ δῶρα τῶν ἀρχόντων. | Περὶ τῶν δώρων ὧν προσήνεγκαν οἱ [ι]βʹ ἄρχοντες. |
viii. 5. | Περὶ τοῦ ἁγνισμοῦ τῶν Λευ[ιτῶν]. | Ἀφπροσμὸς τῶν Λευειτῶν εἰς τὸ λειτουργεῖν Κυρίῳ. |
xi. 16. | Περὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ληψομένων[1] τὸ πνεῶμα. | Περὶ οʹ πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προφητευσάντων. |
xii. 1. | Ἀαρὼν καὶ Μαρία κατὰ Μωυσῆν. | Περὶ τῆς λέπρας Μαριὰμ ἣν ἔσχεν ὑβρίσασα τὴν γυναῖκα Μωσῆ. |
xiii. 1. | Περὶ τῶν κατασκεψαμένων τὴν γῆν. | Περὶ τῶν ἀποσταλέντων κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν γῆν. |
xiv. 23. | Περὶ Χά[λεβ] υἱοῦ [Ἰεφοννή]. | |
xiv. 34. | Ὅτι ὅσας ἡμέρας κατεσκέψαντο τὴν γῆν, τοσαῦτα ἔτη ἐποίησαν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. |
|
xvi. 1. | Περὶ Κόρε καὶ Δαθὰν καὶ Ἀβιρὼν καὶ Αὐνάν. |
Περὶ τῆς ἐπαναστάσεως τῆς κατὰ Μωσῆν παρὰ τοῦ Κόρε συναγωγῆς. |
xvii. 1. | Περὶ τῆς ῥάβδου Ἀαρὼν τῆς βλαστησάσης. |
|
xxi. 21. | Περὶ Σηὼν βασιλέως Ἀμορραίων. | Περὶ τῶν ἀποσταλέντων πρὸς Σηών, καὶ πῶς ἐνίκησεν αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰσραήλ. |
xxxiii. 1. | Ἔπαρσις καὶ σταθμοὶ τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ. |
Πῶς διώδευσαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ. |
xxxiii. 3. | Περὶ τοῦ νυχθήμερον. | |
xxxv. 9 | Περὶ τῶν πόλεων τῶν φυγαδευτηρίων. |
Περὶ φονέως. |
The following τίτλοι for
α. περὶ τῆς γεννήσεως Μωυσέως.
β. πρώτη ὀπτασία πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐν τῇ βάτῳ.
γ. περὶ τῆς συναντήσεως μετ᾿ (?) Ἀαρών.
δ. εἴσοδος (?) Μωυσέως καὶ Ἀαρὼν πρὸς Φαραώ.
ε. περὶ τῶν μαστιγωθέντων γραμματέων.
ς. περὶ τῆς ῥάβδου τῆς στραφείσης εἰς ὄφιν.
ζ. πρώτη πληγή· μεταστροφὴ τοῦ ὕδατος εἰς αἷμα.
η. δευτέρα πληγή, τῶν βατράχων.
θ. 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[1]. The numbers are as follows: Hosea
35620,
3. One class of sections calls for separate treatment.
In Part I. c. v. (p. 168 f.) some account has been given of
MSS. which consist of lessons taken from the Old Testament.
Few of these lectionaries are older than the eleventh century,
and only one goes back to the sixth or seventh. But the
choice of passages for public reading in the services of the
Church must have begun at a much earlier period. The
public reading of the O. T. Scriptures. was an institution
inherited by the Church from the Synagogue (
In Hom. in
The lections to which Origen refers were doubtless those which were read in the pre-anaphoral portion of the Liturgy in the hearing of the catechumens as well as the faithful. In the liturgy of Apost. Const. ii., the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, the Kingdoms, the Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, the Salomonic books, and the sixteen Prophets, are all mentioned as books from which the Old Testament lection might be taken; i.e. all the books of the Hebrew Canon, with the exception of the 358Psalter and perhaps the Book of Esther, were employed for this purpose. The order in Book viii. names only the Law and the Prophets, but probably the scope is the same. The 'Prophet,' i.e. the Old Testament lesson, preceded the 'Apostle' (the Epistle) in the liturgy of Antioch as known to St Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century, and it held its place in the East generally till the seventh[1]. In the West the 'prophecy' was read by the North African Church of St Augustine's time, and it still holds its ground in the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites[1]. 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[1]; 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[1]. Such traces of adaptation to liturgical use are found even in cod. B, though not prima manu[1]. 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 ἀναγνώστης in the lessons for the day. But special Psalms were recited or sung in the Church, as they had 359been in the Synagogue[1], and in some early monastic communities arrangements were made for a regular recitation of the Psalter both in public and private[1]. 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:
Ὀρθρινοὶ[1] | γʹ | ξβʹ | αμʹ | ρμαʹ | Λυχνικοὶ[1] | γʹ | ρκθʹ | ρκʹ | ιβʹ |
Ὥρ[α] | αʹ | ψαλμὸς | ηʹ | Ὥρ[α] | αʹ | ψαλμὸς | οδʹ | ||
" | βʹ | " | κθʹ | " | βʹ | " | κθʹ | ||
" | γʹ | " | αʹ | " | γʹ | " | νδʹ | ||
" | δʹ | " | μαʹ | " | δʹ | " | ςʹ | ||
" | εʹ | " | νʹ | " | εʹ | " | δʹ | ||
" | ςʹ | " | οʹ | " | ςʹ | " | μʹ | ||
" | ζʹ | " | ξθʹ | " | ζʹ | " | ναʹ | ||
" | ηʹ | " | δʹ | " | ηʹ | " | πʹ | ||
" | θʹ | " | ριαʹ | " | θʹ | " | πζʹ | ||
" | ιʹ | " | ρμʹ | " | ιʹ | " | ζοʹ | ||
" | ιαʹ | " | ρηʹ | " | ιαʹ | " | καʹ | ||
" | ιβʹ | " | ρκʹ | " | ιβʹ | " | κςʹ |
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 Gloria into three στάσας. The larger sections are i.—viii., ix.—xvi,, xvii.—xxiii., xxiv.—xxxi., xxxii.—xxxvi., xxxvii.—xlv., xlvi.—liv., lv.—lxiii., lxiv.—lxix., lxx.—lxxvi., lxxxvii.—lxxxiv., lxxxv.—xc., xci.—c., ci.—civ., cv.—cviii., cix.—cxvii., cxviii., cxix.—cxxxi., cxxxii.—cxlii., cxliii.—cl. In the later liturgical Greek Psalter the cathismata are divided by an ornamental band or some other mark of separation, and the staseis by a marginal (δόξα, i.e. the Doxology, which was repeated at the end of each)[1].
360
(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 (τόμος αʹ—λςʹ, cf. Eus. H.E. vi. 36).
Both in Isaiah and in Daniel certain prophetic ὁράσεις were distinguished.
Thus cod. Qmg places opposite to
In the Song a marginal enumeration distinguishes the speeches of the interlocutors, and some MSS. (e.g. א and V) add marginal notes after the manner of stage-directions, such as ἡ νύμφη πρὸς τὸν νυμφίον, ταῖς νεανίσιν ἡ νύμφη, αἱ νεανίδες τῷ νυμφίῳ[1].
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
(2) It would be interesting, if sufficient materials were available, to pursue the subject of text-division with reference to the daughter-versions of the LXX. On the stichometry and capitulation of the Latin Bible much information has been brought together by M. Berger (Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 307 ff.) and Wordsworth-White (Epilogus, p.733 ff.); for the stichometry see also Dr Sanday in Studia Biblica, iii. p. 264 f. But it remains 361doubtful whether these divisions of the Latin Bible belonged originally to Jerome's version or were transferred to it from the Old Latin[1]; or, supposing the latter view to be correct, whether they came from the MSS. of the LXX. which were used by the early African or Italian translators. In referring to the N.T. Tertullian speaks of capitula not seldom (ad uxor. ii. 2, de monog. 11, de virg. vel. 4, de praescr. 5, adv. Prax. 20); but it is not clear that he uses the word to connote definitely marked sections.
On the capitulation of the Coptic versions the student will find something in Wilkins, Pentat. praef., ad fin., and Lagarde, Orientalia, p. 125 ff.; on the Egyptian lectionary, he may consult the list of authorities collected by Brightman, Ancient Liturgies, p. lxix. For the Ethiopic version, cf. Dillmann's Ethiopic Pentateuch, I. ii., pp. 163 f., 173. The stichometry of the Syro-Hexaplaric is discussed by Lagarde, Mittheilungen, iv. (1891), p. 205 f. A list of Church lessons, taken from the Palestinian-Syriac lectionary recently discovered by Mrs Lewis and Mrs Gibson, is given by Nestle in Studia Sinaitica, vi. p. xxix. ff.
4. In connexion with the subject of text-division it will be convenient to mention the expositions which accompany and often break up the text in MSS. of the Greek Bible. The student will have observed that many of the codices enumerated in Part I. c. v. (pp. 148—168) contain commentaries, either original (comm.), or compiled (cat.). Of the Greek commentators something will be said when we come to consider the use of the LXX. by the Greek fathers; in this place we will limit ourselves to the relatively late compilations which are based on the exegetical works of earlier writers[1].
Such expositions were formerly described as ἐκλογαί or παραγραφαί, or as ἐπιτομαὶ ἑρμηνειῶν, or ἐξηγήσεις ἐρανισθεῖσαι ἀπὸ διαφόρων πατέρων, or συνόψεις σχολικαὶ ἐκ διαφόρων ὑπομνημάτων συλλεχθεῖσαι, or by some similar periphrasis. The use of the technical term catena (σειρά) is of comparatively modern date. Catena aurea is a secondary title of the great 362compendium 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 Σειρὰ ἐνὸς καὶ πεντήκοντα ὑπομνηματιστῶν εἰς τὴν Ὀκτάτευχον καὶ 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, Apollinarius, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as the accepted teachers and Saints of the Catholic Church. Their range extended from the first century to the fifth or sixth, and they had access to a number of writers whose works have since disappeared. Hence their value in the eyes of patristic scholars and editors. But they are not without importance for the purposes of the biblical student. The text embedded in the commentary may be late[1], but the commentary itself often preserves the witness of early writers to an old and valuable type.
The catena is usually written in the broad margins which surround the text, or it embodies the text, which in that case is usually distinguished from it by being written in uncials or in coloured ink, or enclosed within marks of quotation. The names of the authors who have been pressed into the service of the catenist are commonly inserted in the margin at the 363place where their contributions begin: thus , , , , , , . If a second passage from the same author occurs in the same context it is introduced as ; an anonymous writer is . Unfortunately in the copying of catenae such attributions have often been omitted or misplaced, or even erroneously inserted, and as to this particular the student must be on his guard against a too unsuspecting acquiescence in the witness of his MS. Nor can he place implicit confidence in the verbal accuracy of the excerpts. The catenists evidently regarded themselves as free, while retaining the substance; to abbreviate and otherwise modify the language of their authors.
The following is a list of the chief Greek catenae of the Old Testament which have appeared in type. Octateuch, Historical books: the Catena of Nicephorus, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1772—3; Psalms: B. Corderii expositio Graecorum patrum, 3 vols., Antwerp, 1643; Proverbs: Commentary of Procopius first printed by Mai, and in Migne, P. G. lxxxvii.; Song: Commentary ascribed to Eusebius and Polychronius (Meursius, Leyden, 1617); Job: Catena of Nicetas of Serrae (P. Junius, i.e. Patrick Young, London, 1636); Isaiah: Commentary of Procopius (J. Curterius, Paris, 1580); Jeremiah, with Lamentations and Baruch: Catena published by M. Ghisler, 3 vols., Leyden, 1623; Daniel: Catena published by A. Mai in Script. vet. nov. coll. 1. On these see Ch. Q. R. i. 99, pp. 36—42.
The nineteenth century has added little to our collection of printed Greek catenae on the Old Testament, and the earlier editions do not always adequately represent the witness of the best MSS. Meanwhile a great store of MS. catenae awaits the examination of Biblical scholars. Some of these are at Athos, Athens, Smyrna and Jerusalem, but there is an abundant supply in libraries more accessible to Western students, at St Petersburg, Rome, Paris, and London. Perhaps no corner of the field of Biblical and patristic research offers so much virgin soil, with so good a prospect of securing useful if not brilliant results.
364
The following LXX. MSS. amongst others contain catenae on one or more of the books which form their text: H.-P. 14, 17, 24, 25, 31, 33, 52, 57, 73, 77, 78, 79, 83 87, 90, 91, 97) 98, 99; 109, 112, 128, 135, 147, 181, 209, 238, 240, 243, 264, 272, 292, 302, 309; London B.M. Add. 35123, Lambeth 1214; Paris, Coisl. gr. 5, 7, Reg. gr. 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 161; Zurich c. 11; Basle gr. iv. 56, vi. 8; Esc. Σ. i. 16; Leyden, 13; Munich gr. 82; Athos Vatop. 15, Ivér. 15; Athens, nat. 43; Constantinople 224; Smyrna, Ev. sch. 1; Patmos, 216, 217; Sinai 2; Jerusalem H. Sep. 3. Scholia are to be found in H.-P. 14, 16, 38, 52, 56, 64, 70, 77, 79, 93, 128, 130, 131, 135, 159, 256, 310; Paris Ars. 8415, Coisl. gr. 184.
On the Paris O. T. catenae see H. Lietzmann, Catenen, p. 37 ff. Some of the Vatican catenae are handled by Pitra, analecta sacra 11, Klostermann, analecta, passim; a full and valuable account of Roman MS. catenae on the Prophets is given by Faulhaber (die Propheten Catenen). For lists of the catenae in the great libraries of Europe and the East, the student must consult the published catalogues, e.g. Montfaucon, Omont (Paris), Stephenson (Vatican), Lambeccius (Vienna), Lambros (Athos), Papadopulos (Jerusalem). The more important MSS. are enumerated by Harnack-Preuschen, and Heinrici, and in the older work of Fabricius-Harles. A Catenarum graecarum catalogus by G. Karo and H. Lietzmann is in progress (Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (Philologisch-hist. Klasse), 1902 ff.
5. Besides catenae and detached scholia the margins of LXX. MSS. frequently contain notes of various kinds, written oftentimes in perplexing abbreviations. Lists of abbreviations are given by the principal palaeographical authorities, such as Montfaucon's Palaeographia Graeca, Gardthausen's Griechische Paläographie, and Sir E. Maunde Thompson's Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography; but the subject can only be mastered by working upon the MSS. themselves or their facsimiles. It may be useful, however, to print here a few of the abbreviated notes and symbols which occur in the apparatus of the Cambridge manual LXX., or are of frequent occurrence in the principal codices.
= Ἀκύλας. , = Σύμμαχος. θʹ, θεʹ = Θεοδοτίων.
= οὐ κεῖται παῤ Ἐβραίοις. = οἱ ὠβελισμένοι (στίχοι) οὐ κεῖνται παῤ Ἐβραίοις. = ὁμοίως τοῖς ἐβδομήκοντα. = οἱ τρεῖς, i.e. Aquila, Symmachus, 365Theodotion. πʹ = πάντες. λ = Λουκιανός (Field, Hexapla, 1. lxxxv.). = οἱ λοιποί. ΜΟΝ = μόνος. = ὡραῖον, or = Ὠριγένης. For ΠΙΠΙ see above, p. 39 f.
= σημείωσαι, σημειωτέον, σημεῖον. ΓΡ = γράψον or γράφεται. = ἀρχή. τεʹ = τέλος. = στίχος. κεʹ = κεφάλαιον. = κάθισμα. = ἀνάγνωσμα. = διώρθωται (i.e. 'corrected thus far'), a mark inserted by the διορθωτής usually at the end of a book. For further particulars see Field, op. cit., p. xciv. sqq[1].
LITERATURE.
Stichometry, colometry, &c.
Kitto, Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, art. Verse; Herzog-Plitt, art. Stichometrie; Gregory, i. p. 112 f.; Scrivener-Miller, i., p. 52 ff.; Gardthausen, Paläographie, p. 127 ff.; E. M. Thompson, Handbook, p. 78 ff.; Zahn, Gesch. d. Kanons, ii. p. 295 ff.; Sanday in Studia Biblica, iii. p. 261 ff.; J. R. Harris, Stichometry, passim; Wordsworth-White, Epilogus, p. 733 ff. (Oxford, 1898).
Capitulation.
Schürer, II. ii. 79 ff.; Buhl, Kanon u. Text d. A. T., p. 222; Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 235; Morinus, Exerc. Bibl. xvii. 3; Dathius, De ordine pericoparum (opusc. iv.); Zacagni, Collectanea, praef, pp. lxvii., lxxxi.; Montfaucon, Biblioth. Coisl., p. 1 ff.; the Benedictine Prolegomena in div. S. Hieron. biblioth. iv. (reprinted in Migne, P. L. xxviii. 101 sqq.); Suicer, Thes. eccl. s.vv. κεφάλαιον, περικοπή; Herzog-Plitt, art. Perikopen; Gregory, i. p. 120 ff.; Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 56 ff.; Thomasii opp. i.; Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 323 ff.
Lections.
Suicer, Thes. eccl. s.vv. ἀνάγνωσμα, ἀνάγνωσις, γραφή; Brill, De lectionariis or. et occ. eccl. (Helmstadt, 1703); Neale, Hist. of the H. Eastern Church, i. p. 369; Herzog-Plitt, artt. Lectionen, Perikopen; D.C.A., art. Lections; Burgon, Last twelve verses of St Mark, p. 191 ff.; E. Ranke, Das kirchl. Perikopen-system der röm. Liturgie (Berlin, 1847).
Acrostics.
P. A. de Lagarde, Symmicta i. 107; C. Taylor in Hastings' Encycl of Religion and Ethics, i. p. 75; G. Bickell, art. Acrostic in Oxford New English Dict.; I. Abrahams, art. Acrostics in Jewish Encycl.; Driver, Introd. to Lit. of O. T., ch. vii. 366Catenae.
T. Ittig, De bibliothecis et catenis patrum (Leipzig, 1707); J. C. Wolf, De catenis Gr. patrum (Wittenberg, 1742); Fabricius-Harles, viii. p. 637 ff.; J. G. Dowling, Notitia scriptorum ss. patrum (Oxford, 1839); Walch-Danz, Biblioth. patristica (Jena, 1834), p. 247 ff.; Harnack-Preuschen, Gesch. d. altchr. Litteratur, i. p. 835 ff.; G. Heinrici, in Hauck, Real-Encyklop. iii., art. Catenen; L. Eisenhofer, Procopius von Gaza, Freiburg, 1897; P. Batiffol, in Vigouroux' D. B. ii., p. 482 ff., art. Chaînes Bibliques; Lietzmann, Catenen (Freiburg i. B., 1897); M. Faulhaber, Die Propheten-Catenen nach römischen Handschriften, in Biblische Studien, iv. 2, 3 (Freiburg i. Breisgau, 1899) The two last-named works are indispensable to students who desire to prosecute research in this field. The whole subject is summarised with admirable clearness and precision in the Church Quarterly Review for Apr. 1900, pp. 29—48.
Part III. Literary Use, Value, and Textual Condition of the Greek Old Testament.
367
368
[blank page]
369
Chapter I. Literary Use of the LXX. by Non-Christian Hellenists.
1. A HAPPY accident has preserved fragments of the lost literature produced by the Hellenised Jews of Alexandria between the inception of the Alexandrian Version and the Christian era. The Greek historiographer, Alexander Cornelius—better known as Polyhistor (ὁ πολυΐστωρ), from his encyclopaedic learning—wrote a treatise On the Jews which contained extracts from Jewish and Samaritan Hellenistic writings[1]. Of these a few were copied from Polyhistor's book by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea, in whose pages they may still be read. They consist of fragments of the historians Demetrius, Eupolemus, Artapanus, and Aristeas, the poets Philo, Theodotus, and Ezekiel, the philosopher Aristobulus, and Cleodemus or Malchas. There is reason to believe that Demetrius flourished c. B.C. 200; for the other writers the date of Polyhistor (c. B.C. 50) supplies a terminus ad quem, if we may assume[1] that he wrote the work attributed to him by Clement and Eusebius.
370
The following references will enable the student to find the fragments: (1) Demetrius: Clem. Al. strom. i. 141. Eus. pr. ev. ix. 19(?), 21, 29. (2) Eupolemus: Clem. Al. strom. i. 141. Eus. pr. ev. ix. 17, 26 (= Clem. Al. strom. i. 153), 30—34, 39. (3) Artapanus: Eus. pr. ev. ix. 18, 23, 27. (4) Aristeas: Eus. pr. ev. ix. 25. (5) Philo the poet: Eus. pr. ev. ix. 20, 24, 37 (cf. Clem. Al. strom. i. 154). (6) Theodotus: Eus. pr. ev. ix. 22. (7) Ezekiel the poet: Eus. pr. ev. ix. 28 (= Clem. Al. strom. i. 155), 29. (8) Aristobulus: Eus. pr. ev. viii. 10; ix. 6 (= Clem. Al. strom. i. 22); xiii. 12. (9) Cleodemus or Malchas: Eus. pr. ev. ix. 20.
Several of these fragments bear traces of a knowledge and use of the Greek Bible, and this evidence is not the less convincing because, with one exception, the purpose of the writers has kept them from actual quotation. They wished to represent their national history in a form more acceptable to their pagan neighbours; but while avoiding the uncouth phraseology of the Greek Bible they frequently betray its influence. A few extracts will make this plain.
Demetrius: (a) τὸν θεὸν τῶ Ἀβραὰμ προστάξαι αὐτῷ· τὸν δὲ ἀναγαγόντα τὸν παῖδα ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος πυρὰν νῆσαι καὶ τὸν Ỳσαάκ· δὲ μέλλοντα κωλυθῆναι ὑπὸ αὐτῷ πρὸς τήν παραστήσαντος[1]. (b) ἐκεῖθεν δὲ , ἔνθεν παραγενέσθαι . . . καὶ τελευτῆσαι Ῥαχὴλ τὸν Βενιαμίν[1]. (c) φησὶ γὰρ τὸν Ἀβραὰμ παῖδας ἐπὶ κατοικίαν πέμψαι· διὰ τοῦτο δὲ καὶ εἰπεῖν Μωσῆν γῆμαι [1] (d) μὴ ἔχοντα δὲ ἐκεῖ γλυκὺ ἀλλὰ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰπόντος, τι τὴν πηγήν, καὶ γενέσθαι γλυκὺ . ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἐλθεῖν, καὶ εὑρεῖν ἐκεῖ μὲν δὲ [1]. (For other coincidences, see above, p. 18.)
Eupolemus: ἔκτισεν, ὃς εἵλετο ἄνθρωπον χρηστὸν ἐκ χρηστοῦ ἀνδρός . . . καὶ ἀρχιτέκτονά ἄνθρωπο Τύριον ἐκ μητρὸς Ἰουδαίας ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Δάν[1].
371Aristeas: τὸν Ἠσαὺ γήμαντα Βασσάραν γεννῆσαι Ἰώβ· δὲ τοῦτον χώρᾳ γενέσθαι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ πολύκτηνον, κτήσασθαι γὰρ αὐτὸν μὲν δὲ , [1].
Ezekiel (in his tragedy ἡ Ἐξαγωγή):
Μαριὰμ δ᾿ ἀδελφή μου κατώπτευεν πέλας·
κἄπειτα θυγάτηρ βασιλέως ὁμοῦ
κατῆλθε λουτροῖς, χρῶτα φαιδρῦναι νέον.
δ᾿ εὐθὺς καὶ λαβοῦσ᾿ ,
ἔγνω δ᾿ Ἐβραῖον ὄντα· καὶ λέγει τάδε
Μαριὰμ ἀδελφὴ προσδραμοῦσα βασιλίδι·
σοι παιδὶ τῷδ᾿ εὕρω ταχὺ
; ἡ δ᾿ ἐπέσπευσεν κόρην·
μολοῦσα δ᾿ εἶπε μητρί, καὶ παρῆν ταχὺ
αὐτή τε μήτηρ κἄλαβέν μ᾿ ἐς ἀγκάλας.
εἶπεν δὲ θυγάτηρ βασιλέως Τοῦτον, γύναι,
ἀπο σέθεν.
* * * *
οὐκ πέφυκα, γλῶσσα δ᾿ ἐπρί μου
δύσφραστος, , ὥστε μὴ λόγους
ἐμοὺς γενέσθαι βασιλέως ἐναντίον[1].
Aristobulus: (a) ὁ [1]. (b) [1] καὶ ἐν πᾶσι .
2. Besides these fragments, some complete books have
survived the wreck of the pre-Christian literature of the Jewish
colony at Alexandria. They are included in the Alexandrian
Greek Bible, but may be employed as separate witnesses of
the literary use of the canonical translations. And the evidence
supplied by them is ample. Thus the writer of Wisdom
knows and uses not only Exodus (
3. The Jewish portions of the Sibyllines, notwithstanding
the epic form in which they are cast, exhibit clear signs of the
influence of the LXX. Thus in Sibyll. iii. 312
ἐξέχεας is a
reminiscence of
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 373A.D.; in 40 A.D. he could speak of himself as already an old man[1], but his literary activity was not yet at an end, as appears from his account of the embassy to Rome in that year. Thus the evidence of his writings belongs to a period just antecedent to the rise of the earliest Christian literature, and his numerous quotations enable us to form a fair idea of the condition of the text of the LXX. in Alexandrian copies shortly before it passed into the hands of the Church.
The following list of Philo's works may be useful for reference. Cohn and Wendland's order is followed so far as their edition has been published.
A. Exegetical works. De opificio mundi (
In his exegetical writings Philo quotes the LXX. directly, announcing each citation by a formula such as φησί, εἶπεν, 374λέγει, λέγεται, γέγραπται, or some more elaborate phrase[1]. 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[1]. Nevertheless his quotations often differ from the Greek of the LXX., as it is found in our extant MSS., or in the oldest and best of them.
5. The task of comparing Philo's quotations with the LXX. has been undertaken in Germany by C. F. Hornemann and C. Siegfried, and in England more recently by Professor Ryle; and from these investigations the student may derive a general acquaintance with the subject, although even the latest of them will need revision when the critical edition of Philo's works, now in course of being published, has reached completion. The following specimens will shew the extent to which Philo departs from the LXX.
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. (
Besides substantial variants, Philo's quotations shew many departures from the LXX. which may be ascribed to inaccuracy, defects of memory, or the writer's method of citing. Thus (a) he omits certain words with the view of abbreviating; (b) he substitutes for a portion of his text a gloss or other explanatory matter of his own; (c) he exchanges Hebraisms and words or phrases which offend him for others in accordance with a correct literary style; (d) he forms a fresh sentence out of two or more different contexts.
E.g. (a)
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[1]; 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[1]. We shall have occasion to observe it again when we consider the use of the LXX. by the writers of the New Testament.
6. The Alexandrian Version was also used by the Palestinian Jew, Flavius Josephus, who represents Jewish Hellenistic literature in the generation which followed Philo. He was born at Jerusalem within the lifetime of the great Alexandrian (A.D. 37—8). He was descended from a priestly family[1]; 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[1]. His earliest work, on the Jewish War, was written in Aramaic[1], and when he desired to translate it into Greek, he was constrained to seek assistance (c. Ap. χρησάμενός τισι πρὸς τὴν Ἐλληνίδα φωνὴν συνεργοῖς οὕτως ἐποιησάμην τῶν πράξεων τὴν παράδοσιν). But the Antiquities of the Jews (αἱ Ἰωσήπου ἱστορίαι τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς ἀρχαιολογίας), 377which appear to have been completed in A.D. 93—4, form an original Greek work which, so far as we know, was composed without material help. In it Josephus professes to interpret the Hebrew records for the benefit of Hellenic readers: Ant. i. proem. 1 ταύτν δὲ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἐγκεχείρισμαι πραγματείαν, νομίζων ἅπασι φανεῖσθαι τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἀξίαν σπουδῆς· μέλλει γὰρ περιέξειν ἅπασαν τὴν παῤ ἡμῖν ἀρχαιολογίαν καὶ διάταξιν τοῦ πολιτεύματος ἐκ τῶν Ἐβραϊκών μεθηρμηνευμένην γραμμάτων. His chief source, therefore, was the Hebrew Bible, with which he was doubtless acquainted from boyhood[1]. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence in the Antiquities that the writer knew and, for the purpose of his work, used the Alexandrian Greek version. He does not, indeed, like Philo, quote formally either from the Hebrew or from the Greek, but he shews a knowledge of both.
His indebtedness to the LXX. appears in a variety of ways.
(a) He interprets proper names as they are interpreted by the
LXX. e.g. Ant. I. 1. 2 Εὕα . . . σημαίνει . . .
πάντων μητέρα (
A recent examination, by A. Mez, of Basle[1], into the Biblical text presupposed by Josephus' history in Ant. v.—vii. has led to the following results, which are important for the criticism of the LXX. (1) The Josephus text of the LXX. has no affinity with the characteristic text of cod. B. (2) In Joshua it generally approximates to the text of . (3) In Judges it is frequently, but not constantly, Lucianic; in 1, 3 Kingdoms it agrees with Lucian so closely as to fall into the same omissions and misconceptions; only in four instances, other than proper names, does it contravene a Lucianic reading, and three of these are numerical differences, whilst in the fourth 'Lucian' appears to have undergone correction, and the reading of Josephus survives in cod. A. These investigations, so far as they go, point to a probability that in these books the Greek Bible of Palestine during the second half of the first century presented a text not very remote from that of the recension which emanated from Antioch early in the fourth. While Philo the Alexandrian supports on the whole the text of our oldest uncial cod. B, Josephus the Palestinian seems to have followed that of an 'Urlucian.'
LITERATURE. Hellenistic writers before Philo: Text: C. Müller, Fragmenta historica Graeca iii. J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien i., ii. (Breslau, 1875). Cf. Susemihl, Geschichte der griech. Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, ii. p. 356 ff.; E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes³, iii. p. 345 ff.; Oeconomus, ii. 76.
Philo: Text: L. Cohn and P. Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt (Berlin, vol. i. 1896; vol. ii. 1897; vol. iii. 1898; vol. iv. 1902; vol. v. 1906—in progress). Cf. C. F. Hornemann, Specimen exercitationum criticarum in versionem 380LXX. interpretum ex Philone (Göttingen, 1773); C. Siegfried, Philo and der überlieferte Text der LXX. (in Z. f. wiss. Theologie, 1873, pp. 217 ff., 411 ff., 522 ff.); A. Edersheim in D. C. B. iv. p. 357 ff.; E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford, 1889), p. 140 ff.; F. C. Conybeare, in Expositor, 1891, p. 456 ff.; and Jewish Q. R., 1893, p. 246 ff., 1896, p. 88 ff.; H. E. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture (London, 1895); P. Wendland, in Philologus 1898, p. 283 ff., 521 ff., 1899, 274 ff.; L. Massebieau, Le classement des œuvres de Philon (in Bibliothèque de l’école des hautes études 1. pp. 1—91); J. Drummond, in Hastings' D. B. suppl. 197; J. H. A. Hart, in J. Q. R. xvii. p. 78 ff.; Aug. Schröder, De Philonis Alexandrini Vet. Test., Greifswald, i907.
Sibyllines. Text: A. Rzach, Oracula Sibyllina, Vienna, 1891. Cf. F. Blass in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 177 ff.
Josephus. Text: B. Niese, Fl. Josephi opera (Berlin, 1887—1895). Cf. Spittler, 1779, J. G. Scharfenberg, 1780; E. Schürer², E. T. 1. i. p. 77 ff.; A. Edersheim in D. C. B. iii. p. 441 ff.; C. Siegfried in Stade's Z. f. d. ATliche Wissenschaft, 1883, p. 32 ff.; H. Bloch, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus in seiner Archäologia (Leipzig, 1879); A. Mez, Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht für Buch v.—vii. der Archäologia (Basle, 1895).
Chapter II. Quotations from the LXX. in the New Testament.
3811. THE writings of the New Testament were the work of some nine authors, of different nationalities and antecedents. Six of them, according to the traditional belief, were Palestinian Jews; a seventh, though 'a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage,' belonged by birth to the Dispersion of Asia Minor; of the remaining two, one was possibly a Gentile from Antioch, and the other a 'Hellenist with Alexandrian proclivities.' Some diversity of practice as to the literary use of the Greek Old Testament may reasonably be expected in a collection of books having so complex an origin.
With few exceptions, the books of the New Testament abound in references to the Old Testament and in quotations from it. An exhaustive list of these may be seen at the end of Westcott and Hort's New Testament in Greek (Text, p. 581 ff.), and in their text the corresponding passages are distinguished by the use of a small uncial type. But this device, though otherwise admirable[1], 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.
382
By passages formally cited we understand (1) those which are cited with an introductory formula, such as τοῦτο γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν (Mt.), οὕτως or καθὼς γέγραπται, or γέγραπται simply (Mt., Mc., Lc., 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.
Table of O. T. passages quoted in the N. T.
Gen. |
|
Mt. |
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
1 Cor. |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
Acts |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Jas. |
|
|
|
Acts |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gal. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
Exod. |
|
Acts |
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
John |
|
|
|
Lc. |
|
|
|
John |
|
|
|
2 Cor. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Acts |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Acts |
|
|
|
1 Cor. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
Lev. |
|
1 Pet. |
|
|
Lc. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
2 Cor. |
|
|
Num. |
|
2 Tim. |
|
Deut. |
|
Mc. |
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
Acts |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
Gal. |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
1 Cor. |
|
|
|
Gal. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
|
||
2 Regn. |
|
2 Cor. |
|
3 Regn. |
|
Rom. |
|
Psalm |
|
Acts |
|
|
|
||
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
1 Cor. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
Acts |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jo. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
1 Cor. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
1 Pet. |
|
|
|
Jo. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
Jo. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
1 Pet. |
|
|
|
Eph. |
|
|
|
Jo. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Acts |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
Jo. |
|
|
|
Acts |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
1 Cor. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Acts |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
2 Cor. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
Prov. |
|
Heb. |
|
|
Jas. |
|
|
|
1 Pet. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
2 Pet. |
|
|
Job |
|
1 Cor. |
|
Hos. |
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
||
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
1 Cor. |
|
|
Amos |
|
Acts |
|
|
|
||
Mic. |
|
Mt. |
|
Joel |
|
Acts |
|
Hab. |
|
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
Zech. |
|
Jude |
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
|
||
Mal. |
|
Rom. |
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
Isa. |
|
Rom. |
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
1 Cor. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
1 Cor. |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
1 Pet. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Acts |
|
|
|
2 Cor. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
2 Cor. |
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Jo. |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
1 Pet. |
|
|
|
Acts |
|
|
|
Mc. |
|
|
|
Gal. |
|
|
|
Jo. |
|
|
|
Acts |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Lc. |
|
|
|
1 Cor. |
|
|
|
Rom. |
|
|
|
Acts |
|
|
|
Mc. |
|
|
Jer. |
|
Mt. |
|
|
1 Cor. |
|
|
|
Mt. |
|
|
|
Heb. |
|
|
Dan. |
|
Mt. |
|
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
2. The table already given shews the extent to which the Old Testament is directly cited in the New. In that which follows the comparison is inverted, and the student will be able to see at a glance how the quotations are distributed among the several groups of writings of which the New Testament is made up.
(1) Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels.
Mt. | Mc. | Lc. | O.T. | |||
i. |
|
|
||||
ii. |
|
|||||
ii. |
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
iii. |
|
i. |
|
iii. |
|
|
iv. |
|
iv. | |
|
||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
v. |
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
viii. |
|
|
||||
ix. | |
|
||||
xi. |
|
i. |
|
vii. |
|
|
xii. |
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
xiii. |
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
||||
xv. |
|
vii. |
|
|
||
|
|
|||||
ix. |
|
|
||||
xix. |
|
x. |
|
|
||
|
x. |
|
xviii. |
|
|
|
xxi. |
|
|
||||
|
xi. |
|
xix. |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
xii. |
|
xx. |
|
|
|
xxii. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|||||
|
|
xx. |
|
|
||
xxiv. |
|
xiii. |
|
|
||
xxii. |
|
|
||||
xxvi. |
|
xiv. |
|
|
||
xxvii. |
|
|
||||
|
xv. |
|
|
388
(2) Quotations in the Fourth Gospel.
Jo. |
|
Isa. |
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Exod. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Ezech. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Exod. |
|
|
|
Zech. |
|
(3) Quotations in the Acts.
Acts |
|
Ps. |
|
|
Joel |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deut. |
|
|
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Exod. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Amos |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Hab. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
Jer. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
389
(4) Quotations in the Catholic Epistles.
James |
|
Lev. |
|
|
Exod. |
|
|
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
Prov. |
|
|
1 Peter |
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
||
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Prov. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
2 Peter |
|
Prov. |
|
Jude | |
Zech. |
|
(5) Quotations in the Epistles of St Paul
Rom. |
|
Hab. |
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Exod. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Mal. |
|
|
|
Exod. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Hos. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Deut. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Deut. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
3 Regn. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Prov. |
|
|
|
Exod. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deut. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
|
||
1 Cor. |
|
|
|
|
Jer. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
Deut. |
|
|
|
Exod. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
2 Cor. |
|
Ps. |
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
Ezek. |
|
|
|
Exod. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Jer. |
|
|
Gal. |
|
Ps. |
|
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deut. |
|
|
|
Hab. |
|
|
|
Lev. |
|
|
|
Deut. |
|
|
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
Lev. |
|
|
Eph. |
|
Ps. |
|
|
Zech. |
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
Exod. |
|
|
1 Tim. |
|
Deut. |
|
2 Tim. |
|
Num. |
|
(6) Quotations in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Heb. |
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Isa. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
Exod. |
|
|
|
Jer. |
|
|
|
Exod. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
|
|
Deut. |
|
|
|
Hab. |
|
|
|
Gen. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Prov. |
|
|
|
Deut. |
|
|
|
Exod. |
|
|
|
Hagg. |
|
|
|
Deut. |
|
|
|
Ps. |
|
Some interesting results follow from an inspection of these
lists. (1) The Synoptic Gospels have 46 distinct quotations
(
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[1]; and by another that "not more than fifty" of the citations "materially differ from the LXX.[1]" 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 393point out the method to be pursued in such an investigation, and its chief results.
Each group of the N. T. writings must be interrogated separately. (a) Beginning with the Synoptic Gospels, we observe that the quotations partly occur in narratives or dialogue which are common to the Synoptists or to two of them, and are partly due to the individual writer. Between these two classes of quotations there is a marked contrast. Citations belonging to the common narrative, or to sayings reported by all the Synoptists, or to two of them, with few exceptions adhere closely to the LXX., the differences being only textual or in the way of omission.
Some examples will make this clear. (1) Citations common to
Mt., Mc., Lc.
Thus it appears that of 14 quotations which belong to this
class only two (
394
In Mt. there are 16 quotations which are not to be found in
Mc. or Lc. (
It may be asked whether the quotations in the Synoptists which do not agree with our present text of the LXX., or with its relatively oldest type, imply the use of another Greek version. Before an answer to this question can be attempted, it is necessary to distinguish carefully between the causes which have produced variation. It may be due to (a) loose citation, or to (b) the substitution of a gloss for the precise words which the writer professes to quote, or to (c) a desire to adapt a prophetic context to the circumstances under which it was thought to have been fulfilled, or to (d) the fusing together of passages drawn from different contexts. Of the variations which cannot be ascribed to one or other of these causes, some are (e) recensional, whilst others are (f) translational, and imply an independent use of the original, whether by the Evangelist, or by the author of some collection of excerpts which he employed.
The following may be taken as specimens of these types of
variation. (a)
The three last-named causes of variation need to be considered at some length.
395(1) A few of the Synoptic quotations are manifestly
composite. E.g.
(2) there is a considerable weight of evidence in favour
of the belief that the Evangelists employed a recension of
the LXX. which came nearer to the text of cod. A than to
that of our oldest uncial B. This point has been recently
handled in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift f. Wissenschaftliche Theologie[1],
by Dr W. Staerk, who shews that the witness of the N. T. almost
invariably goes with codd. אAF and Lucian against the Vatican
MS., and that its agreement with cod. A is especially close[1].
It may of course be argued that the text of these authorities
has been influenced by the N. T.[1]; but the fact that a similar
tendency is noticeable in Josephus, and to a less extent in
Philo, goes far to discount this objection. Still more remarkable
is the occasional tendency in N. T. quotations to support
Theodotion against the LXX.[1] Some instances have been
given already; we may add here
Mt. | LXX. | Th. |
ἰδoὺ ὁ παῖς μου ὃν ᾑρέτισα, ὁ αγαπητός μου ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου. | Ἰακωβ ὁ παῖς μου ἀντιλήμψομαι αὐτοῦ· Ἰσραὴλ ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου, προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου. | ἰδoὺ ὁ παῖς μου, ἀντιλήμψομαι αὐτοῦ· ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου. |
396
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.
καὶ σύ, Βηθλέεμ, γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα· ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου Ἰσραήλ. | καὶ σύ, Βηθλέεμ, οἶκος Ἐφράθα, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ἰούδα· ἐξ οὗ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα τοῦ Ἰσραήλ . . . καὶ ποιμανεῖ . . . |
ουδαμως] μη D | εκ σου] εξ ου (B*)אC(D) | om γαρ א* | εξ ου | εκ σου B b?cAQ | εξελευσεται] + ηγουμενος A |
On the relation of the LXX. in this passage to the M. T. see above p. 338. Χιλιάσιν, ἡγεμόσιν answer to different vocalisations of אלפי, 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.
γῆ Ζαβουλὼν καὶ γῆ Νεφθαλείμ, ὁδὸν θαλάσσης, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Γαλειλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκοτίᾳ φῶς εἶδεν μέγα· καὶ τοῖς καθημένοις ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου φῶς ἀνέτειλεν αὐτοῖς. | χώρα Ζαβουλών, ἡ γῆ Νεφθαλείμ, καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ τὴν παραλίαν καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Γαλειλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν. ὁ λαὸς ὁ πορευόμενος ἐν σκότει, ἴδετε φῶς μέγα· οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν χώρᾳ σκιᾷ θανάτου, φῶς λάμψει ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς. |
οι καθημενοι D | και σκια] om και D* | Νεφθαλειμ] + οδον θαλασσης א c.aAQ (Aq. Th.) | παραλιαν] + κατοικουντες א c.aAQ | πορευομενος] καθημενος A | σκια] pr και א c.aAQΓ |
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 Ζ., Γ. τῶν ἐθνῶν, χώρᾳ [καὶ] σκιᾷ. On the other hand ὁδὸν θαλάσσης, εἶδεν, αὐτοῖς agree with M.T. The writer quotes from memory, or from a collection of loosely cited testimonia.
αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβεν καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν | οὗτος τὰς 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.
ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου· ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς. | ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου· φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς. |
καταβολης] + κοσμου א*CD |
V. 35
a in Mt. follows the LXX. verbatim,
while 35
b is an independent rendering of the Heb. The departure from the
LXX. in the second half of the text is not altogether for the sake of
exactness; if ἐρεύξομαι is nearer to אַבִּיעָה than
φθέγξομαι, ἀπὸ καταβολῆς
introduces a conception which has no place in מִנִּי־קֶדֶם,
and in this sense the Greek phrase is practically limited to the
N. T. (see Hort on
|
Zach. xi. 13 |
καὶ ἔλαβον . . . τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ἔδωκαν αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, καθὰ συνέταξέν μοι Κύριος. | καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος πρὸς μέ Κάθες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ χωνευτήριον καὶ σκέψομαι εἰ δόκιμόν ἐστιν, ὃν τρόπον ἐδοκιμάσθην ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν. καὶ ἔλαβον . . . καὶ ἐνέβαλον αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν οἶκον Κυρίου εἰς τὸ χωνευτηρίον. |
εδωκεν A* vid εδωκα א | εδοκιμασθην B* fortאAQ |
Mt. has re-arranged this passage, and given its sense, without regard to the order or construction of the original. In doing this he has abandoned the LXX. altogether, and approximates to the Heb.; cf. Aq. ἡ τιμὴν ἣν ἐτιμήθην ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν.
398
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 (
(b) The Fourth Gospel quotes the LXX. verbatim, or with
slight variants, in cc.
(c) The quotations from the O. T. in the Acts are taken
from the LXX. exclusively. With the exception of the περιοχή
in
|
|
μετὰ ταῦτα ἀναστρέψω καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυεὶδ τὴν πεπτωκυῖαν, καὶ τὰ κατεσκαμμένα αὐτῆς ἀνοικοδομήσω καὶ ἀνορθώσω αὐτήν, ὅπως ἂν ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸν κύριον καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾿ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς, λέγει Κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα * * * [1]. | μετὰ τὸ ἐκβαλεῖν με αὐτοὺς ἐπιστρέψω . . . ἀναστήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυεὶδ τὴν πεπτωκυῖαν . . . καὶ τὰ κατεσκαμμένα αὐτῆς ἀναστήσω καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω αὐτὴν καθὼς αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ αἰῶνος, ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾿ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς, λέγει Κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα. |
κατεστραμμενα] κατεσκαμμενα ACD | κατεσκαμμενα] κατεστραμμενα AbO |
οπως] + αν A | ανθρωπων] + τον κυριον A |
The combination in this quotation of looseness with close adherence to the LXX. even where it is furthest from the Heb. (e.g. in ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν κτλ.) is significant, especially when it is remembered that the speaker is St James of Jerusalem.
(d) The Catholic Epistles use the LXX. when they quote
the O.T. expressly, and with some exceptions keep fairly close
to the Alexandrian Greek. Thus
(e) More than half of the direct quotations from the O.T.
in the Epistles of St Paul are taken from the LXX. without
material change (
In other passages St Paul departs still further from the
LXX., quoting freely, or paraphrasing, or fusing two distinct
passages into a single citation, or occasionally deserting the
Alexandrian version altogether. Examples of loose quotations
or of paraphrases will be found in
The following instances will shew how far reconstruction is carried in cases of conflation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
αγαπωσιν] υπομενουσιν Clem. R. i. 34, 8. | |
|
|
In some cases a wide departure from the LXX. is probably to be explained by the supposition that the Apostle quotes from memory; e.g.:
οὐκ οἴδατε ἐν Ἠλείᾳ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή . . . Κύριε, τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν, τὰ θυσιαστήριά σου κατέσκαψαν, κἀγὼ ὑπελείφθην μόνος καὶ ζητοῦσιν τὴν ψυχήν μου. ἀλλὰ τί λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ χρηματισμός; Κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ. | καὶ εἶπεν Ἠλειού . . . τὰ θυσιαστήριά σου καθεῖλαν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν . . . καὶ ὑπολέλειμμαι ἐγὼ μονώτατος καὶ ζητοῦσι τὴν ψυχήν μου . . . καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος πρὸς αὐτόν . . . καταλείψεις ἐν Ἰσραὴλ ἑπτὰ χιλιάδας ἀνδρῶν, πάντα γόνατα ἃ οὐκ ὤκλασαν γόνυ τῷ Βααλ. |
402
The following quotation also is probably from memory[1], but the Apostle's knowledge of the original has enabled him to improve upon the faulty rendering of the LXX.
ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται ὅτι Ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις καὶ ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέρων λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ, καὶ οὐδ᾿ οὕτως εἰσακούσονταί μου, λέγει Κύριος | διὰ φαυλισμὸν χειλέων, διὰ γλώσσης ἑτέρας· ὅτι λαλήσουσιν τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ . . . καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησαν ἀκούειν. |
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 ἑτερογλώσσοις καὶ ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέροις λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ. Theodotion unfortunately is wanting.
(f) The Ep. to the Hebrews is in great part a catena
of quotations from the LXX. "The text of the quotations
agrees in the main with some form of the present text of the
LXX.[1]" A considerable number of the passages are cited
exactly, or with only slight variation (
In the Epistles, as in the Gospels, the text of the LXX. which is employed inclines to cod. A rather than to cod. B. But its agreement with the A text is not without exception; and these are other elements in the problem which must not be overlooked. As in the Gospels, again, we notice from time to time a preference for Lucianic readings, or for the readings of Theodotion. It has been reasonably conjectured that the writers of the N.T. used a recension which was current in Palestine, possibly also in Asia Minor, and which afterwards supplied materials to Theodotion, and left traces in the Antiochian Bible, and in the text represented by cod. A. We shall revert to this subject in a later chapter; for the present it is enough to notice the direction to which the evidence of the N.T. seems to point.
4. We have dealt so far with direct quotations. But in
estimating the influence of the LXX. upon the N. T. it must
not be forgotten that it contains almost innumerable references
of a less formal character. These are in many cases likely to
escape notice, and it is not the least of the debts which we
owe to the Westcott and Hort text, that attention is called to
them by the use of uncial type. They will be found chiefly
(a) in the words of our Lord (e.g.
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[1]. 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[1]. It is not too much to say that in its literary form and expression the New Testament would have been a widely different book had it been written by authors who knew the Old Testament only in the original, or who knew it in a Greek. version other than that of the LXX.
LITERATURE. F. Junius, Sacrorum Parallelorum libri iii. (Heidelberg, 1588); J. Drusius, Parallela Sacra (Franeker, 4051594); H. Hody, De Bibl. textibus, p. 243 ff. (Oxford, 1705); W. Surenhusius, ספר המשיח sive βίβλος καταλλαγῆς (Amsterdam, 1713); H. Owen, Modes of quotation used by the Evangelical writers explained and vindicated (London, 1789); H. Gough, N. T. Quotations (London, 1855); A. Tholuck, Das A. T. in N.T.-erste Beilage (Gotha, 1836); D. M cC. Turpie, The Old Testament in the New (London, 1868); The New Testament view of the Old (London, 1872); Kautzsch, De Veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo ap. allegatis (Leipzig, 1869); C. Taylor, The Gospel in the Law (Cambridge, 1869); H. Monnet, Les citations de l’Ancien Testament dans les Épîtres de Saint Paul (Lausanne, 1874); Böhl, Die ATlichen Citate im N.T. (Vienna, 1878); C. H. Toy, Quotations in the New Testament (New York, 1884); E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 131 ff. (Oxford, 1889); W. Staerk, in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie, xxxv.—xl.; Bp Lightfoot's Biblical Essays, p. 136 ff. (London, 1893); A. Clemen, Der Gebrauch des A.T. in den NTlichen Schriften (Gütersloh, 1895); H. Vollmer, Die ATlichen Citate bei Paulus (Freiburg in B., 1895); J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 123 ff. (Oxford, 1889); W. Dittmar, Vetus Testamentum in Novo i. (Göttingen, 1899); Th. Zahn, Einleitung in das N.T., ii. p. 313 ff., and elsewhere (see Sachregister s. ATliche Citate (Leipzig, 1899); E. Hühn, Die ATlichen Citate and Reminiscenzen im N.T. (Tübingen, 1900). See also the commentaries on particular books of the N.T., e.g. Bp Westcott, Hebrews, p 469 ff.; J. B. Mayor, St James, p. lxviii. ff.; H. B. Swete, St Mark, p. lxx ff.; Apocalypse, p. cxxxix. ff.; G. Milligan, Thessalonians, pp. liv., lviii. f.
Chapter III. Quotations from the LXX. in Early Christian Writings.
406"THE quotations from the LXX. in the Greek Fathers are an almost unworked field[1]." So wrote Dr Hatch in 1889, and the remark is still true. Indeed, this field can hardly be worked with satisfactory results until the editor has gone before, or a competent collator has employed himself upon the MSS. of the author whose quotations are to be examined. The 'Apostolic Fathers' can already be used with confidence in the editions of Lightfoot and Gebhardt-Harnack; the minor Greek Apologists have been well edited in Texte und Untersuchungen, and it may be hoped that the Berlin edition of the earlier Greek Fathers[1] will eventually supply the investigator with trustworthy materials for the Ante-Nicene period as a whole. But for the present the evidence of many Ante-Nicene and of nearly all later Greek Church-writers must be employed with some reserve. In this chapter we shall limit ourselves to the more representative Christian writers before Origen.
1. The earliest of non-canonical Christian writings, the letter addressed c. A.D. 96 by the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, abounds in quotations from the O.T.; and more than half of these are given substantially in the words of the LXX. with or without variants.
407
The following is a list of the exact or nearly exact quotations
of the LXX. in Clem. R. ad Cor.
The variants are often of much interest, as shewing
affinities to certain types of LXX. text. The following are
specially worthy of notice:
(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.
(b) A large proportion of Clement's quotations are composite[1];
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 =
(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)
|
Clem. l.c. | |
μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ· ἀλλ᾿ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος, συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι Κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ἔλεος καὶ κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. | μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ φρόνιμος ἐν τῇ φρονήσει αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ δυνατὸς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ· ἀλλ᾿ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος, συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν τὸν κύριον, καὶ ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐν μέσῳ τῆς γῆς. | μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ, υηδὲ ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ, υηδὲ ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ· ἀλλ᾿ ἢ †ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω†[1], τοῦ ἐκζητεῖν αὐτὸν καὶ ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην. |
(4)
410
|
Clem. l.c. | |
ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ. om ἐν τῷ στόμ. αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν אAQ. |
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος (οὗτος ὁ λαὸς Mc.) τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ. ἀπέχει] Mc. ἀφέστηκεν D ἄπεστιν L 2 pe |
Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἄπεστιν ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ. τοῖς χείλεσιν] τῷ στοματι C clem. ἄπεστιν] ἀπέχει C clem. |
Through constant citation, the context has taken more than
one type; Clement's is close to that of the Evangelists,
but has not been borrowed from them in their present form,
as ἄπεστιν shews. (10)
The general result of this examination is to shew (a) that Clement's text of the LXX. inclines in places to that which appears in the N.T., and yet presents sufficient evidence of independence; (b) that as between the texts of the LXX. represented by B and A, while often supporting A, it is less constantly opposed to B than is the New Testament; and (c) that it displays an occasional tendency to agree with Theodotion and even with Aquila against the LXX. It seems in fact to be a more mixed text than that which was in the hands of the Palestinian writers of the N.T. These conclusions harmonise on the whole with what we know of the circumstances under which Clement wrote. The early Roman Church was largely composed of Greek-speaking Jews, the freedmen of Roman families; and Clement himself, as Lightfoot has suggested[1], 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, 411while derived from Palestinian archetypes, should contain readings brought to the capital by Jewish-Greek visitors from other lands.
2. Whatever the history of the so-called Second Epistle of
Clement to the Corinthians, whether it is of Roman or of
Corinthian origin, like the genuine Epistle it makes extensive
use of the Greek Old Testament. The following quotations
occur:
3. Another second century document, indisputably Roman,
the Shepherd of Hermas, contains no quotation from the LXX.
But
4. The Old Testament is quoted in the Epistle of
Barnabas even more profusely than in the Epistle of Clement,
412but with less precision. The writer is fairly exact in well
known contexts belonging to the Psalter or the Book of
Isaiah[1], 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.
The following analysis of the quotations in Barnabas may be
found useful. (a) Exact or nearly exact:
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.
The leaning in Isaiah towards the text of Q especially
when found in company with A or אA, is noteworthy, and it
is worth mentioning that in
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 (
6. Irenaeus may be taken next, for though he belonged to the next generation and his literary activity was connected with the West, his copies of the Old Testament writings were doubtless of Asiatic provenance. His method of quotation however differs widely from that of the earlier writers. He is a theologian and a controversialist, and he quotes the Scriptures to refute an antagonist or to support the traditional faith. Accordingly his citations are, with few exceptions, either exact extracts, or but slightly abridged and adapted, and he is almost wholly free from the habit of loose paraphrase. How copiously he cites, especially in Adv. haereses iii. iv., will appear from the following list[1].
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.
A special interest attaches to Irenaeus' extracts from Daniel[1].
For the most part they follow the version of Theodotion quite
closely, even in the Greek additions. Two exceptions are
worth noting:
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 418than 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.
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.
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[1].
Justin, Dial. 31 |
|
Ibid., Th. |
ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτου θρόνοι ἐτέθησαν, καὶ παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν ἐκάθητο ὡσεὶ χιόνα λευκόν, καὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔριον καθαρόν, ὁ θρόνος αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ φλὸξ πυρός, οἱ τροχοὶ αὐτοῦ πῦρ φλέγον. ποταμὸς πυρὸς εἷλκεν μενος ἐκ που · χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες παρειστήκεισαν αὐτῷ· βίβλοι ἀνεῴχθησαν καὶ κριτήριον ἐκάθισεν. ἐθεώρουν τότε |
ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτε θρόνοι ἐτέθησαν, καὶ παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν ἐκάθητο ὡσεὶ χιόνα, καὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔριον λευκὸν καθαρόν· ὁ θρόνος ὡσεὶ φλὸξ πυρός, τροχοὶ αὐτοῦ πῦρ καιόμενον. ποταμὸς πυρὸς ἕλκων, καὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ποταμὸς πυρός· χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐθεράπευον αὐτὸν καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες παρειστήκεισαν αὐτῷ· καὶ κριτήριον ἐκάθισε καὶ βίβλοι ἠνεῴχθησαν. ἐθεώρουν |
ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτου θρόνοι ἐτέθησαν, καὶ παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν ἐκάθητο, καί τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ χιὼν λευκόν, καὶ ἡ θρὶξ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔριον καθαρόν· ὁ θρόνος αὐτοῦ φλὸξ πυρός, οἱ τροχοὶ αὐτοῦ πῦρ φλέγον. ποταμὸς πυρὸς εἷλκεν ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ· χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ, καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες παριστήκεισαν αὐτῷ· κριτήριον ἐκάθισεν, καὶ βίβλοι ἠνεῴχθησαν. ἐθεώρουν τότε ἀπὸ φωνῆς τῶν λόγων τῶν μεγάλων ὧν τὸ |
τῶν μεγάλων λόγων ὧν τὸ κέρας λάλεῖ, καὶ τὸ θηρίον, καὶ ἀπώλετο τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐδόθη εἰς καῦσιν πυρός· καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ θηρία μετεστάθη τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτῶν, καὶ ζωῆς τοῖς θηρίοις ἐδόθη ἕως . ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς, καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος, καὶ ἦλθεν ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν, καὶ ἐνώπιον αῦτοῦ· καὶ προσήγαγον αῦτον. καὶ |
τότε τῶν λόγων τῶν μεγάλων ὧν τὸ κέρας ἐλάλει· θεωρῶν ἤμην, καὶ τὸ θηρίον, καὶ ἀπώλετο τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐδόθη εἰς καῦσιν πυρός. καὶ τοὺς κύκλῳ αὐτοῦ ἀπέστησε τῆς ἐξουσίας αὐτῶν, καὶ ζωῆς ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἕως καὶ καιροῦ. ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο, καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν παρῆν· καὶ παρῆσαν αὐτῷ. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία καὶ τιμὴ βασιλική, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα· καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ. |
κέρας ἐκεῖνο ἐλάλει, ἕως ἀνῃρέθη τὸ θηρίον καὶ ἀπώλετο, καὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ἐδόθη εἰς καῦσιν πυρός. καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν θηρίαων ἡ ἀρχὴ μετεστάθη, καὶ μακρότης ζωῆς ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἕως καιροῦ καὶ καιροῦ. ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς, καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος, καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασεν· καὶ προσήχθη αὐτῷ. καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία, καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοί, φυλαί, καὶ γλῶσσαι δουλεύσουσιν αὐτῷ· ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος ἥτις οὐ παρελεύσεται, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθαρήσεται. |
The student will notice that Justin's O.T. text is a mixed one. (a) In Genesis it contains many readings of D or DE where those later uncials depart from A; (b) in Deuteronomy it occasionally supports A or AF against B, and (c) in the Psalms the group ART, with the concurrence sometimes of א, sometimes of א c.a; (d) in the Prophets it not seldom agrees with Q (AQ, אAQ). In the Minor Prophets it is startling to find in Justin more than one rendering which is attributed to Symmachus; and as it is in the highest degree improbable that 423his 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 αῦτον,
are undoubtedly due to
Theodotion, or rather to the version on which he worked. On
the other hand ἔχων περιβολὴν, τὸ τρίχωμα, πῦρ φλέγον, ἀπετυμπανίσθη, χρόνος ζωῆς, οἱ παρεστηκότες,
and the whole of
In a few instances Justin shews a disposition to criticise
the LXX. reading. E.g. in
8. Hippolytus of Portus, as we learn from the inscription on the chair of his statue and from other ancient sources, was the author of a large number of Biblical commentaries[1]. These included works on the Hexaemeron and its sequel (τὰ μετὰ τὴν ἑξαήμερον); on Exodus, and portions of Numbers and Samuel; on the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs; on Zechariah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, parts of Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel. Of these exegetical works there remains only the commentary on Daniel[1], 425with fragments of most of the rest. The great treatise Adversus omnes haereses yields but little in the way of Scriptural quotations[1], but the minor theological works collected by Lagarde[1] 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.
The text of Hippolytus, it will be seen, like most of the patristic texts, leans slightly to AF in the Pentateuch, א or א c.a in the poetical books, and AQ in the Prophets. At the 426same time it is full of surprises, and often stands quite alone among existing witnesses.
9. Our last witness is Clement of Alexandria. Clement had learnt the Christian faith during his early travels in Asia Minor and Magna Graecia, and he may have received copies of O.T. writings from his first Christian masters. Hence it must not be too hastily assumed that the text of his O.T. quotations is purely Alexandrian. On the other hand it is reasonable to suppose that during the period of his literary activity he was familiar with the Alexandrian text and used it when he quoted from his MS. On the whole therefore we may expect his quotations to be fairly representative of the Biblical text current at Alexandria during the generation preceding the compilation of the Hexapla.
Clement quotes both the Jewish and the Christian scriptures profusely, but his extracts seldom extend beyond two or three verses, and are often broken by comments or copied with considerable freedom. His purpose was didactic and not polemical; even in the λόγος προτρεπτικός he aims to persuade rather than to compel assent, whilst the Paedagogus and the Stromateis are addressed exclusively to persons under instruction, to whom the Scriptures were a familiar text-book. Hence he is exact only when verbal precision is necessary; often it is sufficient for his purpose to work into his argument a few words from a Scriptural context, giving the sense of the rest in his own words. Still it is possible even in these broken references to catch glimpses of the text which lay before him, and in the dearth of early Christian literature emanating from Alexandria, these are of no little value to the student of the Greek Bible[1]. A generally full and accurate index of Clement's 427Biblical 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)
10. This examination has been but partial, even within the narrow field to which it was limited. It has dealt only with direct quotations, and in the case of Hippolytus and Clement of Alexandria, only with a few of these. Moreover, the student who wishes to examine the whole of the evidence must not limit himself to the few great writers who have been named. Even if he adds the writings of Aristides, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and the anonymous Teaching and Epistle to Diognetus, there will still remain the fragments collected in the Relliquiae Sacrae and by the researches of Pitra, and the Pseudo-Clementine, apocryphal, and Gnostic literature of the second century. Still more important help may be obtained from Latin Christian writers who quote the O.T. in the Old Latin version, e.g. Cyprian, Lucifer, Vigilius of Thapsus, the Donatist Tyconius, and the author of the Speculum[1]. This part of the evidence was collected for Holmes and Parsons, and will be presented in a more permanent form, if not at so much length, in the apparatus of the larger Septuagint.
Much useful and interesting work might be done by following the lines of Dr Hatch's attempt to collect and compare the early evidence in reference to particular texts and constantly 429recurring extracts from the LXX.[1] Perhaps however it would be expedient to limit such an investigation to post-apostolic Christian writers, and to carry it beyond Justin. Moreover, Dr Hatch's proposal to estimate the value of MSS., "according as they do or do not agree with such early quotations," seems to be at least precarious. It is conceivable and even probable that the peculiarities of early patristic quotations may be partly due to corruption incident upon the process of citing, whether from memory or from a MS.; and for various other reasons the text of a fourth century MS. may on the whole present a purer text than that which appears in a second century writing. This point, however, must be reserved for fuller consideration in a later chapter[1].
11. With Origen the science of Christian Biblical criticism and hermeneutics may be said to have begun. In the Old Testament his interest was peculiarly strong; it supplied him with the amplest opportunities of exercising his skill in allegorical interpretation; and his knowledge both of the original and of the Greek versions prepared him to deal with the difficulties of his text. Unhappily there is no class of his writings which has suffered so severely. Of his great commentaries on the Old Testament, only fragments have survived; and the Homilies, with the exception of one on the Witch of Endor, and nineteen on the book of Jeremiah, have reached us only in the Latin translations of Rufinus and Jerome. But even fragments and versions of Origen are precious, and the following list of his O.T. remains[1] may be of service to the student of the LXX.
Genesis. Fragments of Commentary (t. i., iii.), and notes
from catenae. Homilies (17) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Exodus.
Fragments of Commentary, and notes. Homilies (13) in Latin,
430tr. by Rufinus. Leviticus. Fragments and notes from catenae.
Homilies (16) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Numbers. Notes from
catenae. Homilies (28) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Deuteronomy.
Notes from catenae, &c. Joshua. Fragments and notes from
catenae, &c. Homilies (26) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Judges.
Notes from catenae. Homilies (9) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus.
Ruth. A note on
12. It is impossible within the limits of an Introduction to enumerate all the ecclesiastical writers who during the golden age of patristic literature quoted or commented upon the Greek Old Testament. But the student who is not a specialist in this field may be glad to have before him the names and dates of the principal Greek Fathers, with some notice of such of their extant works as are concerned with O.T. exegesis. The Roman numerals in brackets direct him to the volumes of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, in which the authors are to be found; in the case of a few writings which are not included in the Patrologia and some others, references are given to other editions.
Acacius of Caesarea, † 366. Fragments in catenae.
Ammonius of Alexandria, c. 460. Fragments on Genesis and Daniel. (lxxxv.)
Anastasius of Antioch, † 598. (lxxxix.)
Anastasius of Sinai, cent. vi.—vii. (lxxxix.)
Apollinarius of Laodicea (the younger), †c. 393. (xxxiii., cf. Dräseke's edition in Texte u. Unters. vii.)
431Apostolical Constitutions, cent. iii.—iv. (ed. Lagarde).
Asterius of Amasea, c. 400. (xl.)
Athanasius of Alexandria, † 373. On the Psalms; Titles of the Psalms[1], fragments in the catenae. (xxv.—xxviii.)
Basil of Caesarea, †379. Homilies on the Hexaemeron, the
Psalms and
Basil of Seleucia, c. 450. Homilies on the O.T. (lxxxv.)
Cosmas Indicopleustes, c. 550. (lxxxviii.)
Cyril of Alexandria, † 444. Works on the Pentateuch (περὶ τῆς ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ προσκυνήσεως, and γλαφυρά), comm. on Isaiah, comm. on the xii. Prophets; fragments on Kingdoms, Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, and the minor Prophets. (lxviii.—lxxvii.)
Cyril of Jerusalem, † 386. (xxxiii.)
Didymus of Alexandria, † 395. Fragments on the Psalms and in the catenae. (xxxix.)
Diodorus of Tarsus, † c. 390. Fragments from the catenae. (xxxiii.)
Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, cent. v. (iii.—iv.)
Dorotheus the Archimandrite, cent. vi.—vii. (lxxxviii.)
Ephraem the Syrian, † 373. Fragments of Commentaries on the Pentateuch, the historical and the poetical books. (Rome, 1732 ff.)
Epiphanius of Salamis, † 403. (xli.—xliii.)
Eusebius of Caesarea, † 339. Commentary on the Psalms; notes on Isaiah; fragments of other O.T. commentaries; books περὶ τῶν τοπικῶν ὀνομάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ and περὶ τῆς τοῦ βιβλίου τῶν προφητῶν ὀνομασίας.
Eusebius of Emesa, † 359. Fragments in the catenae of a comm. on Genesis. (lxxxvi.)
Eustathius of Antioch, † 337. On the Witch of Endor, ag. Origen. (xviii.)
Evagrius of Pontus, † 398. Fragments in catenae.
Gennadius of Constantinople, † 471. Fragments on Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms &c. (lxxxv.)
Gregory of Nazianzus, † 389. (xxxv.—xxxviii.)
Gregory of Neocaesarea, † c. 270. (x.)
Gregory of Nyssa, † 395. (xliv.—xlvi.)
Hesychius of Jerusalem, † c. 438. (xciii.)
Isidore of Pelusium, † c. 450. (lxxviii.)
John Chrysostom, † 407. Homilies on
1 Regn., Psalms (iii.—xii., xlviii.—xlix., cviii.—cxl.); a commentary on
John of Damascus, † c. 760. (xciv.—xcvi.)
Julianus of Halicarnassus, † 536. Fragments in catenae.
Macarius Magnes, cent. iv. (ed. Blondel).
Maximus Confessor, † 662. (xc.—xci.)
432Methodius of Olympus, cent. iii.—iv. (xviii.)
Nilus of Sinai, † c. 430. (lxxix.)
Olympiodorus of Alexandria, † cent. vi. (xciii.)
Peter of Alexandria, † 311. (xviii.)
Philo of Carpasia, c. 380. Commentary on Canticles. (xl.)
Photius of Constantinople, † c. 891. (ci.—civ.)
Polychronius of Apamea, † 430. Fragments on the Pentateuch, Job, Proverbs, Canticles, and Daniel; comm. on Ezekiel.
Procopius of Gaza, cent. vi. Commentaries on Genesis—Judges, 1 Regn.—2 Chr., Prov., Cant., Isaiah. (lxxxvii.)
Severianus of Gabala, † c. 420. Fragments of commentaries in the catenae. (lxv.)
Severus of Antioch, † c. 539. Fragments in the catenae.
Theodore of Heraclea, † c. 355. Fragments of comm. on Isaiah. (xviii.)
Theodore of Mopsuestia,† 428. Fragments of commentaries on Genesis (Syriac and Latin), the rest of the Pentateuch and the historical books: comm. on the Psalms in Syriac and large fragments in Greek: a commentary on the xii. Prophets. (lxvi.)
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, † c. 458. Εἰς τὰ ἄπορα τῆς θείας γραφῆς, questions on the Pentateuch and historical books. Commentaries on the Psalms, Canticles, the xii. Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah (including Baruch and Lam.), Ezekiel, Daniel. (lxxx.—lxxxiv.)
Titus of Bostra, † c. 370. (xviii.)
Victor of Antioch, cent. v.—vi. (?).
LITERATURE. T. Ittig, De bibliothecis et catenis patrum (Leipzig, 1707). J. G. Walch, Bibliotheca patristica, ed. J. T. L. Danz (Jena, 1834). J. G. Dowling, Notitia Scriptorum ss. Patrum (Oxford, 1839). Oeconomus, vol. iv. (Athens, 1849). J. Nirschl, Lehrbuch der Patrologia u. Patristik (Mainz, 1881). O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie (Freiburg i. B., 1894). Fessler-Jungmann, Institutiones Patrologiae (1890). H. Hody, De textibus Bibliorum, p. 277 ff. Schleusner, Opuscula critica ad versionem Graecam V. T. pertinentia (Leipzig, 1812). Credner, Beiträge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften, vol. ii. (Halle, 1834). R. Gregory, Prolegomena (de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, p. 1131 ff.). Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 167 ff. Hatch, Biblical Essays, p. 131 ff.
Chapter IV. The Greek Versions as Aids to Biblical Study.
433I. 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[1].
The Septuagint has long ceased to fulfil these or any similar functions. In the West, after the fourth century, its influence receded before the spread of the Latin Vulgate; in the East, where it is still recited by the Orthodox Church in the ecclesiastical offices, it lost much of its influence over the thought and life of the people. On the other hand, this most ancient of Biblical versions possesses a new and increasing importance in the field of Biblical study. It is seen to be valuable alike to the textual critic and to the expositor, and its services are welcomed by students both of the Old Testament and of the New.
434
A. As the oldest version of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint claims especial attention from Old Testament scholars. It represents a text and, to some extent, an interpretation earlier than any which can be obtained from other sources.
1. (a) The printed Hebrew Bibles give on the whole the Massoretic text, i.e. a text which has passed through the hands of the Massorets, a succession of Jewish scholars who endeavoured to give permanence to the traditional type.
Massora (מַסּוֹרֶת, מָסוֹרָה, traditio) is already mentioned in the saying of R. Akiba, Pirqe Aboth, iii. 20 מסורה סייג לתורה, 'tradition is a fence to the Law'[1]; but the word is used there in reference to halachic rather than to textual tradition. It is probable, however, that Akiba and his contemporaries were concerned with the settling of the text which later generations protected by the 'Massora' technically so called. The work of the Massorets (בעלי־המסרת), who flourished from the sixth century to the tenth, consisted chiefly in reducing to a system of rules the pronunciation of the text which had been fixed by their predecessors. The Massora[1] embodies the readings which tradition substituted for the written text (כְּתִיב ,קְרִי), the corrections known as the סוֹפְרִים תִּקּוּן[1], 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. 435The 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[1]. Origen, when the problem forced itself upon him, adopted, as we have seen[1], a middle course between the alternatives of rejecting the LXX. and refusing to accept the testimony of his Jewish teachers. Jerome took a bolder line; his new Latin version was based on the 'original Hebrew,' and on textual questions he appealed with confidence to the verdict of contemporary Jewish opinion: prol. gal. "quanquam mihi omnino conscius non sim mutasse me quidpiam me Hebraica veritate . . . interroga quemlibet Hebraeorum cui magis accommodare debeas fidem." Like Origen he indignantly, and on the whole doubtless with justice, repudiated the charge which was laid by some Christians against the Jews of having falsified their MSS.[1] But neither Origen nor Jerome entertained a suspicion that the Jewish official text had, whether by accident or design, departed from the archetype.
Mediaeval Europe knew the Old Testament almost exclusively through Jerome's Latin, as the Ancient Church had known it through the LXX.[1] 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 4361488, and three editions followed before the end of the fifteenth century[1]. Meanwhile Christian scholars had once more begun to learn the Hebrew language from Jewish teachers, and in 1506 the publication of John Reuchlin's Rudiments placed the elements of Hebrew learning within the reach of the theologians of Europe. Under the circumstances it was not strange that the earlier Reformers, who owed their Hebrew Bible and their knowledge of the language to the Rabbis, should have, like Jerome, regarded the traditional text as a faithful reproduction of the inspired original. In the next century a beginning was made in the criticism of the Hebrew text by the Protestant divine Louis Cappelle (L. Cappellus, † 1658), and the Oratorian Jean Morin (J. Morinus, † 1659), who pressed the claims of the LXX. and the Samaritan Pentateuch. A furious controversy ensued, in the course of which the Swiss Reformed Churches committed themselves to an absolute acceptance not only of the consonantal text, but of the vowel points. This extreme position was occupied not only by theologians, but by experts such as the two Buxtorfs of Basle (†† 1629, 1664), who maintained that the Massoretic text in its present state had come down unchanged from the days of Ezra and the 'Great Synagogue.'
The views of Louis Cappelle were set forth in Arcanum punctuationis revelatum, Amsterdam, 1624; Critica sacra, Paris, 1650; those of J. Morin in Exercitationes ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum (Paris, 1631), and Exercitationes de hebraici graecique textus sinceritate (Paris, 1633). The younger Buxtorf answered Cappelle in his treatises De punctorum origine (1648) and Anticritica (1653): see Schnedemann, Die Controverse des L. Cappellus mit den Buxtorfen (Leipzig, 1879), Loisy, Histoire critique, p. 167 ff. The formula consensus ecclesiarum Helveticarum (1675) declared (can. ii., iii.): "Hebraicus Veteris Testamenti codex quem ex traditione ecclesiae Iudaicae, cui olim oracula Dei commissa sunt, accepimus hodieque retinemus, turn quoad consonas tum quoad vocalia, sive puncta ipsa sive punctorum saltem potestatem, et tum quoad res tum quoad 437verba θεόπνευστος . . . ad cuius normam . . . universae quae extant versiones . . . exigendae et, sicubi deflectunt, revocandae sunt. Eorum proinde sententiam probare neutiquam possumus, qui lectionem quam Hebraicus codex exhibet humano tantum arbitrio constitutam esse definiunt, quique lectionem Hebraicam quam minus commodam indicant configere eamque ex LXX. seniorum aliorumque versionibus Graecis . . . emendare religioni neutiquam ducunt[1]."
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 (
On the Samaritan Pentateuch the reader may consult J. Morinus, Exercitationes ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum; L. Cappellus, Critica sacra, iii. c. 20; Walton, prolegg: (ed. Wrangham, Camb. 1828), ii. p. 280 ff.; R. Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, i. c. 12; Eichhorn, Einleitung, ii. § 383 ff.; Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine indole et auctoritate comm. (Halle, 1815); S. Kohn, De Pentateucho Samaritano eiusque cum versionibus antiquis nexu (Leipzig, 1865); Samareitikon u. Septuaginta, in MGJS., 1893; E. Deutsch, Samaritan Pentateuch, in Smith's D. B. iii. 1106 ff.; E. König, art. Sam. Pentateuch, Hastings' D. B. suppl. vol. p. 71; J. W. Nutt, Introduction to Fragments of a Sam. Targum (London, 1872); J. Skinner in J. Q. R. xiv. 26; P. Glaue and A. Rahlfs, Mitteilungen des Sept. Unternehmens, ii. (Berlin, 1911), for fragments of Gr. transl. of Sam. Pentateuch.
The prevalent belief in the originality of the Massoretic text appeared to receive confirmation from the researches of Kennicott[1] and De Rossi[1], which revealed an extraordinary agreement in all existing MSS. of the Hebrew Bible. But as 439no MS. of the Hebrew Bible has come down to us which is earlier than the beginning of the tenth century[1], 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[1]. 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[1]. On the whole, modern research has left no room for doubting that the printed Hebrew Bible represents a textus receptus which was already practically fixed before the middle of the second century. But it is equally clear that no official text held undisputed possession in the first century, or was recognised by the writers of the New Testament. Thus we are driven to the conclusion that the transition from a fluctuating to a relatively fixed text took effect during the interval between the Fall of Jerusalem and the completion of Aquila's version. The time was one of great activity in Palestinian Jewish circles. In the last days of Jerusalem a school had been founded at Jamnia (Jabneh, Yebna)[1], near the Philistine seaboard, by R. Jochanan ben Zaccai. To this 440centre the representatives of Judaism flocked after the destruction of the city, and here, until the fresh troubles of the war of Bar-Cochba (A.D. 132—5), Biblical studies were prosecuted with new ardour under a succession of eminent Rabbis. At Jamnia about A.D. 90 a synod was held which discussed various questions connected with the settlement of the Canon. At Jamnia also traditionalism reached its zenith under the teaching of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, R. Joshua ben Chananya, and their more famous pupil R. Akiba ben Joseph, the author of the dogma that every word, particle and letter in the Hebrew Bible has a meaning, and serves some purpose which can be expressed by hermeneutical methods. From this canon of interpretation to the establishment of an official text is but a single step; a book of which the very letters possess a divine authority cannot be left to the unauthorised revision of scribes or editors. Whether the result was reached by a selection of approved readings, or by the suppression of MSS. which were not in agreement with an official copy, or whether it was due to an individual Rabbi or the work of a generation, is matter of conjecture. But it seems to be clear that in one way or another the age which followed the fall of Jerusalem witnessed the creation of a standard text not materially different from that which the Massorets stereotyped and which all MSS. and editions have reproduced[1].
(b) It is the business of the textual critic to get behind this official text, and to recover so far as he can the various recensions which it has displaced. In this work he is aided by the Ancient Versions, but especially by the Septuagint. Of the Versions the Septuagint alone is actually earlier than the fixing of the Hebrew text. In point of age, indeed, it must yield to the Samaritan Pentateuch, the archetype of 441which may have been in the hands of the Samaritans in the days of Nehemiah (c. B.C. 432)[1]; 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[1]; 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[1]) is not . . . always such a simple matter as might be inferred . . . . In the use of an Ancient Version for the purposes of textual criticism, there are three precautions which must always be observed: we must reasonably assure ourselves that we possess the Version itself in its original integrity: we must eliminate such variants as have the appearance of originating merely with the translator; the remainder, which will be those that are due to a difference of text in the MS. (or MSS.) used by the translator, we must then compare carefully, in the light of the considerations just stated, with the existing Hebrew text, in order to determine on which side the superiority lies." "In dealing with the LXX. (Prof. Kirkpatrick reminds us) we have to remember . . . that the LXX. is not a homogeneous work, but differs very considerably in its character in different books, if not in parts of books[1]." 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].
442
The following list of passages in which the LXX. reflects a Hebrew text different from will enable the student to practise himself in the critical use of the Version.
את כל אשר בהם בר).
אֶת־בֵּית יְהוָה אֲנִי הׄלֵךְ).
The final letter of ביתי has probably been taken by for an abbreviation
of יהוה.
o
שָׁאוּל
עַל־הַגָּג
וַיַּשְׁכִּמוּ
וַיְרַבֵּר עִם.
, more in harmony with the context,
καὶ διέστρωσαν τῷ Σαοὺλ (וירבדו לשאול)
ἐπὶ τῷ δώματι, καὶ ἐκοιμήθη
(וַיִּשְׁכָּב).
(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 445Hebrew, represents in all cases another Hebrew text; for the difference may be due to the failure of the translators to understand their Hebrew, or to interpret it aright. His first business is to decide whether the Greek variant involves a different Hebrew text, or is simply another expression for the text which lies before him in the printed Hebrew Bible. If the former of these alternatives is accepted, he has still to consider whether the text represented by the LXX. is preferable to that of the Hebrew Bible and probably original. There is a presumption in favour of readings in which and agree, but, as we have said, not an absolute certainty that they are correct, since they may both be affected by a deep-seated corruption which goes back to the age of the Ptolemies. When they differ, will usually deserve to be preferred when it (a) fills up a lacuna which can be traced to homoioteleuton in the Hebrew, or (b) removes an apparent interpolation, or (c) appears to represent a bona fide variant in the original, which makes better sense than the existing text. Its claims in these cases are strengthened if it has the support of other early and probably independent witnesses such as the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Targum, or of Hebrew variants which survive in existing MSS. of the Massoretic text, or in the Q'ri[1].
For guidance as to the principles on which the LXX. may be employed in the criticism of the Hebrew Text the student may consult Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griech. Übersetzung der Proverbien, p. 1 ff.; Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis, p. 1 ff.; Robertson Smith, O. T. in the Jewish Church², p. 76 ff.; Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, p. xlviii. f.; H. P. Smith, Comm. on Samuel, pp. xxix. ff., 395 ff.; Toy, Comm. on Proverbs, p. xxxii. f. See also below, c. vi.
2. In the field of O.T. interpretation the witness of the LXX. must be received with even greater caution. It is evident that Greek-speaking Jews, whose knowledge of Hebrew 446was probably acquired at Alexandria from teachers of very moderate attainments, possess no prescriptive right to act as guides to the meaning of obscure Hebrew words or sentences. Transliterations, doublets, confused and scarcely intelligible renderings, reveal the fact that in difficult passages they were often reduced to mere conjecture. But their guesses may at times be right; and in much that seems to be guesswork they may have been led by gleams of a true tradition. Thus it is never safe to neglect their interpretation, even if in the harder contexts it is seldom to be trusted. Indirectly at least much may be learned from them; and their wildest exegesis belongs to the history of hermeneutics, and has influenced thought and language to a remarkable degree.
(a) The following specimens will serve to illustrate the exegesis of the LXX. in the historical books.
(b) The translated titles of the Psalms form a special and interesting study. The details are collected below, and can be studied with the help of the commentaries, or of Neubauer's article in Studia Biblica ii. p. 1 ff.[1]
Ψαλμός, מִזְמוֹר passim (שִׁגָּיוֹן in
ᾨδή, שִׁיר passim
(מִזְמוֹר in
Ψαλμός ᾠδῆς, מִזְמוֹר שִׁיר
Προσευχή, תְּפִלָּה (
Ἀλληλουιά, הַלְלוּ־יָהּ (
Αἴνεσις, תְּהִלָּה (
Στηλογραφία, εἰς στηλογραφίαν, מִכְתָּם (
Εἰς τὸ τέλος, לַמְנַצֵּחַ (
Ἐν ὕμνοις, בִּנְגִינוֹת (
Ἐν ψαλμοῖς, בִּנְגִינות (
Ὑπὲρ τῆς κληρονομούσης, (?) אֶל־הַנְּחִילוֹת (
Ὑπὲρ τῆς ὀγδόης, עַל־הַשְּׁמִינִית (
Ὑπὲρ τῆς λό γων Χουσεὶ υἱοῦ Ἰεμενεί, עַל־דִּבְרֵי־כוּשׁ
בֶּן־יְמִינִי (
Ὑπὲρ τῶν ληνῶν, עַל־הַגִּתִּית (
Ὑπὲρ τῶν κρυφίων τοῦ υἱοῦ, עַל־מוּת לַבֵּן (
Ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀντιλήμψεως τῆς ἑωθινῆς, עַל־אַיֶּלֶת הַשַּׁחַר (
Ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀλλοιωθησομένων, עַל־שׁשַׁנִּים (
Ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ (ᾠδή), שׁיר) יְדִידות) (
Ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων μεμακρυμμένου, עַל־יונַת אֵלֶם רְחׂקִים (
Ὑπὲρ Ἰδιθούν, עַל־יְדוּתוּי (
Ὑπὲρ μαελὲθ (τοῦ ἀποκριθῆναι), (עַל־מָחֲלַת (לְעַנּוֹת
(
Εἰς ἀνα̩μνησιν, לְהַזְכִּיר (
Εἰς ἐξομολόγησιν לְתוֹדָה (
Εἰς συνεσιν, συνέσεως, מַשְׂכִּיל (
Μὴ διαφθείρῃς, אַל־תַּשְׁחֵת (
Τοῦ ἐνκαινισμοῦ τοῦ οἴκου, חֲנֻכַּת־הַבַּיִת (
Τῶν ἀναβαθμῶν, הַמַּעֲלוֹת (
It may be added that סֶלָה[1] (
(c) 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)
(2) Abarim, mountains of, הַר־הָעֲבָרִים τὸ ὄρος τὸ ἐν τῷ πέραν,
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[1]. 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.
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 (a) in the sayings of our Lord, where,
if He spoke in Aramaic, the reference to the LXX. is due to the
translator: e.g.
These are but a few illustrations of a mental habit everywhere to be observed in the writers of the N.T., which shews them to have been not only familiar with the LXX., but saturated with its language. They used it as Englishmen use 452the Authorised Version of the Bible, working it into the texture of their thoughts and utterances. It is impossible to do justice to their writings unless this fact is recognised, i.e., unless the reader is on the watch for unsuspected references to the Greek O.T., and able to appreciate its influence upon his author's mind.
2. To what extent the vocabulary of the N.T. has been influenced by the LXX. is matter of keen controversy. In a weighty essay On the Value and Use of the Septuagint Dr Hatch has maintained that "the great majority of N.T. words are words which, though for the most part common to Biblical and to contemporary secular Greek, express in their Biblical use the conceptions of a Semitic race, and which must consequently be examined by the light of the cognate documents which form the LXX.[1]" 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[1] 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, ἁγιασμός, ἁγιωσύνη, αἴνεσις, ἀκρογωνιαῖος, αἰχμαλωτεύειν, ἀλίσγημα, ἁλληλουιά, ἀλλογενής, ἀμέθυστος, ἀμήν, ἀμφιάζειν, ἀναζωννύειν, ἀναθεματίζειν, ἀνεξιχνίαστος, ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, ἀνταπόδομα, ἀποδεκατοῖν, ἀποκάλυψις, ἀποκεφαλίζειν, ἀποφθέγγεσθαι, βάτος, βδέλυγμα, βεβηλοῦν, βροχή, γέεννα, γνώστης, γογγύζειν, γυμνότης, δεκατοῦν, δεκτός, διαγογγύζειν, δολιοῦν, δότης, δυναμοῦν, ἑβδομηκοντάκις, εἰρηνοποιεῖν, ἐκζητεῖν, ἐκμυκτηρίζειν, ἐκπειράζειν, ἐκπορνεύειν, ἐκριζοῦν, ἐλεγμός, ἔλεγξις, ἐμπαιγμός, ἐμπαίκτης, ἔναντι, ἐνδιδύσκειν, ἐνδοξάζειν, ἐνδυναμοῦν, ἐνευλογεῖν, ἐνκαινίζειν, ἔνταλμα, ἐνταφιάζειν, ἐνώπιον, ἐνωτίζεσθαι, ἐξάπινα, ἐξαστράπτειν, ἐξολεθρεύειν, ἐξουδενοῦν, ἐξυπνίζειν, ἐπαύριον, ἐπισκοπή, ἐπαναπαύειν, ἐπιγαμβρεύειν, ἐπιφαύσκειν, ἐρήμωσις, εὐδοκία, ἐφημερία, ἥττημα, 453θέλησις, ἱερατεύειν, ἱεράτευμα, καθαρίζειν, καθαρισμός, κατακαυχᾶσθαι, κατακληρονομεῖν, κατάνυξις, κατανύσσειν, κατενώπιον, κατοικητήριον, καύσων, καύχησις, κλυδωνίζεσθαι, κόρος, κραταιοῦν, λαξευτός, λειτουργικός, λύτρωσις, μακροθυμεῖν, μάννα, ματαιότης, ματαιοῦν, μεγαλειότης, μεγαλωσύνη, μετοικεῖν, μίσθιος, μογιλάλος, μοιχαλίς, νῖκος, ὀλεθρεύειν, ὀλιγόψυχος, ὁλοκληρία, ὀπτάνειν, ὀπτασία, ὀρθοτομεῖν, ὀρθρίζειν, ὁρκωμοσία, οὐαί, παγιδεύειν, παραζηλοῦν, παραπικρασμός, παροικία, παροργισμός, πατριάρχης, πειρασμός, περικάθαρμα, περιούσιος, περισσεία, πληροφορεῖν, πρόσκομμα, προσοχθίζειν, 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.
(b) On the other hand it must not be forgotten that the Greek vocabulary of Palestinian Greek-speaking Jews in the first century A.D. was probably derived in great part from their use of the Greek Old Testament. Even in the case of writers such as St Luke, St Paul, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the LXX. has no doubt largely regulated the choice of words. A very considerable number of the words of the N.T. seem to have been suggested by that version, or in any case may be elucidated from it.
E.g.: ἀγαθωσύνη, ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι, ἁγνίζειν, ἀγρυπνεῖν, αἱνιγμα, αἱρετίζειν, ἀλαζονεύεσθαι, ἀλλογενής, ἀδιαλείπτως, ἀμάραντος, ἀμέριμνος, ἀμφίβληστρον, ἄμφοδον, ἀπελπίζειν, ἀπερίτμητος, ἁπλότης, ἀπόκρυφος, βδέλυγμα, γλωσσόκομον, γνωρίζειν, διάδημα, δίδραχμα, δίστομος, διυλίζειν, δωρεάν, ἐναγκαλίζεσθαι, ἐνταφιάζειν, ἐνωτίζεσθαι, ἑορτάζειν, ἐξέφνης, ἐξουδενοῦν, εὔκολος, εὐοδοῦν, θεοσέβεια, ἱκανοῦσθαι, ἱκανός, ἰκμάς, ἱστορεῖν, καμμύειν, κατάγελως, καταδυναστεύειν, κατακλυσμός, κατακυριεύειν, καταποντίζειν, καταφιλεῖν, καυχᾶσθαι, κλάσμα, κοράσιον, κόφινος, λιθόστρωτος, λικμᾷν, μεσονύκτιον, μογιλάλος, μυκτηρίζειν, νεομηνία, νῖκος, νυστάζειν, οἰκουμένη (ἡ), ὁμοθυμαδόν, 454ὀστράκινος, παγιδεύειν, παιδάριον, παραδειγματίζειν, παρακούειν, παρεπίδημος, πάροικος, περικεφαλαία, περίλυπος, περίχωρος, περίψημα, πήρα, πλεονάζειν, πολυλογία, πολυπραγμονεῖν, προσήλυτος, προσκεφάλαιον, ῥάπισμα, ῥύμη, σαγήνη, σίκερα, σίνδων, σκόλοψ, στενοχωρία, συλλογίζεσθαι, συμβιβάζειν, σύμφυτος, ταμ(ι)εῖον, τετράδραχμον, τρυμαλία, τυμπανίζειν, ὑπογραμμός, φιμοῦν, χορτάζειν, χρηματίζειν, ψευδοπροφήτης. To these may be added a considerable class of words which are based on LXX. words though they do not occur in the LXX.; e.g.: ἀπροσωπολήμπτως, βάπτισμα (-μός), δαιμονίζεσθαι, πνευματικός, σαρκικός, ψευδόχροστος.
(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, ἀναστροφή,
ἀνατολή, ἀνεξιχνίαστος, ἀπαρχή, ἀπαύγασμα, ἄφεσις, ἀφορίζειν,
βαπτίζειν, βεβαίωσις, βλασφημεῖν, γαζοφυλάκιον, γέεννα,
γραμματεύς, γρηγορεῖν, δαιμόνιον, διαθήκη, δόγμα, ἔθνη, εἰρηνικός,
εἰρηνοποιεῖν, ἐκκλησία, ἔκστασις, ἐλεημοσύνη, ἐνέργεια, ἐξομολογεῖσθαι,
ἐξουσία, ἐπερώτημα, ἐπίσκοπος, ἐπισυνάγειν, ἐπιφάνεια,
ἐπιχορηγεῖν, ἑτοιμασία, εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, εὐαρεστεῖν, εὐδοκία, εὐλάβεια,
ζηλωτής, ζωγρεῖν, ζωογονεῖν, θέλημα, θρησκεία, ἱλασμός, ἱλαστήριον,
Ἰουδαισμός, καταλλαγή, κατάνυξις, κήρυγμα, κυβέρνησις, Κύριος,
λειτουργεῖν, λόγος, λοιμός, λυτροῦσθαι, μεγαλειότης, μεγαλωσύνη,
μεταμέλεια, μεεωρίζεσθαι, μονογενής, μορφή, μυστήριον, νεόφυτος,
ὁλόκληρος, ὀρθοτομεῖν, ὁσιότης, παραβολή, παράδεισος, πάροικος, πειρασμός,
περιούσιος, περιοχή, περιποιεῖσθαι, πίστις, πληροφορεῖσθαι,
πλήρωμα, πνεῦμα, πρεσβύτερος, προσάγειν, ῥύεσθαι, σάρξ, σκάνδαλον,
σκληροτράχηλος, σεμνός, συνείδησις, σφραγίζειν, σωτηρία,
τάρταρος, ὑπόστασις, ὑστέρημα, Ὕψιστος, φιλάνθρωπος, φῶς, χαρακτήρ, χειρόγραφον, χριστός.
Many of the characteristic phrases of the N.T. also have their roots in the LXX., e.g.
εἰκὼν θεοῦ (
The non-canonical books have their full share in the contribution which the Septuagint makes to the vocabulary of the N.T. Many Biblical words either occur for the first time in the O.T. 'Apocrypha,' or reach there a further stage in the history of their use, or appear in new combinations. The following examples will repay examination: αἰών, ἀπαύγασμα, ἀποκάλυψις, ἀποστολή, ἀσύνετος, ἄφεσις, βαπτίζειν, βασιλεία (τοῦ θεοῦ), δαιμόνιον, διακονία, διαπονεῖσθαι, δικαιοῦν, ἔκβασις, ἐκλεκτός, ἐμβατεύειν, ἐπίσκοπος, ἐπιστροφή, ἐπιτιμία, ἐπιφάνεια, εὔσπλαγχνος, εὐχαροστία, ἴδιος, ἱλασμός, ἱλαστήριον, κανών, κλῆρος, κληροῦν, κοινός, κοινοῦν, κόσμος, κτίσις, λειτουργία, λειτουργός, μυστήριον (τοῦ θεοῦ), νόμος, παρουσία, πεντηκοστή, σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, σκανδαλίζειν, συμπάθεια, συμπαθεῖν, σωτήρ, χάρις καὶ ἔλεος, χριστός.
(d) "The great majority of N.T. words and phrases
express . . . the conceptions of a Semitic race, and . . . must consequently
be examined by the light of . . . the LXX." But the
connotation will usually be found to have undergone considerable
changes, both in ordinary words and in those which
are used in a religious sense. In order to trace the process
by which the transition has been effected the N. T. student
must begin with an investigation into the practice of the
LXX. Such an enquiry may be of service in determining the
precise meaning which is to be given to the word in the
N.T., but it will more frequently illustrate the growth of
religious thought or of social life which has led to a change
of signification. Dr Hatch indeed laid down as "almost
self-evident" canons the two propositions (1) that "a word
which is used uniformly, or with few and intelligible exceptions,
as the translation of the same Hebrew word, must be held to
have in Biblical Greek the same meaning as that Hebrew
word"; and (2) that "words which are used interchangeably as
translations of the same Hebrew word, or group of cognate
words, must be held to have in Biblical Greek an allied or
virtually identical meaning[1]." These principles led him to
456some remarkable departures from the traditional interpretation
of N.T. words (e.g. ἀρετή = הוֹד
or תְּהִלָּה = δόξα,
ἔπαινος;
διάβολος = שָׂטָן = 'enemy';
ὁμοθυμαδόν = יַחַד ,יַחְדָּו = 'together';
πτωχοί = πένητες = πραεῖς = ταπεινοί = 'fellahin';
πονηρός, malicious, 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 N. T.
Lexicography[1]. 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. Ἀγάπη 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 (
Thus on the whole it is clear that caution must be used in employing the practice of the LXX. to determine the connotation of N.T. words. On the one hand the interpreter ought not to be led astray by visions of the solidarity of 'Biblical Greek,' for the Greek of the N.T., though in fact largely derived from the Greek of the LXX., has in not a few instances cast off the traditions of its source under the inspiration of another age. On the other hand, the student of the N.T. will make the LXX. his starting-point in examining the sense of all words and phrases which, though they may have been used in classical Greek or by the 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: "LXX.viralis versio . . . ad Novum Instrumentum recte intelligendum et accurate explicandum perquam necessaria est . . . in illam enim omnes idiotismi veteris linguae Hebraicae erant transfusi . . . multa itaque Graeca sunt in Novo Foedere vocabula quae ex usu Graecae linguae intelligi non possunt, ex collatione autem Hebraea et ex usu LXX. interpretum facile intelliguntur[1]."
II. The Greek versions of the second century A.D. are in many respects of less importance to the Biblical student than the Septuagint. Not only are they later by two to four centuries, but they exist only in a fragmentary state, and the text of the fragments is often insecure. But there are services which they can render when rightly employed, and which the careful student will not forget to demand.
458
1. Each of these versions has characteristics of its own, which must be taken into account in estimating its value.
(a) Aquila represents the official Hebrew text in its earliest stage, and his extreme literalness and habit of translating ἐτυμολογικῶς[1] render it easy to recover the text which lay before him. In the large fragments of 3 and 4 Regn. published by Mr Burkitt, Aquila's Hebrew text differs from that of the printed Bibles only in thirteen readings[1], an average of one variant in every second verse. Still more important is Aquila's reflexion of the exegetical tradition of the school of Jamnia. Here as in his text he is often in direct opposition to the LXX., and serves as a useful makeweight against the influence of the Alexandrian interpretation. Especially is this the case in regard to the meaning of obscure words, which Aquila translates with a full knowledge of both languages and of other Semitic tongues[1], whilst the LXX. too often depended upon guess-work. This merit of Aquila was recognised by Jerome, who makes use of his interpretations in the Vulgate[1]. 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[1]. (b) The paraphrasing manner of Symmachus hinders the free use of his version either for textual or hermeneutical purposes. But it is often interesting as revealing the exegetical tendencies of his school, and its fulness serves to correct the extreme literalness of Aquila. Jerome used it for his Vulgate even more freely than he used Aquila; cf. Field, Hexapla i., p. xxxiv. #34;quem tam presse secutus est magnus ille interpres Latinus . . . ut aliquando nobis successerit ex Hieronymi Latinis Symmachi Graeca . . . satis probabiliter extricare." (c) Theodotion, besides contributing a whole book to the textus 459receptus 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[1].
2. All the post-Christian translators of the O.T., but especially Aquila,
Symmachus, and the author of the Quinta[1], 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.
אֵל נַעֲרָץ בְּסוֹד קְדֹשִׁים Οʹ ὁ θεὸς δοξαζόμενος ἐν βουλῇ ἁγίων, Ἀ. Ἰσχυρὸς καισχυρευόμενος ἐν ἀποῤῥήτῳ ἁ., Σ. θεὲ ἀήττητε ἐν ὁμιλίᾳ ἀ.
At other times their rendering lies far
apart from that of the LXX., manifesting complete dissent from
the Alexandrian version, e.g.
(b) Dr Hatch points out[1] that "in a large number of instances the word which one or other of the translators substitutes for the LXX. word is itself used in other passages of the LXX. as the translation of the same Hebrew word"; and he draws the conclusion that "the words which are so interchanged are practically synonymous." But his inference must be received with reserve, for the interchange may not be so free as appears at first sight; so careful a translator as Aquila (e.g.) has probably regulated his use of words which are generally synonymous with a view to the requirements of the particular context.
(c) Many of the words of the N.T. which are not to be
found in the LXX. occur in the fragments of the later Greek
versions, and receive important illustration from their use of
them. Indeed, in not a few instances these versions supply
the only or the best explanation of rarer words or connotations.
The following are examples. Ἀδημονεῖν, Ἀ.,
On the whole, perhaps, no sounder advice could be given to a student of the language of the N.T., than to keep continually at hand the Septuagint, the remains of the Hexapla as edited by Field, and the Oxford Concordance which forms a complete index to both. It is only when he has made some way with the evidence of the Greek versions of the Old Testament that he will be in a position to extend his researches to non-Biblical literature, such as the papyri, the remains of the Hellenistic writers, and the great monuments of the later Greek.
LITERATURE (on the general subject of the chapter). J. Pearson, Praefatio Paraenetica (ed. E. Churton), p. 16 sqq.; H. Hody, de Bibl. textibus orig., III. c. ii., p. 293; J. F. Fischer, Prolusiones de versionibus Graecis librorum V. T. (Leipzig, 1772) ; Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zur Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841), p. 263 ff.; E. W. Grinfield, N. T. Gr., editio Hellenistica (London, 1843); Scholia Hellenistica in N. T. (London, 1848); An Apology for the Septuagint (London, 1850); W. R. Churton, The Influence of the LXX. Version of the O. T. upon the progress of Christianity (Cambridge, 1861); W. Selwyn, art. Septuagint, in Smith's D.B., iii. (London, 1863); W. H. Guillemard, The Greek Testament, Hebraistic edition [St Matthew] (Cambridge, 1875); E. Hatch, Essays on Biblical Greek, i.—iii. (Oxford, 1889); S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel, Intr., p. xxxvi. ff. (Oxford, 1890); A. f. Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the O. T., p. 63 ff. (London, 1891); The Septuagint Version, in Expositor, V. iii., p. 263 ff. (London, 1896); T. K. Abbott, Essays chiefly on the original texts of the O. and N. Testaments (London, 1891); A. Loisy, Histoire critique du texte et des versions de la Bible (Amiens, 1892); H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, or the Influence of the LXX. on the vocabulary of the N. T. (Edinburgh, 1895); H. L. Strack, in Hastings, D. B. iv. p. 731.
Chapter IV. The Greek Versions as Aids to Biblical Study.
4621. THE Church inherited from the Hellenistic Synagogue an entire confidence in the work of the Alexandrian translators. It was a treasure common to Jew and Christian, the authorised Greek Bible to which at first both appealed. When after the beginning of the second century a distrust of the LXX. sprang up among the Jews[1], 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[1], and, following in the steps of Philo, claimed for it an inspiration not inferior to that of the original. When the divergences of the Septuagint from the current Hebrew text became apparent, it was argued that the errors of the Greek text were due to accidents of transmission, or that they were not actual errors, but Divine adaptations of the original to the use of the future Church.
Iren. iii. 21. 3 f. "quum . . . Deus . . . servavit nobis simplices scripturas in Aegypto . . . in qua et Dominus noster servatus est . . . et haec earum scripturarum interpretatio priusquam Dominus noster descenderet facta sit et antequam Christiani ostenderentur interpretata sit . . . vere impudorati et audaces ostenduntur qui nunc volunt aliter interpretationes facere, quando ex ipsis 463scripturis arguantur a nobis . . . etenim apostoli quum sint his omnibus vetustiores, consonant praedictae interpretationi, et interpretatio consonat apostolicae traditioni. etenim Petrus et Ioannes et Matthaeus et Paulus et reliqui deinceps et horum sectatores prophetica omnia ita annuntiaverunt quemadmodum Seniorum interpretatio continet. unus enim et idem Spiritus Dei qui in prophetis quidem praeconavit . . . in Senioribus autem interpretatus est bene quae bene prophetata fuerant. Cyril. Hieros. cat. iv. 33 f.: ἀναγίνωσκε τὰς θείας γραφάς, τὰς εἴκ͌οσι δύο[1] βίβλοθς τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης ταύτας, τὰς ὑπὸ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα δύο ἑρμηνευ. τῶν ἑρμηνευθείσας . . . οὐ γὰρ εὑρεσιλογία καὶ κατασκευή σοφισμάτων ἀνθρωπίνων ἦν τὸ γινόμενον, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου ἡ τῶν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι λαληθεισῶν θείων γραφῶν ἑρμηνεία συνετελεῖτο. Chrys. in Matt. hom. v. τῶν ἄλλων μᾶλλον ἁπάντων τὸ ἀξιόπιστον οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα ἔχοιεν ἂν δικαίως. οἱ μὲν γὰρ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν ἡρμήνευσαν, Ἰουδαῖοι μείναντες, καὶ δικαίως ἂν ὑποπτεύοιντο 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 εἶειν πιστεύεσθαι δίκαιοι. Hieron. ep. xxxiii. (ad Pammach.): "iure LXX. editio obtinuit in ecclesiis vel quia prima fuit et ante Christi facta adventum, vel quia ab Apostolis . . . usurpata"; praef. in Paralip. "si LXX. interpretum pura et ut ab eis in Graecum versa est editio permaneret, superflue me . . . impelleres ut Hebraea volumina Latino sermone transferrem." Aug. de doctr. Chr. 22 "qui (LXX. interpretes) iam per omnes peritiores ecclesias tanta praesentia Sancti Spiritus interpretati esse dicuntur ut os unum tot hominum fuisse . . . quamobrem, etiamsi aliquid aliter in Hebraeis exemplaribus invenitur quam isti posuerunt, cedendum esse arbitror divinae dispositioni quae per eos facta est . . . itaque fieri potest ut sic illi interpretati sint quemadmodum congruere Gentibus ille qui eos agebat . . . Spiritus S. indicavit." (Cf. quaest. in Hept. i. 169, vi. 19; in Ps. cxxxv.; de civ. Dei viii. 44.)
2. Under these circumstances the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament
necessarily influenced the literature and thought of the Ancient Church in no
ordinary degree. How largely it is quoted by Greek Christian writers of the
first four centuries has already been shewn[1]. But they were not content to cite
it as the best available version of the Old
464Testament; 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[1]. To Tertullian and Cyprian, as well as to Clement and Barnabas,
Justin[1] and Irenaeus, the Septuagint was the Old Testament authorised by the
Church, and no appeal lay either to any other version or to the original. Nor
was this tradition readily abandoned by the few who attained to some knowledge
of Hebrew. Origen, while recognising the divergence of the LXX. from the Hebrew,
and endeavouring to reconcile the two by means of the Hexapla[1], was accustomed
to preach and comment upon the ordinary Greek text[1]. He even builds his system
of interpretation on the LXX. rendering
of
The following examples of Christian interpretation based upon the LXX. will shew how largely that version influenced the 465hermeneutics 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.
470
From these specimens it is clear that the Ancient Church was profoundly
influenced by the Greek Old Testament in a variety of ways. Two may be mentioned
here. (1) The Alexandrian Greek with its daughter-version, the Old Latin,
supplied the basis of a practical interpretation which, notwithstanding numerous
errors of text and of treatment, ministered to the religious life of the
Christian Society. It was from the LXX. version and not from the official Hebrew
of the Synagogue that the pre-Hieronymian Church derived her devotional use of
the Old Testament, as it is on the whole the Greek and not the Hebrew Bible
which still supplies the Roman Breviary and the Anglican Prayer-book with the
substance of their liturgical Psalters. The Alexandrian School based its
exegetical work upon the LXX., and the errors and obscurities of the version
often yielded materials peculiarly adapted to the requirements of the
allegorists; whilst the School of Antioch was no less
whole-hearted in its devotion to the old Alexandrian version[1].
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
471as well as Catholics appealed to the Alexandrian version. Thus Arius did not
hesitate to argue from
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)[1] δὸς αὐτοῖς καρδίαν καινὴν καὶ πνεῦμα εὐθὲς ἐγκαίνισον ἐν τοῖς ἐγκάτοις αὐτῶν (
4. The Greek terminology of Christian Doctrine is largely indebted to the Alexandrian translators. It is true that in this case most of the technical language of theology has passed through the New Testament and received there a fuller preparation for the use of the Church: and the influence of Greek philosophy and of Gnostic speculation must also be borne in mind by the student of the language of dogma. But it is perhaps even more important 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 ᾅδης, ἀνάστασις, εἰκών, ἐκκλησία, ἐφόδιον, θυσία, θυσιαστήριον, Κύριος, λόγος, μονογενής, ξύλον, οὐσία, παντοκράτωρ, παντοδύναμος, παράδεισος, πνεῦμα ἅγιον, πίστις, προσφορά, σάρξ, σοφία, ὑπόστασις, φύσις, φῶς, 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, converti, daemonium, eleemosyna, exomologesis, glorificare, hostia, iustitia, 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 474of 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[1]," 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 communion,
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 Vulgate,
as we have seen, is taken from Jerome's second revision of
the Old Latin, and not from his Psalterium Hebraicum, or translation
of the Hebrew text; and the books of Wisdom, Sirach,
Baruch, and 1, 2 Maccabees, are given in the Old Latin
forms[1]. (b) The rest of the Old Testament retains, in
the Clementine Vulgate, numerous traces of Septuagint
readings and renderings. A few examples may be given:
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[1]:
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 consequent 477importance of these translations for the student of ecclesiastical 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[1]." 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 renderings, 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, Praefatio paraenetica ad V. T. Graecum (ed. E. Churton, Cambridge, 1855), H. Hody, de Bibliorum textibus, III. iii. sqq. J. G. Rosenmüller, Historia interpretationis librorum sacr. in ecclesia Christiana (1795—1814). W. R. Churton, The influence of the Septuagint version upon the Progress of Christianity (Cambridge, 1861). F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretations (London, 1886). A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Septuagint Version (in Expositor, V. vi. 1896).
Chapter VI. Textual Condition of the LXX., and Problems arising out of it.
4781. WHEN the work of the Seventy-two had been accomplished,
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 τὸ σύνολον τῶν γεγραμμένων ἢ ποιούμενος ἀφαίρεσιν).
The imprecation, 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
E.g. in quis rer. div. her. 56 Philo quotes
Justin, as we have seen[1], charges his Jewish contemporaries with the
deliberate excision of numerous passages in the LXX. which were favourable to
their Christian antagonists (dial. 71
πολλὰς γραφὰς τέλεον περιεῖλον ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξηγήσεων τῶν γεγενημένων
ὑπὸ τῶν παρὰ Πτολεμαίῳ γεγενημένων πρεσβυτέρων)[1]. 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 (
Accidental corruptions[1], however, and variations of reading
and rendering grew apace, and in the third century Origen
complains of the uncertainty of the Biblical text in both its
parts[1] (comm. in Matt. t. 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
ἀφαιρούντων[1]). Besides intentional changes
he notices elsewhere (1) double renderings: hom. in 1 Regn., i. 4 "non
me latet . . . quod in aliquibus exemplaribus habetur erat vir quidam
ἄνθρωπός τις ἦν, codd. M, 44, &c.),
sed in his exemplaribus quae emendatiora probavimus ita habetur, erat vir unus
(A, ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος εἷς)"; (2) transpositions:
on
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[1], 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[1]"; 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[1]. 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 482third century. But in order to recover from them this unrevised 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.
Hexaplaric[1]. Codd. G, M, Q; 15, 22, 38, 58, 72, 86, 88, 135, 137, 138, 139, 161, 248, 249, 250, 252, 255, 256, 258, 259, 264, 268, 273; Paris Nat. Reg. gr. 129, 131, 132, Ars. 8415, Escurial Σ. t. 16, Leipzig gr. 361, Zurich c. ii, Athos Vatop. 516, Pantocr. 24, Protaton. 53, Laur. γ. 112. Versions: Sahidic (in part), Armenian (in part), Syro-hexaplar.
Lucianic[1]. Codd. 19, 12, 36, 48, 51, 62, 82, 90, 93, 95, 108, 118, 144, 147, 153, 185, 231, 233, 245, 308; Parts Coisl. gr. 184, Athens bibl. nat. 44. Versions: Old Latin, Philoxenian Syriac, Gothic, Armenian (m part), Slavonic. Fathers: Chrysostom, and other writers of the School of Antioch[1].
Hesychian[1]. Codd. Q, 26, 44, 49, 68, 74, 76, 84, 87, 90, 91, 106, 107, 134, 198, 228[1], 238, 306. Paris suppl. gr. 609. Versions: Bohairic, Armenian (in part). Cyril of Alexandria; other Egyptian 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 Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt may be found all the remains of 483Origen'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[1], 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 Hexaplaric 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. By this process he hoped that a point of departure would be reached from which the reconstruction of the LXX. might begin[1].
This scheme is worthy of the great scholar who initiated it, and it was the first serious effort to grasp the problem of scientific 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. Meanwhile, 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 484representation of Lucian's text: "conlatis codicibus versionibusque eam praebentibus et patrum ea utentibus excussis efficiendum erit ut etiam in minutioribus adcurate edita dici merito possit[1]." 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 departments of Biblical study, exhibiting sufficiently the characteristics of this recension, and repeatedly offering, especially in the four books of Kingdoms, renderings of a Hebrew text distinct from [1]. 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 Dr T. 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 zur griechischen Übersetzung 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 485several translators and (b) 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 (b) 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: Anmerkungen, p. 3: "nur drei axiome schicke ich voraus: I. die manuscripte der griechischen übersetzung des alten testaments sind alle entweder unmittelbar oder mittelbar das resultat eines eklektischen verfahrens: darum muss, wer den echten text wiederfinden will, ebenfalls eklektiker sein. Sein maasstab kann nur die kenntniss des styles der einzelnen übersetzer, sein haupthilfsmittel muss die fähigkeit sein, die ihm vorkommenden lesarten auf ihr semitisches original zurückzuführen oder aber als originalgriechische verderbnisse zu erkennen. II. wenn ein vers oder verstheil in einer freien und in einer sklavisch treuen übertragung vorliegt, gilt die erstere als die echte. III. wenn sich zwei lesarten nebeneinander finden, von denen die eine den masoretischen text ausdrückt, die andre nur aus einer von ihm abweichenden urschrift erklärt werden kann, so ist die letztere für ursprünglich zu halten." Libr. V. T. can. i. p. xvi.: "tenenda tria esse aio: [1] editionem veteris testamenti graeci curari non posse ad unius alicuius codicis auctoritatem, sed conlatis integris 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 interpretum inventa sit, in ea legenda adquiesci debere perhibeant, quum conlatis vetera emendandi periculis omnibus indagandum sit quae explicationis veteris testamenti per quatuor saecula fata 486fuerint, ut tandem aliquando pateat quam incerta in hoc literarum genere omnia sint, et quam multa nulla alia re nisi coniectura 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[1], 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 comparison. Such are the two great uncials already mentioned.
Cod. B, as was pointed out by Dr Hort[1], "on the whole 487presents 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 neither predominantly Lucianic nor Hesychian[1] 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 Pamphilus[1]. Lagarde, however, at once pointed out the difficulties which beset Cornill's theory[1], 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[1]." Eventually Cornill withdrew his suggestion, observing that the forms of the proper names in B shew no sign of having been influenced by Origen's corrections[1].
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, 488and a still graver error to treat the text of B as necessarily representing everywhere the original Septuagint. As Mr Burkitt has pointed out[1], "the O. L. and the Hexaplar text convict B here and there of interpolation, especially in Isaiah." "Certainly (he writes in another place[1]) 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 unrevised text of the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις. 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[1]." In certain books the general character of B breaks down altogether, i.e. the archetype of B in those books was of another kind. Thus in Judges B was formerly suspected of representing the Hesychian recension[1], whilst a living scholar has hinted that it may give the text of a translation not earlier than the fourth century A.D.[1] The Cambridge 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, 489and especially of the extant remains of the Hexapla[1]'—a remark which is capable of a much wider application[1].
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[1]." "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[1]." 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[1]. These phenomena point to the presence in A of an underlying text of great antiquity, possibly a pre-Christian recension made in Syria[1]. It must be observed, however, that the text of this MS. is not 490homogeneous 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 א known as א c.a. In the Prophets אAQ 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. א 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[1]. But the first hand of א often agrees with A against B, and the combinations אART in the Psalms, אAC in the other poetical books, and אAQ in the Prophets, are not uncommon. In Tobit, as we have seen, א 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 491followed. But the method of editing the text of a single MS. leaves much to be desired, for, as Lagarde rightly 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 existing materials[1]. The task which lies before the critical editor of the LXX. is partly similar to that of the N. T. editor, and partly sui generis. The general principles which will guide him are those which have been expounded by Dr Hort in the second part of Introduction to the N. T. in Greek[1]. 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 application 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[1], 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.
(a) 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. 87—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 492of codd. ABGLQΘ, facsimiles or printed texts of אCDEFHKO RTUYZΓΠ, 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.
(b) When an editor has been found who is competent to undertake reconstruction, he will probably desire to limit himself to that one task, after the example of the editors of the New Testament in Greek[1], 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 starting. 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, 49377, Paris Reg. Gr. 128, and many others), the pair H. P. 54, 75, with which Θ and 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 existing 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 0. L. becomes a primary authority for the Greek text[1]. 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 0. L. is not our only witness to the readings 494of 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[1].
(d) 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 κοινή 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 recensional 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 (b) 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[1]. 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 assimilation to the official Hebrew or to later Greek versions based 495upon 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[1].
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 New 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 photography, particularly codd. א, 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 interval of years since the publication of Field's great book[1], 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 having issued from its Press the Septuagint of Holmes and Parsons 496may 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 proposal was made by Dr Nestle at the London Oriental Congress 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 student 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 essential 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, Anmerkungen zur gr. Übersetzung der Proverbien (Leipzig, 1863); Genesis Graece (Leipzig, 1868); Ankündigung einer neuen Ausgabe der gr. Übersetzung des A. T. (Göttingen, 1882); Librorum V. T. canonicorum pars prior (Göttingen, 1883); review of Cornill's Ezechiel in Gött. gelehrte Anzeigen, June 1, 1886 (reprinted in Mittheilungen, ii. 49 ff., Göttingen, 1887). J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen, 1871); art. Septuagint in Encycl. Brit. 9 (London, 1886). C. H. Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig, 1886); in Gött. gelehrte Nachrichten xxx. (1888, 8, p. 194 ff.). A. Ceriani, Le recensioni dei LXX. e la versione latina detta Itala in Rendiconti del R. Istituto Lombardo II. xix., xxi. (1883—4); review of the O. T. in Greek in Rendiconti 497II. xxi., xii. (1888); De codice Marchaliano (Rome, 1890). W. Sanday and F. J. A. Hort, letters in Academy, Dec. 10 and 24, 1887. V. Ryssel, Untersuchungen über die Textgestalt . . . des Buches Micha, p. 175 ff. (Leipzig, 1887). I. Hooykas, Iets over de grieksche vertaling van het Oude Testament (Rotterdam, 1888). H. Oort, De Lagarde's plan van eene vitgaaf der Septuaginta (? 1882). E. Hatch, Essays on Biblical Greek, iv.—vii. (Oxford, 1889). S. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, Intr. p. xlvii. ff. (Oxford, 1890). A. Dillmann, Textkritisches zum Buche Ijob (in Sitzungsberichte d. k. P. Akademie d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1890, liii.). E. Nestle, The Variorum Septuagint, in Proceedings of Oriental Congress held at London, 1892; Urtext p. 77 f. (1897); Zur Rekonstruktion der Septuaginta, in Philologus, N. F., xii. (1899) p. 121 ff. E. Klostermann, De libro Coheleth versione Alexandrina (Kiel, 1892); review of The O. T. in Greek in Gött. gelehrte Anzeigen (1895. 4). S. Silberstein, Über den Ursprung der im Cod. Alex. u. Vat. des dritten Königsbuches überlieferten Textgestalt (Giessen, 1893). Bleek-Wellhausen, Einleitung in das A. T., p. 549 ff. (Berlin, 1893). F. C. Burkitt, The Rules of Tyconius, p. cxlii. ff. (Cambridge, 1894); The Old Latin and Itala (Cambridge, 1896); Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the translation of Aquila (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). A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, i.—iii., Göttingen, 1904, 1907, 1911; C. F. Burney, Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Kings, Oxford, 1903; W. O. E. Oesterley, Studies in . . . Amos, Cambridge, 1902; C. C. Torrey, Apparatus for the criticism of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, in O. T. and Semitic Studies (Chicago), xi.; H. St J. Thackeray in J. Th. St., xii. 46 ; and many of the works named on pp. 27, 28; 104; 191—4; 262—4; 285—8.
Additional Notes.
498P. 10ff. The 'Letter of Aristeas' can now be read in Mr H. St J. Thackeray's English translation (J.Q.R. XV. April 1903, and separately reprinted by Macmillan, 1904), which is furnished with a short introduction and notes, taking account of Wendland's edition and translation. The ostensible date of the writing is about 250 B.C.; or earlier, for Philadelphus is apparently spoken of as still living, and the references to his father (§§ 12, 22) would suggest that his reign was not very far advanced. Nor is anything said to imply the death of Eleazar, whose high priesthood is usually dated 292—277 B.C. (see §§ 125, 321). The writer professes, as a Greek at Philadelphus' court (§ 40, cf. 173), to regard the Jews, their country, and their customs, from an outsider's point of view (§§ 3, 6, 112, etc.). But it remains generally agreed, that he betrays himself to be in reality a Jew, writing at a later time. There is, however, some difference of opinion as to the actual date of writing. Schürer, placing it as early as 200 B.C., is supported by Herriot (Philon le Juif); Wendland from 96 to 63, rather towards the earlier date; Willrich (in Judaica, 1900) as late as A.D. 33; but this view is not generally accepted. Hart (Ecclesiasticus in Greek, 243 ff., 263 ff.) finds evidence that the author knew and used the Prologue to the Greek Sirach; which, however, he dates early, some little time after 247 B.C. Wendland also sees some connexion, but accepts the more usual date of the years following 132 B.C. for Ecclesiasticus. Thackeray, who thinks that Hart makes too much of some identities of language, pronounces, on the strength of some linguistic details, as well as on internal grounds, for a date not earlier than the middle of the second century B.C., and perhaps between 140 or 130 B.C. for the earlier, and 80 B.C. for the later limit. Probably 100—80 B.C. fairly represents the resultant of his view and Wendland's.
On the other hand, Mr L . Abrahams (J.Q.R. XIV. p. 321 ff., Jan. 1902) defends a date practically the same as Schürer's. He points out that the writer, though a Jew, draws his historical information, and his description of Palestine, from non-Jewish sources, and his 'Table-discourses,' §§ 187—292, from Greek learning and not from Jewish gnomic wisdom. (On this latter point, however, opinions will still differ, as in the case, e.g., of Ecclesiastes.) He adds further, that, though there may be error, if not fraud, in the part assigned to Demetrius Phalereus, yet the 'Letter' has been exposed, through the additions made to the story by Christian 499writers, to some unfair suspicion; and that the story, as Josephus read it, appears to have presented nothing incredible to his mind. This is, perhaps, as far as anyone can now go in rehabilitating the credit of the 'Letter,' in which, however, a considerable substratum of fact is usually allowed to exist. The view of Wendland and Thackeray probably now commands the most general assent; though some adhere to the position of Schürer and Abrahams.
P. 23. That Aristeas speaks only of the Law may be seen in §§ 3, 10, 46, 171, 176; while the statement of Epiphanius is implicitly contradicted by § 302.
P. 24. If the usual dates for Ecclesiasticus and its Prologue are accepted, a little time must be allowed after B.C. 132, the date of the writer's arrival in Egypt, before he could produce his work. Nor need the collections of the Prophets and Hagiographa, though in existence, have been finally completed when he wrote. See Thackeray, Grammar of O. T. in Greek, pp. 13, 15 ff.; also in J. Th. Stud. VIII. 262 ff.
P. 34 f. Besides these portions of Aquila, the Amherst Papyrus,
I. iii. c., contains
P. 39, note 4. On the possible connexion of abbreviations in MSS. with these methods of writing the Divine Name, see L. Traube, Nomina Sacra (Munich, 1907): Bd 2 of Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters.
P. 47 f. The appearance of Theodotion's renderings before his reputed time (as in the N.T. quotations) is not yet satisfactorily explained; see Thackeray, Gramm. O. T. in Greek, p. 15: 'Critics have . . . been forced to the conclusion that there must have been, in addition to the loose Alexandrian paraphrase, a third version, resembling that of A, but made before his time and in use in Palestine in the first century B.C.' Nestle, in ZNTW, Nov. 1907, remarks on Schürer's Dilemma, p. 48, note 3: '"entweder . . . vor Theodotion gegeben" muss dahin ergänzt werden "oder ist das Dilemma falsch gestellt, and hat Theodotion das N.T. benützt, nicht umgekehrt"'
P. 55, cf. p. 63. Prof Burkitt, on 'The so-called Quinta of 4 Kings' (Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archaeology, June 1902), says: 'I venture therefore to make the conjecture that the Quinta in 4 Kings is . . . a collection of variants set in the margin of the Hexapla, and that 500this collection contained, among other things, some notable readings of the genuine LXX.' And above: '. . . the fragments of the Hexapla in the Ambrosian Library at Milan preserve just such a collection of detached readings in a fifth column.'
P. 66. On Eusebius, and the Quinta and Sexta, see Mercati, Studi e Testi 5, v. p. 51 ff.; on the Hexapla see also Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient MSS., p. 54 ff., and appendix, p. x, in third edition.
P. 69 ff. For twenty years after Field's great work on the Hexapla appeared, the question of the existence of critical marks in the Hexapla itself remained as he left it. With this is bound up the further question of Origen's actual method; whether the LXX. text in the Hexapla was a revised one, or unrevised. Field pronounced for the former alternative, and for the presence of the critical marks in the Hexapla. His words are (vol. I. p. lii):
'Non desunt quidem qui existiment Origenem priorem viam iniisse: videlicet, ut distinctiones praedictas non in editionem hexaplarem introduceret, sed in aliam seorsim adornatam, qualem hodieque exhibent codex Graecus Sarravianus, et versio P. Telensis Syrohexaplaris. Sed, ut Hieronymi declarationem taceamus, in scholiis Graecis innumera exstant loca, quae contrarium aperte probant; nempe ed. τῶν Οʹ; hexaplarem non diversam fuisse ab ea quam in exemplaribus modo memoratis hodie manu terimus.'
(Jerome's words are to be found on page 69, note 3, of this book.)
Of late, however, fresh doubts have arisen, perhaps stimulated by the discovery of the Cairo and Milan fragments of copies of the Hexapla itself. The work was so huge (see p. 74) that it had scarcely been suspected that copies had been made; but it is not proved that the fragments represent more than portions, or single books.
Mercati, the discoverer of the Milan palimpsest, gives the first hint of doubt (1896, Atti d. Accad. d. Scienze, Torino, XXXI. p. 656):
'Aggiungasi the Origene l’aveva arrichitta di prolegomeni a di scolii, per non dire degli obeli a degli asterischi, coi quali s’ ingegnò di rendere anche più visibili le singole parole a particelli crescenti o mancanti nei LXX., rispetto all’ Ebraico, se pure questa operazione non fu ristretta alle Tetraple od al testo dei LXX., estratto dall’ una delle due collezioni mentovate, secondo che altri ha voluto,' with a note 'E veramente distribuito il testo, come lo è nel palimpsesto Ambrosiano delle Esaple non rimane più tanto necessaria questa aggiunta d’ obeli a di asterischi per quanto riguarda l’Esaple, cfr. i prol. dal Field.'
501Lietzmann, in his review of the first edition of this work (G.G.A. May 1902), raises some similar points; the following is an English rendering of some of his remarks:
'Had the Urhexapla, in its LXX. column, the κοινή without corrections or additions, or a text already revised, [and] provided with obeli and asterisks; that is, with the additions from Theodotion? One inclines to take the former view as correct, reflecting that the Hexapla was meant to be the foundation for [future] critical work. Swete depends on Field. . . . Field refers to "iunumera loca," but quotes none expressly; and to the difficulty in regard to the transpositions, . . . which he does not thresh out. . . . Eusebius and Jerome say nothing about critical marks in the fifth column; Jerome, indeed, says something which points the other way (praef. Dan., ep. 57, 11, and ep 106). Still the other view may be right . . . but caution is still imperatively needed.'
The arguments, then, appear to run much as follows:
(1) No critical marks have been found in the fragments discovered; and this though Jerome has them in the 'Gallican' Psalter, and the 'codices hexapl.' have them. (2) Eusebius and Jerome do not mention them. (3) Field gives practically no examples to support his view. (4, Mercati) The marks were less needed in the Hexapla, where the texts could be seen side by side. (5, Lietzmann) The Hexapla, as a foundation for critical labour, should preferably have had the pure text. (6) The variety of numbers named, Tetrapla, Quintupla, etc., up to eight, indicates a variety of works and copies at any rate in Psalms. (7) The Milan fragment is not an exact copy; its last column is not Theod., but Quinta. It had, however, notes and a catena, descending from Origen himself.
To these arguments it may be replied (1) that critical marks
may have disappeared in the copies as they notoriously did in other
cases, in course of transmission. But as Jerome certainly knew of
them, he might well use them. (2) The passages referred to by
Field may be taken as mentioning them. (3) In default of specific
quotations, Field's long work at the Hexapla gives great weight to
his impressions. As the question was not specially prominent in
his day, he may have thought he had said enough; but he can
hardly have used a phrase such as 'innumera loca' at random.
Lietzmann says he finds only one passage in the margin of the
MS. Vat. 754 on
On the whole, the arguments against Field's view are not yet completely convincing, even if he based it on impressions rather than definite proof. It may however be well to keep the other possibility in mind, and to suspend judgement, at least until the Milan fragments have been published in full and duly considered.
Perhaps it is worth while to add, that Professor K. Lake, in his Introduction to the photograph of the Sinaitic N.T., suggests that there may have been only one MS., that of Pamphilus, between a corrector of Cod. F—A = Sin and the original Hexapla; in which case the texts of א and B do not bear witness to a purely pre-Hexaplar text in the Hexapla generally.
P. 76. An enlarged edition of the collection of Nobilius was embodied in the Latin translation of the Editio Sixtina (1588), reprinted by P. Morinus, 1624. Montfaucon's work was abridged by Bahrdt (2 vols., Leipzig, 1769). The Oxford concordance, suppl. fasc. ii., takes account of fresh matter available since the appearance of Field's work, which however is not likely, so far as it extends, to be superseded for years to come.
P. 82. On 'Lucian' as the κοινή see A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien,
II> pp. 134, 170 f. Jerome's words (
'In quo illud breviter admoneo ut sciatis aliam esse editionem quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores κοινή, id est communem appellant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Λουκιανὸς dicitur; aliam Septuaginta interpretum quae in Ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur et a nobis in Latinum sermonem fideliter versa est, et Jerosolymae atque in Orientis ecclesiis decantatur.'
P. 85. Since the publication of Lagarde's work (see page 188) the Lucianic Text has received much attention. See A. Rahlfs, Sept.-Studien, II. III., Göttingen, 1907, 1911; F. C. Burkitt, Rules of Tyconius, pp. cviii., cxvi f.; The O.L. and the Itala, p. 9; art. Text and Versions in Encycl. Bibl. vol. IV.; W. O. E. Oesterley, Studies in . . . the Book of Amos; C. F. Burney, Notes on Heb. Text of Books of Kings, 1903.
P. 93, also 104, 107, etc. For references to the symbols used in the larger Cambridge LXX. for materials in the Old Latin and other 503versions, see below, on p. 170. Some of these materials may be mentioned under the particular books of the Bible they contain.
P. 96. L’ancienne Version Latine du Cantique I—III. 4 is treated by D. A. Wilmart in Revue Benedictine XXVIII. 11—36.
P. 97. There has now appeared Die Konstanz-Weingartener Propheten fragmenta in phototypischen Reproduction (W. N. Du Rieu; introd. Paul Lehman), 1912.
P. 100. A discovery of much interest has lately been made at Monte Cassino, where Dom Amelli has found a revised Latin Psalter, of a kind hitherto unknown, and edited it (Collectanea Biblica Latina cura et studio Monachorum S. Benedicti. Vol. I. Liber Psalmorum iuxta antiquissimam latinam Versionem . . . ex Casinensi Cod. 557 curante D. Ambrosio M. Amelli O.S.B. Rome, 1912).
The MS., of the twelfth century, contains the Psalter in four versions (cf. the fourfold Psalters noted below, on p. 165); (i) Jerome's 'Hebrew' Psalter, (ii) the 'Gallican,' and (iv) the 'Roman'; (iii) is the newly discovered revision. It appears to have been made upon an Old Latin or non-Vulgate foundation, with renderings apparently from the Hebrew, and even some transliterations. Professor Burkitt (in J. Th. St. XIV. 55) thinks that the various renderings, following in turn Aq., Symm., and especially Theodotion, are best accounted for if the reviser worked from a copy of the Hexapla. In this case the transliterations, if not due to Theodotion, may have been taken from the column containing the Hebrew in Greek characters; and similarly can be explained a few places where the reviser follows the LXX. against the three later versions. Professor Burkitt, indeed, thinks it possible that the work might have been done by one ignorant of the actual Hebrew letters. Perhaps this is rather far to go; but it is pointed out that among the 'readings derived from the Hebrew text' no case of confusion between ד and ר is recorded: certainly an unusual circumstance. It is possible, however, that the reviser may not have been exactly ignorant of Hebrew or the Hebrew script, even though when at work he 'only used the Greek transliteration found in MSS. of the Hexapla.'
P. 107. The store of available Coptic material for the O.T. has been much enriched of late years. The Coptic Version of certain O.T. books from a Papyrus, edited by Sir Herbert Thompson (Oxford, 1908), gives a fragment of Job xxxix, and large portions of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom and Sirach. The papyrus (Pap. Or. 5984) was acquired by the British Museum in 1901. The leaves, preserved in 62 frames between glass, are of 504large size for papyri in codex form. Slight verbal differences from Lagarde's Turin MS. are found; the British Museum text being considered inferior to it in Wisdom, but superior in Sirach. It is dated sixth to seventh century (or seventh to eighth, according to W. E. Crum in J. Th. Stud. April 1910).
A Coptic Palimpsest, by the same transcriber and editor (1911), is dated by him in the earlier half of the seventh century. [B.M. Add. 17183, obtained from the Nitrian valley in 1847.] The upper writing is Syriac. This MS., a parchment, was noticed by Lagarde, Orientalia, 1879; and small portions had previously appeared. It contains Josh., Judg., Ruth, Judith, Esther; originally 228 1eaves, of which 42 are missing. The writing is a plain square uncial. The text in Joshua shows independence: in Judg. and Ruth the text is akin to B.
Dr E. A. Budge has edited and transcribed Pap. Or. 7594
(Coptic Biblical Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt, 1912) containing
Deuteronomy, with gaps, Jonah all but complete, as well as
the Acts of the Apostles. There are papyrus fragments in the
cover, one of which contains
In the Catalogue of Coptic MSS. in the British Museum, by W. E. Crum, Nos. 1—59 and 932—955 contain portions of the O.T. in Sahidic; 59 is Habak. iii, 940 is a complete volume, containing 151 Psalms. Nos. 493—496 are Middle Egyptian O.T., and 712—731 Bohairic. 712 gives 364 leaves of the Pentateuch.
Other works are: P. J. Balestri, Sacrorum Bibliorum fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani, Rome, 1904: J. Goettsberger, Die Syro-Koptischen Bibel-citate . . . aus den Scholien des Barhebräus in ZATW. XXI. (1901) p. 128 ff.; F. E. Brightman in J. Th. Stud. II. p. 275 f., and S. Gaselee in J. Th. Stud. XI. p. 246 ff. Fragments in Coptic, chiefly of Pss., have also been found on ostraca: see W. E. Crum, Coptic Ostraca from the collections of the Egypt Exploration Fund, etc. (London, 1902).
P. 108. The earlier editions of this book stated that 'of the Sahidic fragments, those that belong to the book of Job yield a pre-Origenic text': but Professor Burkitt, in the article referred to in note 4, has come to the conclusion that the facts require this to be modified, as it now appears. L. Dieu, however, in Muséon, 1912, 505p. 147 ff. (Nouveaux Fragments préhexaplaires du livre de Job en copte sahidique) supports the previous view, in opposition to Professor Burkitt and Mr Crum (on No. 939 in his Catalogue).
P. 110. To list of books add: F. O. Kramer, Die aethiopische Übersetzung des Zacharias: Text zum ersten Male herausgegeben, Prolegomena, Kommentar: eine Vorstudie zur Geschichte und Kritik des Septuaginta-textes, Heft I. Leipzig, 1908.
P. 116. Add: P. A. de Lagarde, Libri V. T. Apocryphi Syr., Leipzig, 1861; A. M. Ceriani, Trans. Syra Pescitto V. T. ex Cod. Ambros., Milan, 1876—79.
P. 119. Add: J. Goettsberger, Die Syro-armenischen . . . Bibelcitate . . . des Barhebräus, ZATW. XXI. 1901, pp. 101—127.
P. 125. CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. Professor Burkitt, in J. Th. Stud. XI. (p. 603), suggests that there is no reason for identifying the Athanasius who signs the Arabic note at the beginning of the MS. with the Patriarch (III.) of that name, since he does not sign in Patriarchal style. He concludes that the MS. was not necessarily in Egypt before 1616; that it came from Athos, and is therefore Constantinopolitan, not Alexandrian. The question must probably be regarded as an open one, until more general attention has been paid to it; but Professor Burkitt's suggestion is apparently regarded with favour by Professor Souter (see his note in the Novum Test. Graece, Oxford, 1910, p. vii.).
P. 130. CODEX SINAITICUS. The N.T. of this MS. has now been issued in collotype reproduction (by H. and K. Lake, Oxford, 1911). Professor K. Lake's Introduction draws attention to several interesting details. According to him, the MS. was at Caesarea between the beginning of the fifth and that of the seventh century A.D. He quotes Harnack's remark on the resemblance of its Psalter to the Psalms in the (Coptic) text of the Pistis Sophia: 'Dieser Text steht dem Cod. Sin. wie ein Zwillingsbruder nahe.' With regard to the four hands distinguished by Tischendorf in the MS., Professor Lake considers that the corrector A¹ is probably, and A² almost certainly, identical with the scribe D, and that Cod. Vaticanus was not written by this scribe. The corrector, C, of the FA portion of the MS. used, he thinks, a copy corrected by Pamphilus himself, which alone 'intervenes between [him] and the original Hexapla.' See above, on p. 69 ff.
P. 132. CODEX ZUQNINENSIS. Two Syriac MSS., Vat. Syr. 162, at Rome, 122 leaves, and B.M. Add. 14665 foll. 1—7, five leaves, contain, under a valuable chronicle, including that of 'Joshua the 506Stylite,' palimpsest fragments which are assigned to six Greek uncial MSS., distinguished by the editor as under:
Z¹, cent. vi, portions of Judges xvi—xxi. The text is Lucianic, to be compared with K 54 59 75 82.
Z², cent. vi, portions of 3 Reg. ii—viii. and xxi. Lucianic, akin to 82 93 rather than 19 108. (Part in Brit. Mus.)
Z³, cent. v, a single leaf, in Brit. Museum, containing 3 Reg. viii. 58—ix. 1. Egyptian, not Lucianic, in text. This is referred to on p. 141 as Zd. Doubly palimpsest; the liturgical writing above the biblical text and below the Syriac, is, according to Tisserant, not, as was thought, Coptic but Greek.
Z4, cent. vi, large portions of Pss. viii—xxxvii. Lucianic? the text is said to be of a character between A and אc.a.
Z5, sloping uncials of cent. vii—viii. Large fragments of Ezek. i, iii—ix, xxii—xxvi, xxviii, xxxv—xlviii. Lucianic. (Part in. Brit. Mus.)
Z6, cent. vi—vii. Fragments of later chapters of Ezek., and
The MSS. are named from Zuḳnīn, a village near Amid. The Biblical fragments have been transcribed and edited with great care by Eugène Tisserant in Studi e Testi 23 (Cod. Zuqninensis rescriptus Veteris Test., Rome, 1911).
P. 141. Θ. WASHINGTON CODEX. For full information, see the Introduction by Professor H. A. Sanders, to the reproduction of the MS. (University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series, Vol. 8).
This is an uncial MS. containing Deuteronomy and Joshua,
almost entire. It was bought, on Dec. 19, 1906, y Mr C. L.
Freer, at Gizeh, from a dealer named Ali. (Three other MSS.
were bought at the same time, containing the Psalms, the Gospels—-Gregory's
and Souter's W—and the Pauline Epistles.) It is
intended that it shall find a home in the Smithsonian Institute at
Washington; meantime it remains at Detroit, Michigan. Professor
Sanders remarks that many stories have been told of it, which are
untrue; that it had not been often shown before the purchase was
made. When first examined in America, the desert sand was still
in the folds. The vellum is 'moderate'; the hand an upright,
square uncial. The size of the leaves varies, from 30 to 31˙9 x 25˙5
to 26˙1 centimetres: average, 30˙6 x 25˙8, or about 12 x 10 1/6 inches.
There is a lacuna in Deuteronomy from
P. 141. C. Poetical Books.
Here may be noticed the Leipzig papyrus (Univ. Lib. Pap. 39),
called λ by Heinrici (Beiträge zur Geschichte and Erklärung des
N. T., IV. Leipzig, 1913), and L by Rahlfs, Sept.-Studien, II. p. 5.
It comes from Ashmunên, in Middle Egypt, and contains
P. 144. In 1904, at Turin, there was destroyed by fire an uncial MS. of the Psalms; which is now represented only by a few photographs, fortunately taken a few weeks before, and now in the possession of Professor Swete and Dr Oesterley (who writes of this 'Lost Uncial Codex' in Exp. Times, vol. XVII. p. 353 ff., May 1906). It was a well-written MS. of the eighth or ninth century, with a catena, which included passages from Modestus and Cosmas Indicopleustes, but not Cyr., Epiph., Greg. Nyss., Greg. Naz. Its text bore some resemblance to that of Cod. R. A brief description was contained in Pasini's Codices Manuscripti Bibliothecae Regii Taurinensis Athenaei (Turin, 1749).
508P. 145. Y. CODEX TAURINENSIS.
This MS. has been transcribed by Dr Oesterley, and published with select apparatus (J. Th. Stud. VI.—VIII., reprinted by H. Frowde, 1908). It is not an uncial, only the headings being in uncial letters. The body of the MS. is written in a fairly upright cursive hand, many letters not joined; the writing is continuous, with capitals sometimes at the beginning, sometimes in the middle of lines or words. The MS. was damaged in a fire in 1666, but escaped with slight damage in 1904 (see above); it is now said to consist of 93 leaves of fine vellum, with a polished surface. The date is given as the ninth or tenth century.
P. 146. A portion of the same MS. as Γ is at Rome (Vat. Gr. 1658). From this (not palimpsest) come the readings for Zach. iv. 3—viii. 16 in The O.T. in Greek, vol. iii.
P. 146 ff. Among the fragments more recently discovered, the following may be noticed: several have been used for the apparatus of the larger Cambridge LXX., see below, on p. 170:
Old Latin of
Psalms (Lxx. numbering): information largely derived from A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, II.
P. 154. To (A) add: London, B. M. Curzon 66. Octateuch, cat. Petersburg, Imp. Lib. cxxii. Gen. (part), cat. and cant. Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. 7. Octateuch, cat. Venice, Gr. 15. Octateucb, cat. London, Burney 34. Pentateuch, Rome, Reg. Pii H. 20.
P. 158. The cursive 67, Mr Thackeray points out, is a near
510relative of 206 (Gonv. and Caius Coll. 348; cf. M. R. James,
Descriptive Catalogue, I. p. 392). Another MS. by the scribe of 206
is Trin. Coll. Camb. O. 3. 14. See J. Rendel Harris, Origin of
Ferrar group of MSS., p. 24. The Trin. Coll. MS. has no titles;
206 has none after
P. 162. The Barberini MSS. have apparently been renumbered since the time of Holmes and Parsons, who gave their 226 and 227 as Barber. 1 and 2. The present Barber. 1 and 2 are not Psalters; this information comes from Dr Mercati to the Rev. J. Mearns, who suggests that when the collations were received at Oxford, the MSS. were without numbers, and were simply distinguished as 1 and 2 by the editor. He thinks the present Barberini catalogue may date from 1830 or somewhat earlier, but not from as early as 1790.
P. 163. Mr Thackeray notes that 272 ends with
P. 165. To list (C) add Psalms, Rome, Vat. Gr. 754, from Rahlfs, II. p. 23. Also:
Leipzig, Univ. Lib. Tisch. V, complete from
Paris, Bibl. Nat. N. acq. Lat. 2195.
This and the following are akin to W and Z on p. 164, note 1. W contains four texts, viz., Jerome's 'Gallican,' 'Roman,' and 'Hebrew' Psalters, and the Greek; this MS. has them in the same order.
Valenciennes, no. 14. Another fourfold Psalter. Paris, Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15198. Threefold, 'Heb.' 'Rom.' Greek. Paris, Bibl. Nat. Suppl. Gr. 188. Latin interlinear version. Camb., C.C.C. 468. Also a Latin text.
P. 166. 62 and 147 have something in common; they form, in
fact, a sub-group, akin to, but distinct from, the Lucianic MSS. of
the Prophets generally. See Burkitt, Tyconius, p. cviii, and
Oesterley, Studies in . . . Amos, pp. 9ff., 17 ff. They are also among
the four MSS. which give a peculiar version of
P. 170. The symbols used by the editors of the larger Cambridge LXX. are here brought together, so far as they are yet published:
I. Uncial MSS.:
(a) Bibles originally complete, or believed to have been so: AB[C]S, as on p. 124.
(b) Containing the Octateuch, or parts of it: DEFGHKLMΘ.
511
II. Cursives, quoted by small letters:
a = | Holmes and Parsons' 15. | n = | H.-P. 75. |
b′ = | " " 19. | o = | " 82. |
b = | " " 108. | p = | " 106. |
[b = agreement of b′ + b]. | q = | " 120. | |
c = | H.-P. 38. | r = | " 129. |
d = | " 44. | s = | " 131. |
e = | " 52. | t = | " 134. |
f = | " 53. | u = | Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre, 2 (p. 154). |
g = | " 54. | ||
h = | " 55. | v = | Athos, Pantocrator. 24 (p. 153). |
i = | " 56. | ||
j = | " 57. | w = | Athens, Bibl. Nat. 44 (p. 154). |
k = | " 58. | x = | London, B. M. Curzon 66. |
l = | " 59. | y = | H.-P. 121. |
m = | " 72. | z = | " 85. |
a2 = | { |
St Petersburg, Imp. Library, 62 (p. 153) London, B. M. Add. 20002 (p. 152) |
} | continuation of E. |
b2 = | H.-P. 29. | |||
c2 = | " 135. | |||
d2 = | " 61. |
III. Cursives, quoted occasionally on the authority of H.-P., and by their numbers:
14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 30—32, 37, 64, 68, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77—79, 83, 84, 105, 107, 118, 125—128, 130, 132, 133, 136.
IV. Fragments: generally papyrus, unless otherwise stated:
U2 = Amh. Pap. I. iii c.
U3 = Brit. Mus. Pap ccxii.
U4 = Oxyrh. Pap. 656.
U5 = Amh. Pap. cxci.
U6 = Amh. Pap. cxcii.
Δ2 = Vellum fragments in binding of Paris, Bibl. Nat. Gr. 1397.
Δ3 = Strassburg, Pap. Gr. 748: vellum fragm. of
Δ4 = Geneva, 99 vellum fragm. of
Δ5 = Palimpsest fragm.
Δ6 = Vellum fragm.
Δ7 = Vellum fragm. from Sinai,
V. Versions:
= Armenian: Zohrab's edition, Venice, 1805: p. 119.
-ed. = Z.'s text, -cod or -codd variants in his notes.
512= Bohairic: p. 107.
¹ =Lagarde's edition, Leipzig, 1867.
w = Wilkins' ed., London, 1731.
p = Paris, Bibl. Nat. Copt. 1 (for Genesis).
v = Rome, Vat. Copt. 1 (for Deut.).
v = Sahidic: p. 107.
c = Ciasca's edition, Rome, 1885.
m = Maspéro's ed., Paris, 1892.
-cod = Ciasca's Bodleian MS.
p = Paris, Bibl. Nat. Copt. 1296 (fragm.).
b = B.M. Or. 5287 (fragm.).
t = B.M. Add. 17183 (Thompson, A Coptic Palinapsest).
= Ethiopic: p. 110.
c = Dillmann's Codex C.
f = " " F.
p = Paris, Bibl. Nat. Eth. 3 (Zotenberg).
= Old Latin: pp. 88, 93 ff.
b = Vienna palimpsest, ed. I. Belsheim, 1885.
r = Lyons octateuch, ed. U. Robert, 1881, 1900.
v = Variae Lectiones, C. Vercellone, Rome, 1860.
w = Würzburg Palimpsest (fragm.), ed. E. Ranke, Vienna, 1871.
z = Munich Palimpsest (fragm.), ed. L. Ziegler, 1883.
= Palestinian Aramaic: p. 114.
¹ = a Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, ed. Mrs A. S. Lewis, Stud. Sin. vi.
c = Cod. Clinaei Rescriptus, ed. Mrs Lewis, Hor. Sem. viii.
d = Christlich-palästinisch-aramaische Texte, ed. H. Duensing.
g = fragm. in Anecdota Oxoniensia (Sem. Series, I. v, ix.), ed. G. H. Gwilliam and J. F. Stenning.
p = St Petersburg fragm. in Anecdota Syriaca, ed. J. P. N. Land, 1875.
t = Palestinian Syriac Texts, from Palimpsest Fragments in the Taylor-Schechter collection: ed. Mrs A. S. Lewis and Mrs M. D. Gibson.
s = Christlich-palästinische fragmenta, ed. F. Schulthess.
= Syro-hexaplar: pp. 113, 116.
-ap-Barh = quotations in the Auṣsar Rāzē (Horreum Mysteriorum) of Bar-hebraeus.
m = readings supplied by A. Masius from his MS.
P. 173. See J. Dahse, Zur Herkunft des alttestamentlichen Textes der Aldina, in ZATW. XXIX. p. 177 ff. (1909).
P. 182. Field's Cambridge edition of 1665 was reissued by John Hayes in 1684, still under Field's name. 'page for page, and 513 I suppose line for line,' as Dr Brett says in his Letter (see p. 340) quoted by Dr Nestle in Exp. Times, vol. 17, p. 380. 'By which he put a Cheat upon the World,' Dr Brett continues; but from inquiries made by Dr Bethune-Baker (J. Th. Stud. VI. 612 ff.) it would seem that Field's remaining sheets may have been issued without intending 'a Cheat'
P. 186. The text of Holmes and Parsons seems to have been based to some extent on that of Bos; as Nestle in Hastings' D.B. (IV. 449) says, 'The text in the work is a reprint of b [the Sixtine]; but as it seems, after a copy of Bos, corrected, but not everywhere, according to an original copy.' H. Lietzmann, reviewing the first edition of this Introduction in G.G.A. May 1902, pleads for a 'friendly word' on Lambert Bos's edition, with its variants from the Aldine and Complutensian, and collection of the Hexaplaric material then known; as useful even now, and 'nicht antiquiert.'
P. 192. Professor Meinhold and Professor Lietzmann have issued Amos in Hebrew, a corrected text, side by side with the text of Q (Materials for Theological Lecturers and Students, Nos. 15, 16, Cambridge, 1906).
P. 200. Professor A. R. S. Kennedy, in Exp. Times, XXII. 9, p. 321 ff. June 1911, points out that a Heb. MS. at Edinburgh, which he regards as important, has the order Jer. Ezek. Isa.
P. 239. Mr Thackeray thinks that 3 Regn xxii. may have originally been joined to 4 Regn. Thus xx. and xxi. would have been at the end of the book, where transposition might have more easily taken place than in the middle.
P. 242. With regard to the order of Jeremiah's prophecies in and , Mr Thackeray has investigated the Greek text, and finds evidence that the book was divided between two translators (J. Th. Stud. IV. 14, p. 253 ff., Gramm. of O. T. in Gr., p. 11 ff.). He places the division between Jer. α and β at the end of chap. xxviii.; and L. Köhler (Beobachtungen am hebräischen and griech. Text von Jeremia, Leipzig, 1908) substantially agrees, but places the division about a chapter later. Thackeray also finds signs of division in Ezekiel, and—so far as concerns transcription—in Exodus and Leviticus. In the Books of Kingdoms he distinguishes translators of different dates. In Isaiah, on the contrary, he finds no clear trace of division, though Mr Gray (J. Th. Stud. XII. 46, p. 286) thinks otherwise. On these questions see also Schäfer in Theologie und Glaube, 1909, 3, Ist das Buch Ezekiel in der Septuaginta von einem oder mehreren Dolmetscher übersetzt? and Mr Thackeray's other articles in J. Th. Stud., IV. p. 398 ff., 578 ff., VIII. p. 262 ff., IX. p. 88 ff.
514P. 247. Mr H. St J. Thackeray (in J. Th. Stud. XI. 44, July
1910) has closely examined the passage
שמש הודיע בשמים | |
to read | שמש הור יעב שמים |
The Lucianic alteration may have been caused by the awkwardness of the preposition which now disappears. Reading ἐκ γνόφου, he takes ἐκ as = מ, preferably meaning 'without,' 'away from'; and the result is a fairly consistent stanza, of a character which modern critics would accept as older in form than that of the M.T. in vv. 12, 13, and as better placed here:
'Sun, glory beclouds the heaven:
Jahve bath promised to dwell without the thick darkness.
Build Thou my house, A celestial Palace for Thyself.'
Possibly, according to Mr Thackeray, this represents a development
from an original 'popular incantation in times of eclipse,' as
There remains the difficult line τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ καινότητος.
The link between καινότης and what might be expected to correspond
from the M.T. in
For the Sabbath. On Alamoth ('for soprano voices').
515Mr Thackeray is inclined to connect 'Jashar' with שיר 'sing'
rather than with ישר 'upright'; in which case the LXX. βιβλίον τῆς
ᾠδῆς here is more right than had been supposed. He points to the
opening words, 'Then sang . . .' of
Another illuminating discovery, by the same writer, on a
kindred matter, concerns the difficult 'Psalm of Habakkuk' (
In
The details must be sought in his paper; here it can only be
pointed out that he shows how ἐχόρτασας (= שַבַּעְתָּ) and βολίδας
(= מטות) support the consonants of M.T., while LXX. λέγει suggests
אמר. (Κύριος is obelized in Syro-hex.) He deduces that we have
here a lectionary note, which has been merged in the text: WEEKS
(or SEVEN)—RODS—SAITH. 'Weeks' is the key or catchword
for the lesson from the Law, to be read when
P. 251. On the titles of the Psalms, see also F. W. Mozley, The Psalter of the Church, p. 46 ff.
P. 256. See Professor Burkitt in Encycl. Bibl. on the Sahidic
Job, as above, on p. 108. A passage worthy of special attention is
P. 258. Willrich would assign the final note to Esther in the LXX. (xi. in A.V.) to B.C. 48—7,
P. 261. See Nestle on The Song of the Three Holy Children in Greek Bibles (Exp. Times, XII. p. 527 f.); and W. H. Daubney, The Song of the Three, ibid. 287.
P. 262 ff. The more recent volumes of the 'Westminster Commentaries' and the International Critical Commentary are usually worth consulting, but they vary considerably in the amount of attention bestowed on the LXX. Many of the small volumes in the Century Bible series deal here and there with the readings of the LXX.; e.g. Professor Bennett's Genesis and Professor Skinner's 1 and 2 Kings. To these should be added:
Joshua. M. Gasten, Das Buch Josh. in Heb.-Samaritan Rezension. Entdeckt u. zum ersten Male herausgegeben S. A. (aus ZDMG.) 62, p. 109 ff. The Samaritan Book of Joshua and the Septuagint, in Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. XXXI., April 1909.
517Judges and Ruth. J. S. Black and A. W. Streane, in Smaller Cambridge Bible for Schools.
3, 4 Kingdoms. A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, I. and III.
1, 2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah. C. C. Torrey, Apparatus for the Criticism of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, in O. T. and Semitic Studies, XI. p. 55 ff. Ezra Studies, Chicago, 1910.
Psalms. F. W. Mozley, The Psalter of the Church, Cambridge, 1905.
Ecclesiastes. A. H. McNeile, An Introduction to Ecclesiastes, Cambridge, 1904; L. Levy, Das Buch Qoheleth, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Sadduzkäismus, krit. untersucht, übers. u. erklärt, Leipzig, 1912.
Canticles. W. Riedel, Ausliegung des Hohenlieder, 1898; W. W. Cannon, The Song of Songs, Cambridge, 1913.
Esther. G. Jahn, Das Buch Ester nach LXX. hergestellt, übers. u. krit. erklärt, 1901; L. B. Paton, A Text-crit. Apparatus to the Book of Esther (0. T. and Semitic Studies, XI. p. 3ff.).
Dodecapropheton. P. Riessler, Die Kleinen Propheten oder das Zwölfprophetenbuch, Rottenburg, 1911; W. O. E. Oesterley, Codex Taurinensis, 1908.
Amos. W. O. E. Oesterley, Studies in the Greek and Latin Versions of the Book of Amos, Cambridge, 1902; J . Meinhold and H. Lietzmann, Amos the Prophet (Heb. and Greek texts), 1906.
Nahum. A. B. Davidson in Camb. Bibl. for Schools.
Habakkuk. W. R. Betteridge, The Interpretation of Prophecy in
Habakkuk, in A. J. Th. VIII. Oct., 1904; H. St J. Thackeray, in
J. Th. Stud. XII. 46, Jan. 1911; M. L. Margolis, The Character of the
Anonymous Version of
Zephaniah. S. Zandstra, The Witness of the Vulgate, Peshitta, and Septuagint to the Text of Zephaniah, New York, 1909.
Isaiah. R. R. Ottley, Isaiah according to the Septuagint, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1904, 1906.
Ezekiel. G. Jahn, Das Buch Ezechiel nach LXX., 1905.
Daniel. G. Jahn, Das Buch Daniel nach LXX., 1904; W. H. Daubney, The Three Additions to Daniel, Cambridge, 1906.
P. 267. Sir H. Howorth has expressed his views further in Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. 23, 24, and J. Th. Stud. V. 19, and holds that Chronicles also is the work of Theodotion. Thackeray is now (Gramm. of O.T. in Greek, p. xx) inclined to agree with regard to 2 Esdras, but has his doubts about Chronicles. See, however, Torrey, Ezra Studies, p. 66 ff., and Apparatus for Text. Crit. of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah. Thackeray is also of opinion that the hand of the writer of 1 Esdras may 'be traced in the 518 earlier chapters of the Chisian text of Daniel' (Gramm. O.T.G. p. 12). Sir H. Howorth's views were to some extent anticipated by Pohlmann in the Tübingen Quartalschrift, 1859.
P. 268. On the style of Wisdom, see Thackeray on Rhythm in Wisdom, J. Th. Stud. VI. p. 232 ff.; with which may be coupled his article on The Poetry of the Greek Book of Proverbs, ibid. XIII. 49, p. 46 ff. He dates Wisdom, on grounds of spelling, between 132 and 100 B.C. (Gramm. O.T.G. p. 62).
P. 270. Mr J. H. A. Hart (Ecclesiasticus in Greek, p. 259 ff.) fixes the date of the grandson's arrival in Egypt as 247 B.C., interpreting the Greek phrase as 'in the eight-and-thirtieth year, under King Euergetes'; i.e. in the thirty-eighth year of Philadelphus, in which he had been succeeded by Euergetes I. He urges that under Euergetes II. no Jew could have worked in Egypt. (See above, on p. 10 ff.) Dr Oesterley combats this view in his Introduction to the book in Camb. Bible for Schools; but it deserves careful examination. It is curious that the names, which might have been expected to fix the date of composition of the book, admit of alternative explanations.
P. 271. Professor Margoliouth's theory concerning the extant Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus cannot be said to be gaining ground. Yet, on the other hand, there is a tendency to agree that the Hebrew text, as we possess it, is not the original of the Greek, which, assuming it to be translated from Hebrew, must have followed two other recensions. The A. V. follows mainly the text of 248 and the cursives resembling it; the R. V. that of the uncials, which is considerably shorter. The Hebrew now extant comes from four MSS. dating about the eleventh century. They include the greater part of the book, from iii. 6 onward, except xxvii. 6—xxx. 11. Some verses occur in two MSS., a few even in three; there is some variety, and considerable corruption in some places.
P. 273. Mozley, Psalter of the Church, p. xii, remarks on
Jerome's method: 'So that nether his eyes saw the page of the
original, nor his fingers held the pen.' Oxyrh. Pap. 1076, containing
P. 275. Baruch α (
P. 279, note 2. Wendland (Aristeas, p. 133) says: 'equidem censeo Πτολεμαϊκά esse Aristeae, qui ex Ptolemaei ephemeridibus se hausisse testatur.'
P. 283. It is possible that the Odes of Solomon, of which the Syriac text was discovered by Dr Rendel Harris, and published in 1910 (ed. 2, 1911), have no real title to be mentioned here, as they may be Christian productions of a time which would remove them from any list of O.T. apocryphal writings. In view, however, of their possibly close connexion with the Psalms of Solomon, they may receive a passing notice. The Syriac text contained 17 (or 18) Psalms and 42 Odes. These latter have been variously estimated and explained; some, at first, thinking them to be the work of a Jewish Christian, others to be Jewish, but with Christian interpolations. The question turns mainly on the fourth and sixth Odes. The latest published theory is that of the Bishop of Ossory, who holds them to be hymns sung by (Eastern) Christians on the occasion of their public baptism. In this case, the date would be about the end of the first century A.D., while the view that their origin was Jewish admits a date as early, perhaps, as 100 B.C. Dr Bernard's view, which has already gained some adherents, is published in the Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. VIII. no. 3; and the Syriac text of the Odes has also been published separately.
P. 285. To the list in the footnote may be added the Story of Aḥiḳar (from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Greek, and Slavonic Versions, edited by F. C. Conybeare, J. Rendel Harris, and Agnes Smith Lewis, Cambridge, 1898), and The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (or 2 Enoch), though extant only in a Slavonic version. It may be convenient also to refer here to the Pistis Sophia, a Gnostic work known from a Coptic MS. in the British Museum (ed. J. H. Petermann, Berlin, 1851; and examined by A. Harnack, in O. von Gebhardt's and A. Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, Band VII. 2, Leipzig, 1892); the canonical Psalter is freely quoted in it, with a text bearing marked resemblances to that of Cod. א; and until Dr Rendel Harris's recent discovery, the Odes of Solomon were chiefly known from its quotation of them.
LITERATURE of the non-Canonical Books, add:
1 Esdras. P. Riefster, D. text-krit. Wert des 3 Ezra-buches, in Bibl. Zeitung, 5, p. 146.
Wisdom of Solomon. J. A. F. Gregg, in Camb. Bible for Schools.
520Wisdom of the Son of Sirach. J. H. A. Hart, Ecclesiasticus in Greek, Cambridge, 1909; W. O. E. Oesterley in Camb. Bible for Schools, 1912. N. Schmidt in Temple Bible; R. Smend, Griechisch-syrisch-hebräischer Index zur Weisheit d. Jes. Sirach, 1907. On the Heb. text; J. Knabenbauer, Comm. in Ecclesiasticum, Paris, 1902; R. Smend, Die Weisheit d. Jes. Sir. erklärt, Berlin, 1906, also a Germ. translation, 1906; H. L. Strack, Die Sprüche Jesus d. S. Sirachs, Leipzig, 1903; A. Fuchs, Textkr. Untersuchungen zum Heb. Ekkl., in Bibl. Studien, 1907; Ecclesiasticus Hebraice . . ., Freiburg, 1905; articles in Encycl. Bibl. and Jewish Encycl.
Facsimiles of the Fragments hitherto recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew have been published jointly by the Universities of Oxf. and Camb.
Judith. H. Willrich in Judaica, 1900, pp. 1—39.
Tobit. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, 1832; M. Löhr, Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus zum Buche Tobit, in ZATW. XX. p. 243 ff. (1900); J . H. Moulton, The Iranian background of Tobit, in Exp. Times, XI. p. 257 ff.; E. Cosquin in D. B. IV. p. 785 ff.; also articles in Revue Biblique, Jan. 1899, in Jewish Encycl. XII. p. 171 (C. H. Toy) and Encycl. Bibl. (W. Erbt).
Baruch. A. M. Amelli, De libri Baruch vetustissima latina versione, Montecassino, 1902.
1—4 Maccabees. W. Fairweather and J. S. Black, 1 Maccabees, in Camb. Bible for Schools; B. Niese, Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher, Berlin, 1900; R. Laqueur, Kritische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabäerbuch, Strassburg, 1904; G . Mercati, Frammenti Urbinati d’ un’ antica versione latina del libro II. de’ Maccabei, in Revue Biblique, II. p. 184 ff.; I. Abrahams in J. Q. R. 1896, p. 39, 1897, p. 39; H. Willrich, Jason von Kyrene and das ii Makkabäerbuch, in Judaica, 1900, pp. 131 ff.; A. Schlatter, Jason von Cyrene, Munich, 1891; A. Büchler, Die Tobiaden and die Oniaden im II Makkabäerbuch, Vienna, 1899.
Pseudepigrapha. R. H. Charles and A. Cowley, An early source of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, J. Q. R. XIX. p. 566 ff.
General. L. E. T. André Les Apocryphes de l’Ancien Testament, Florence, 1903; A. Bertholet, Apocryphen, in K. Budde's Geschichte der alt-hebräischen Literatur, Leipzig, 1906; arts. in Encycl. Bibl. and Schaff-Herzog Encycl.
In 1913 appeared the two great volumes of the Oxford Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, edited by Prof R. H. Charles. This contains translations, with critical and explanatory notes and full Introductions, of all the books of the Apocrypha, 3 and 4 Maccabees, 1 and 2 Enoch, 2 and 3 Baruch, The Book of Jubilees, The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, The Letter of Aristeas, The Sibylline Oracles, The Story of Aḥiḳar, and a few other works. The editor has had the assistance of various eminent scholars, 521including the producers of the original edition of the Story of Aḥiḳar; and the work, from its comprehensive and complete character, promises to be indispensable to students for years to come. It is only possible here to indicate its great importance.
P. 289. During the last ten to twenty years, students have devoted great and increasing attention to the Greek language of those centuries during which the books of the Greek Bible, translated or original, appeared. Large quantities of papyri, literary and familiar, have been discovered and examined; including many Biblical fragments. The Oxyrhynchus, Tebtunis, Amherst, Rylands, and other collections—many of them edited with admirable skill by Drs Grenfell and Hunt—form a rich store, which will doubtless continue to grow. The study of these materials has brought about a certain shifting in the estimate formed of the language of the Greek Bible, to which Professor Deissmann and Professor Moulton have given a strong impulse. They urge that the difference between the language of the Greek Old and New Testaments, and other contemporary Greek, is shown by the study of the papyri to be, lexically and grammatically, almost non-existent; they bring forward parallels from the papyri to almost every construction and phrase formerly termed a 'Hebraism'; and account for them as colloquial, ordinary, or illiterate Greek of the period, rather than as Semiticised, or as specially Egyptian or Alexandrian. They make an exception as regards what they call 'translation Greek'; but the student whose interest lies mainly in the Septuagint may think that so large a portion of it comes under this head, that the exception may carry them further from their main position than they are in fact prepared to go. Against t heir view Wellhausen (in his Einleitung in die drei erste Evangelien, 1905) speaks strongly for Aramaism in the N.T. itself; and others (e.g. G. C. Richards in his review of Moulton's prolegomena to his Grammar of the New Test. in Greek, in J. Th. Stud. X. 38, p. 283 ff. Jan. 1909) feel the Semitic tone or cast of much of the Greek Bible, and of particular expressions in it, to be so marked, that even the appearance of parallel or identical expressions in the papyri does not entirely convince them that Semitic influence is out of the question as the cause that produces them where they stand, and in the quantity that is present. On the whole, there is a natural tendency for those who are mainly New Testament scholars and Greek philologists to favour what may be called the purely Greek theory, while the Semitic influence is more prominent in the minds of those whose life's study has been chiefly concerned with Hebrew and Aramaic. But a general survey of the question suggests that the difference is rather a matter of terms and of aspect than of real divergence as to the main mass of facts. The balance is very fairly held by the author of the Grammar of the 522Old Testament in Greek: see pp. 25 ff., 31 ff. He speaks of . . . 'a general recognition that the basis of the language of the Greek Bible is the vernacular employed throughout the whole Greek-speaking world since the time of Alexander the Great. The number of "Hebraisms" formerly so called has been reduced by phenomena in the papyri, the importance of which Deissmann was the first to recognise': but follows this with a caution: 'the emphasis which has been laid upon the occurrence of certain words and usages in the Egyptian papyri which are exactly equivalent to, or bear a fairly close resemblance to, phrases in the Greek Bible hitherto regarded as "Hebraic" is likely to create a false impression, especially as regards the nature of the Semitic element in the LXX.' He points out the slightness of dialect-differences in the κοινή, and dismisses the theory of a '"Jewish-Greek" jargon, in use in the Ghettos of Alexandria'; but adds, 'Notwithstanding that certain so-called "Hebraisms" have been removed from that category . . . it is impossible to deny the existence of a strong Semitic influence in the Greek of the LXX.? He agrees in the main with Dr J. H. Moulton as to 'the overworking of . . . certain correct, though unidiomatic, modes of speech, because they happen to coincide with Hebrew idioms.' Once more: 'The Hebraic character of these books [the Pentateuch and some other of the earlier versions] consists in the accumulation of a number of just tolerable Greek phrases, which nearly correspond to what is normal and idiomatic in Hebrew.'
The present writer must content himself with a reference to his Isaiah according to the Septuagint, vol. I. p. 35 ff., 'Methods of Rendering,' for a slightly different view of the subject. But it may be of interest to quote a passage from a book published so long ago as 1875 (A. Carr, Notes on St Luke, Introduction, p. 9 ff.) to show how far it was possible even then, before the discovery and study of the papyri had made much progress, to estimate the nature of the Greek of the Alexandrian and New Testament periods. Most of the following passages might have been written yesterday.
'When the books of the New Testament were written, Greek had become the literary language of the world. . . . The Greek dialect which the Evangelists and Apostles adopted or found is a far less exact representative of thought than the Greek that was handled by Thucydides or Euripides—the middle voice is rapidly disappearing, the dual number is never employed, the tenses of verbs are losing their distinctive force, and the aorist is beginning to be used . . . to the exclusion of the synthetic perfect. . . . The Attic dialect . . . was in a sense limited and peculiar. Its fastidious nature made it impatient of foreign intrusion. Hellenistic Greek, on the contrary, was all-embracing in its sympathies. . . . The purest Attic appears on the same page with an antiquated Aeolic form or a 523modern barbarism. The campaigns of Alexander . . . the luxury of eastern satraps, the schools of Alexandria, . . . the Homeric enthusiasm of the grammarians, . . . have contributed to store the rich though barbarous magazine of Hellenistic Greek.
It will be seen that Hellenistic Greek did not grow degenerate in the lips of natives, but was corrupted by foreigners; and, just as the waters of a stream are coloured by the soil over which they flow, so the Greek language in the New Testament is strongly influenced by Aramaic forms of expression. It is, indeed, often simply Aramaic thinly disguised by a Greek dress. But, on the other hand, there has been, perhaps, too great a tendency to set down every idiom that offends the scholar's ear as a Hebrew mode of expression. This strangeness of idiom is frequently to be referred to other causes. Sometimes it is the influence of Latin; sometimes the idiom will be found to be Greek as well as Hebrew, but Greek of a kind that had been heretofore confined to the speech of the vulgar.'
P. 314. Literature. Add:
G. A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, 1907; English trans. by L. R. M. Strachan, London, 1910; Bible Studies (including Bibel-Studien and Neue Bibel-Studien), tans. A. Grieve, Edinburgh, 1901; Philology of the Greek Bible, 1908; R. Helbing, Grammatik der Septuaginta, i. Laut- und Wortlehre, 1907; H. St J. Thackeray, Grammar of the Old Test. in Greek, vol. I. Introd., Orthography and Accidence, Cambridge, 1909; J. Psichari, Essai sur le Grec de la Septante, in Revue des Études Juives, Tome LV. No. 110, Paris, 1908; R. Meister, Prolegomena zu einer Grammatik der Septuaginta, in Wiener-Studien, XXVII. 2; Beiträge zur Lautlehre der LXX., Vienna, 1909; G. N. Hatzidakis, Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik, Leipzig, 1892; A. Thumb, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular, trans. S. Angus, Edinburgh, 1912; art. Hellenistic Greek in Funk and Wagnall's American Standard Bible Dictionary; J. Wackernagel, Hellenistica, Göttingen, 1907; U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ueber die Entstehung der griechischen Schriftsprache, Leipzig, 1879.
On the grammar of the New Testament: J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of N. T. Greek, Prolegomena, ed. 3, 1908; N. T. Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery, in Camb. Biblical Essays, 1909; F. Blass, Philology of the Gospels, 1898; J. de Zwaan, Syntaxis der Wijzen en Tijden in het Grieksche Nieuwe Testament, Haarlem, 1906.
In connexion with Semitism in N.T. Greek: J. Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, Berlin, 1905; G. C. Richard's review of Moulton's Prolegomena, Gramm. of N. T. Greek, in J. Th. Stud. X. 38, pp. 283 ff. Monographs and articles on special points extend over a wide range: e.g. H. F. Allen, The Infinitive in Polybius compared with the Infin. in Biblical Greek, Chicago, 1907; H. A. Redpath on The Present Position of the Study of the LXX. and on The Geography of the LXX., in A. J. Th. VII. (Jan., Apr. 1903).
524
The Oxford Concordance to the Septuagint was completed in 1906.
Introductory: Selections from the Septuagint according to the text of Swete, by F. C. Conybeare and St G. Stock, Boston, 1905.
The publications of papyri have become very numerous; among them are:
British Museum Papyri, ed. F. G. Kenyon, 1893.
Paris Papyri. (in Notices et Extraits), ed. Brunet de Presle, 1858, 1865.
Berlin, Griechische Urkunden, ed. U. Wilcken, 1895, 1898, 1903, ed. W. Schubart, 1911.
Flinders Petrie Papyri, ed. J. P. Mahaffy (in Proc. R.I.A.), 1891, etc.
Papyri Graeci Regii Taurinensis Musei Aegyptii, ed. Peyrow, Turin, 1826.
Geneva Papyri, ed. J. Nicole, 1896, 1900.
Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, ed. C. Wessely, Vienna, 1895.
Florence Papyri, ed. Vitelli, Milan, 1905.
Die Septuaginta Papyri . . . der Heidelberger Papyrus Sammlung, ed. G. A. Deissmann, 1905.
Papyri Graeci Musei antiquarii publici, ed. C. Leemans, Leyden, 1843.
Papyrus Grecs de l’Université de Lille, ed. P. Collart and J. Lesquier, Paris, 1908.
Karanis Papyri, ed. E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago, 1900.
Eine Mithras-Liturgie, ed. A. Dieterich, Leipzig, 1903.
Pathyris Papyri, ed. de Ricci (Archiv II. p. 514).
Griech. Pap. der k. Bibl. zu Strassburg, ed. F. Preisigke, 1907, 1912.
Griech. Papyri zu Giessen, ed. E. Kornemann and P. M. Meyer, Leipzig and Berlin, 1912.
And the various publications of the Egypt Exploration Fund, chiefly edited by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt:
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, edited with translations and notes. Nine parts up to 1912.
Fayûm Towns and their Papyri, 1900; The Amherst Papyri, 1900, 1901; The Tebtunis Papyri (Univ. of California Publications), two parts; the Hibeh Papyri, 1906.
Also Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, ed. A. S. Hunt, 1911.
Here may be mentioned also ΛΟΓΙΑ ΙΗΣΟΥ, from an early Greek Papyrus; New Sayings of Jesus, and Fragment of a lost Gospel; Fragment of an uncanonical Gospel from Oxyrhynchus; An Alexandrian erotic Fragment, and other Greek Papyri, chiefly Ptolemaic; New Classical Fragments and other Papyri.
Coptic Ostraca, from the collections of the E. E. Fund, etc. . . . texts edited . . . by W. E. Crum, London, 1902.
In connexion with the study of these papyri, various selections and aids have appeared.
525
S. Witkowski, Epistulae privatae Graecae quae in papyris aetatis Lagidarum servantur, Leipzig, 1905; H. Lietzmann, Greek Papyri (Materials for Theol. Lect. and Students, No. 14), Cambridge, 1905; G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, Cambridge, 1910.
F. G. Kenyon, Palaeography of Greek Papyri, 1899; E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, Leipzig, 1906; W. Crönert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, Leipzig, 1903; L. Mitteis and U. Wilcken, Grundzüge and Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, 4 vols., Leipzig and Berlin, 1912.
The publications on the kindred study of Inscriptions are widely scattered, largely in periodicals, and so numerous that only a small selection can be mentioned here:
E. S. Roberts and E. A. Gardner, Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, vol. 1 (out of print), vol. 2, 1905; W. Larfeld, Handbuch der Griechischen Epigraphik, Leipzig, vol. I., 1908, vol. 2, 1902; E. Schwyzer (formerly Schweizer), Grammatik der pergamenischen Inschriften, Berlin, 1898, and a new edition of K. Meisterhans' Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, Berlin, 1900; E. Nachmanson, Laute and Formen der magnetischen Inschriften, Upsala, 1903; O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander, Berlin, 1900; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Inschriften von Priene, 1906.
The Berlin Inscriptiones Graecae now extend to twelve volumes; there are also four vols. of Inscr. Gr. ad res Romanas pertinentes, Paris; and the Recueil d’Inscriptions grecques, ed. C. Michel (Brussels, 1900, suppl. i. 1911).
(The study of the Inscriptions is important, because they range over the whole of the Greek-speaking territory, while papyri are chiefly confined to Egypt. Hence they. are used to establish the position that the κοινή was, in the main, homogeneous and free from dialectical differences. Their style is, naturally, more elevated than that of letters and local documents, but they belong to the κοινή, and are not altogether remote from the more 'vulgar' Greek which is found in the bulk of papyri.)
P. 317. γένοιτο also occurs in
P. 319. The spelling of the Hebrew Bible is perhaps based on that of a MS., no longer extant, of about A.D. 135.
P. 321. Other cases of possible confusions are between:
כ and ד, see
ר and ו,
ר and ה,
ם and מ,
Cf. the strong remarks in Driver's Hebrew Tenses (p. xiii. in first ed.) on the worthlessness of LXX.'s evidence as between ו and י, with numerous instances.
P. 324. With Iἐν ἐμοί of
(b). On transliteration, Thackeray (Gramm. O.T.G. p. 31)
points out that it is rare in the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Jerem. α, and
the Minor Prophets; and absent altogether from Ezek. β, Proverbs,
Psalms (except in titles, and ἀλληλουιά), and from Job, apart from
the Hexaplar additions from Theodotion. In Isaiah, moreover,
only two instances occur, of which σωρήχ,
P. 327. The LXX. appear to avoid the familiar metaphor of a 'Rock' in nearly all cases;
See
P. 330.
1. πολὺς ἔσται. Heb. has here Hiphil inf. abs., used predicatively.
2. ἀπολύομαι. For this sense of the verb, cf. Soph. Antig. 1265,
1314; also in Polybius. Can הָלַרְ have the sense of 'depart this life'?
See
3. κληρονομήσει. This sense is found also in the later literary Greek.
4. Ἐκ σοῦ. Cf.
P. 333.
P. 336.
Consult throughout this passage Burney's Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings.
P. 340. Literature.
Add: M. L. Margolis, Studien in griech. A. T., ZATW., 27, p. 212; H. A. Redpath, Mytholog. Terms in the LXX., in A. J. Th. 9, I. p. 34 (Jan. 1905).
527P. 360. It was pointed out by the late Dr C. Taylor that in
P. 366. Add: E. Lindl, Die Octateuch-Catene des Prokop von Gaza and die Septuagintaforschung, Munich, 1902.
P. 380. Add: J. Herriot, Philon le Juif, Paris, 1898.
P. 387. The phrase χλωρὸς χόρτος,
P. 398. In
P. 418. Rahlfs (Sept.-Studien, II. p. 206) regards Justin's quotations as having been corrected by scribes from texts of the LXX.; as also those of the Fathers, e.g. Theodoret (p. 175) and Clem. Rom. (p. 201). He refers to Hilgenfeld, in Baur and Zeller's Theolog. Jahrbücher, 1850, and Bousset, Die Evangeliencitate Justins d. Märtyrers, p. 19 ff.: also Hatch, Essays in Bibl. Greek, p. 186 ff.
P. 424. The question has been raised (in correspondence, by
Mr R. B. Girdlestone) whether there are to be found any distinctively
Jewish, as opposed to Christian, MSS. of the LXX. It
is not easy to answer categorically. But, in view of the dates
when the translation appears to have been made, and the fact that
the latest books to be translated offer, in general, the smallest
opportunities for changes to be made by Christian
hands, it would seem that the translation, originally purely Jewish, can have
suffered very little in this way. (See p. 30 ff.) For instance, the
famous addition in
The just conclusion seems to be that, previous to Origen, the text was scarcely affected, if at all; and Origen's intentions were certainly not such as to impair the Hebraica veritas; so that if any Christian additions have slipped here or there into the text, they are probably few and slight; there is no trace of anything that approaches to deliberate Christianising of the text. The times when such a thing might have been possible were not those when the LXX. text passed through its main vicissitudes. See Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, p. 89 ff., and his conclusion that 'the vast majority of the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek throughout the Old Testament could have had no possible partisan motive whatever.'
See also page 479.
P. 427. Mr Thackeray (J. Th. Stud. XIII. 49), writing on The Poetry of the Greek Book of Proverbs, finds an astonishing number of metrical and quasi-metrical passages. He now adds that 'Clem. Alex.'s text of Proverbs . . . occasionally preserves the metrical and probably original forms which have disappeared from other texts, e.g.:
Clem. Al. Strom. II. 19, 483p
χρηστοὶ δὲ ἔσονται οἰκήτορες γῆς,
? orig. text χρηστοὶ δ᾿ ἔσονται τῆσδε γῆς οἰκήτορες ,
Cf. Cod. V, Arm. and Clem. Rom.; also the readings of אA.
Strom. I. 29, 247p
ὁδοὺς γὰρ βιότητος ἐλέγχει παιδεία,
? orig. παιδεία γὰρ ὁδοὺς βιότητος ἐλέγχει.
βιότης = βιὸς is else a ἅπαξ λεγ. in
Similarly Chrysostom is possibly right in reading, in
ἢ παράθεσις μόσχων μετὰ ἔχθρας
ἢ βοῦς ἀπὸ φάτνης.᾽
P. 432. Literature: add Constantinus Oikonomus, vol. IV.
P. 442. There is an excursus on
P. 448. Ὑπὲρ τῶν λρυφίων τοῦ υἱοῦ. See Mr Thackeray's paper in J. Th. Stud. XI. 44, referred to above, on p. 247.
P. 486. In 1907 Professor Rahlfs developed a provisional plan for a scientific edition of the LXX.: the Academy of Berlin, the Royal Society of Göttingen, and the Prussian Ministerium of Instruction to cooperate. MSS. were to be collated, in Greek, Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic. The 529Latin MSS. to be left to the Pontifical Commission for the revision of the Vulgate. The Fathers to be examined by various scholars; Dr E. Hautsch taking Theodoret. See Erster Bericht über das Septuaginta-Unternehmen, 1908 (Nachrichten d. k. G. d. W. zu Göttingen); Geschäftliche Mitteilungen, 1909, Heft I.
See also a brief account by Dr Nestle in A. J. Th. XIV. 2 (April 1910); as well as his Die grosse Cambridger Septuaginta (Verhandlungen der XIII. Internationalen 0rientalistenkongresses, 1902).
P. 490. Both A and B, as has been seen, show here and there
signs of considerable Hexaplaric addition. It is therefore fortunate
that, owing to the varying character of the books in our great Greek
Bibles, this influence seldom affects both MSS. equally in the same
passages. On Job, see Burkitt, 0. L. and Itala, pp. 6 ff., 32 ff.
Even within the same book, Rahlfs finds the character of A different
in what remains of
L. Dieu (Muséon, 1912, p. 223 f.) who has investigated the text of Job from various points of view—see above, on p. 108—considers that A in that book is mainly Lucianic. This he deduces from the intrinsic character of its text ('corrections d’après 1’hébreu, doublets, remaniements d’après des passages parallèlles, corrections destinées à éclaircir le sens ou compléter la phrase, tendances à l’atticisme': cf, Rahlfs, Sept. Stud. II. p. 230, 236, III. p. 158, 172, 281 ff.), as well as from its associates, which are here rather curious; an anonymous Arian commentary on ch. i.—iii., known only in a Latin translation; a commentary formerly attributed to Origen, but assigned by Dr H. Usener to Julian of Halicarnassus; and another, in the Laurentian Library at Florence, attributed, though somewhat doubtfully, to Chrysostom. To these are to be added V, in the first, the cursives 249 and 254, in the second, and 55, 68, 106, 261 in the third degree of closeness. Some of these, especially 68 and 106, are held to give a Hesychian text in other books; and in Isaiah, for instance, 106 goes very closely with A, and is, perhaps, the more markedly Hesychian. For 55, see Rahlfs, II. p. 235.
530M. Dieu considers that A's text in Job is nearer to the original than that of אB; he calls the Sahidic to witness; but see above, on pp. 85, 108. He also adduces in support the marginal readings of Cod. Gothicus Legionensis: see Rahlfs, III. 158, and Notices et Extraits, XXXIV. pp. 134 ff.
P. 497. Add:
O. Procksch, Studien zur Geschichte der Septuaginta, in Kittel's Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom A. T. Heft 7, Leipzig, 1910; G. Jahn, Beiträge z. Beurteilung der Septuaginta. Ein Wurdigung Wellhausencher Textkritik, 1902; Ester (1901), Daniel (1904), Ezechiel (1905); J. Dahse, Textkritische Studien, in ZATW. 1908, pp. 18 ff., 161 ff.
Appendix. The Letter of Aristeas.
531
532
[blank page]
Introduction
533The 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 on a MS. hitherto supposed to be lost, with a few readings taken from a second (Vatican) MS. Wendland in his recent edition (1900) has made it practically certain that Schard's principal MS. was Codex Monacensis 9, which at that time was at Tübingen and easily accessible to him. As to his second MS., there exists in the Library at Basle (MS. O. IV. 10, 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[1]. Until 1870 the latest edition of the text was that which Hody prefixed to his work De Bibliorum Textibus, published at Oxford in 1705. This was merely a reprint of the text of Schard, Hody naïvely confessing in his preface that he did not consider the work of collating 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 solicitare, et in Partes longinquas mittere, vix operae pretium existimavi. 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 1.) 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 beginning, 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 534of the official titles and phraseology of the Ptolemaic court, was first pointed out by Prof. Lumbroso. He says[1], 'Depuis quarante ans, un rayon de lumière 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 magistrature, 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 l’époque, qui ne se trouve enregistré dans les papyrus ou les inscriptions et confirmé par eux'[1]. 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 Ptolemaic rule, the third Book of Maccabees[1].
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 a1so 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 Lumbroso (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 collated 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 535a fifth of the letter with commentary but without introduction, was published soon after his death[1]. The remainder of his work was placed in the hands of Prof. Wendland, who has now brought out a text on which no pains have been spared, followed by the testimonia critically edited, and full and valuable indices[1]. The present writer had, before the appearance of the German edition, been entrusted by Dr Swete with the preparation of a text of the letter from such materials as he had at hand. In this second edition he has made free use of Wendland's work, as also of his translation of the letter in Kautzsch's Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments. The apparatus criticus will show how many obscurities have been cleared up by the acute conjectures of Mendelssohn, Wendland, and their collaborateurs. For one happy emendation (§ 105, p. 538) the writer is indebted to the Rev. H. A. Redpath. For convenience of reference Wendland's sections have been inserted in the margin. It must be added that one early MS. (Cod. Monacensis 9), which stands by itself, and is probably the parent of Schard's edition, is unrepresented in the present text.
The following genealogical table will show approximately how the MSS. which have been used are related to each other.
536
The MSS. denoted in the above table are as follows:
H | Vat. 747, | 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 | P | Barberini IV. 56. |
R | Basle O. IV. 10 (Omont 21). | S | Vat. 1668 |
I | Palat. 203. | Z | Zurich Bibl. de la Ville C. 11 (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 handed down is by no means 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 ἄνδρες—εἰς προοίμιον τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς.
13. Catena of Theodoret and other patristic writers on the Octateuch.
259. πόσαι παραδόσεις εἰσὶ τῆς θείας γραφῆς.
260. ποσάκις καὶ ποτε ἐπορθήθησαν οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ.
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 margin. Single column, 48 lines in a page: size of page 14 x 10½ in., of writing 11¼ x 7¾ 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 m 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.
537
K, CODEX VATICANUS. Rome. Vat. Gr. 383, saec. xii.—xiii. membr. 319 foll.
fol. 1. Aristeas.
29. Theodoret to Hypatius.
19vo. Catena on Genesis.
187. Catena on Exodus.
Size of page 12¾ x 9 in., of writing 10½ x 7¼ 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. 10 (Omont[1] 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: ου KR (ων cett.) p. 5I9. 4, διαθεσις καθαρα KR (καθ. διαθεσις cett.) p. 519. 8, κυριωτερον KR (κυριωτατον cett.) p. 519. 9, οι ανδρες ασφαλως KR (ασφ. οι ανδρες cett.) p. 528. 10, σαλισγουμενοι KR (συναλισγ. cett.) p. 543. 23, χρωμεθα KR (χρωμενα cett.) p. 544. 10, om. και περι τουτων—σεμνοτητα KR p. 548. 16 f. The MS. has the inscription at the end, 'donum Simonis Schardii Magdiburgiensis'
A, CODEX REGIUS. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 128, saec. xii. membr. 61O pagg.
p. 1. Aristeas.
26. Theodoret to Hypatius.
27. Preface to Genesis from Gregory of Nyssa, inc. ἐπειδήπερ εἰσαγώγιμον 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 14½ x 10¾ in., of writing 11 x 7 in. A hand of the fourteenth century (Lumbroso[1]) 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 he read in D which has copied them. Montfaucon (Bibl. Bibliothecarum, II. 725) mentions this MS., and describes it as written 'manu XII. circiter saeculi.' On p. 610 is written a note, + ισιν εν (?) ταυτα εις δοξαν | θῡ και της αγιας τριαδος φι|λα [? φυλλα] τριακοσια γ ητοι (?) τ γ +.
538
Descendants of A(DFL).
D, CODEX REGIUS. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 130, saec. xv. chart. 288 foll.
fol. 1. Aristeas.
26vo. Theodoret to Hypatius.
27. 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 Gregoropoulus'; Omont takes this apparently from the 1740 catalogue which says 'videtur 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 13¾ X 9½ in.: writing 9 x 5½ in. 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, saec. 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 καὶ ποτε ἐπορθήθησαν οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ.
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. i., saec. xv. (partim saec. xi.—xii.?) membr. 251 foll.
fol. 1. Aristeas.
12. Theodoret to Hypatius.
13. Catena on Genesis and Exodus.
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 53913 x 11 in., of writing 11¾ x 8¾ in., the number of lines in a page varying from 21 to 43. It is written apparently in two different hands; pp. 1—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 -ματων ω βασιλευ (p. 521. 24.). It ends with ριστεας ιλοκρατει (sic). This ending marks a peculiarity of the MS.; the rubricator has omitted to fill in the initial capital letters, hence we find αι for και, ρος for προς, αμβανειν 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) p. 564. 1. προς τουτ—ποιησεσιν επιτελοι (50 letters) om HKA(DFL) ins GIM and B group.
(2) p. 566. 10. εστιν επιτελεια—διατηρεις της (53 letters) om HKA(DFL) ins GIM and B group.
(3) p. 559. 19. καθως υπο—διοικειται κατα (51 letters) om HKA(DFL)GIM ins B group.
From the first two of these omissions it appears that HKA must be derived from an original (γ) which omitted these lines, an ancestor of γ 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 γ. H and A are more closely connected than H and K; notice 551. 18 αναπτω (σιν sup lin) H αναπτω A; 562. 20 απαν H (τ suprascr Hcorr) 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. 1 χρωμενοι ADFL (συγχρωμενοι cett.), 537. 4 εισεληλυθεναι ADFL (εληλυθεναι cett.), 547. 3 ευλογιας ADFL (λογιας cett.), 569. 21 επαυεπαυσατο (sic) ADFL, and the omissions which they have in common:
539. 27. | ουτος δε εξεισιν—Αζωτιων χωραν | } | om ADFL. |
550. 21. | γαρ ων ανθρωπος—συνεστρωσε δε παντα | ||
554. 8. | προς ευφροπυνην—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 μεταδορημενα (sic) σοι διαμενη, where the lines in A are divided thus: μεταδο|τικος ων και μεγαλομερης ουδεποτ αν αρολιποι δοξης ινα δε τα προει|ρημενα 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 Ἀλέξανδρος εἶπεν ἐρωτηθεὶς πῶς ἐν ὀλίγῳ 540μεγάλα κατώρθωσεν, ὅτι, φησίν, οὐδέποτε πράγματα ἐπιβαλὼν ἠμελήθη. At 541. 11 συμβουλευοντω of A (the stroke over the ω being very faint) has become συμβουλευοντα in D. That F is a direct transcript of A is proved by its repeating a line of A twice over, reading at 550. 16 α μεν ετι και νυν εκαστον αποτελειν· ην γαρ ουτω διατεταγμενον υπο του βασιλεως α μεν ετι και νυν ορας· οσαι γαρ κ.τ.λ. The lines in A are arranged thus: εκελευσε την ετοιμασιαν εις | εκαστον αποτελειν· ην γαρ ουτω διατεταγμενον υπο του βασιλεως α μεν ετι και νυν | ορας· οσαι γαρ κ.τ.λ. Lastly, that L is a direct transcript of A is made practically certain[1] by 529. 21, where L omits the words συνιδειν πραγματων—λκαλλονην εκελευσε which form exactly a line in A. Just below (530. 1) L negligently inserts in the text (where it is quite unsuitable) after του 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.
fol. 1. Aristeas.
6vo. Theodoret to Hypatius.
7. Catena on the Octateuch.
296. πόσαι παραδόσεις εἰσὶ τῆς θείας γραφῆς.
Size of page 12¼ x 9½ in., of writing 9¾ x 7 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 compressed into 5¼ leaves. The Aristeas with the Theodoret seems to have been tacked on to the MS. later, as there is a second numbering of pages (α, β, γ, 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. 541Recanati Aliorumque'; a note in the catalogue adds 'catenam hanc in Bibliotheca Julii Justiniani D. M. Procuratoris vidit Montfauconius et descripsit in Diario Italico[1].'
I, CODEX PALATINUS. Rome. Bibl. Vatic. Pal. Gr. 203, saec. xi. membr. 304 foll.
fol. 1. 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 14¼ x 10½ in., of writing 11½ x 3½ in. The Aristeas and the Catena are by the same hand. The bookplate (apparently common to all 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. Bibl. Vatic. Ottobon. Gr. 32, saec. xv. chart. 70 foll.
fol. 1—14. | Παλλαδίου περὶ τῶν τῆς Ἰνδίας ἐθνῶν καὶ τῶν Βραγμάνων. |
15,16 | blank |
fol. 17—27 | τοῦ φιλοπόνου Ἰωάννου εἰς τὸ ἐπίλοιπον τῆς φυσικῆς ἀκροάσεως. |
28. | blank. |
29—44. | τοῦ φιλοσοφωτάτου καὶ ῥητορικωτάτου Κϋρου Θεοδωρούτου προδρόμου. |
45—70vo. | Ἀριστέας Φιλοκράτῃ. |
Size of page 14½ x 9½ in., of writing 9¼ x 5 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].'
542
GIM agree in almost all cases, including omissions such as 528. 10 om ασφαλως GIM, mistakes such as 529. 14 καταθηκουσας GIM (καθηκ. cett.), 534. 1 μεγαλοις GIM (μεγαλοι cett.), 552. 26 δυναμενων GIM (δυναμεων cett.), and peculiarities of spelling and vocalization. They almost always insert ν ἐφελκυστικόν before consonants, write iota adscript, interchange ο and ω (προτευουσα, πασχωμεν [= πασχομεν], μεταφερον [= -ων]) and ιand η (φιλικοος, δαψηλως, τινικαυτα, προδιλως), 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 η παιδεια αυτη G, παιδειας διαγωγη I) 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 προς την χρησιν την τραπεζαν IM (την τραπ. προς την χρ. cett.), 540.7 μετα IM (μεταλλα cett:), 541. 3 γεγραπται IM (γεγραφεναι cett.), 543. 25 βροτων IM (βρωτων cett.), 571. 24 γραφης IM (μεταγραφης cett.). At 573. 21 M omits the words και τα 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.
We may mention here:
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 including (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 ἐορτῶν (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. κατασταθεις επι της—521. 9 υποχειρια ποιουμενος, and (p. 353) 529. 24 inc. δυο πηχεων το μηκος—537. 21 προκαθημενου προς θεωριαν. They are introduced by the heading επιστολης Αριστεως προς Φιλοκρατην εκφρασις. χρυσης τραπεζης ην εποιησεν ο βασιλευς Πτωλομαιος και απεστειλεν εις Ιερουσαλημ προς τον τοτε αρχιερεα Ελεαζαρον. Omont's catalogue merely calls the fragments 'De Ptolemaeo rege et lege mosaica'; the folio catalogue 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. Some of its readings and spellings connect it with the GIM group e.g. 532. 28 (λιαν for λειαν), 534. 8 αναστασιν (for ανατασιν), 535. 4 σμιξιν (for σμηξιν), but its text bears a closer relation to that of the otherwise solitary Codex Monacensis. Its evidence has not been recorded in this edition.
543
The group TBCPSZ.
We now come to a group which presents considerable variations from those which we have considered. The readings of this group are at first sight attractive and have the appearance of representing 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 individual 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 ingenious 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 14½ x 12 in. There are quires of 8 leaves with signatures of the (?) thirteenth century. To the end of the Pentateuch the writing is in single column with 46 lines in a page; in the latter part there are two columns with 65 lines to a page. The writing hangs from ruled lines.
fol. 1. Aristeas to Philocrates.
11vo. Introduction to O.T. books: τὰ ἐν τῇ παρούσῃ βίβλῳ ἀναγεγραμμένα τεύχη . . . . . . διατί ἕκαστον τούτων οὕτως καλεῖται καὶ ἀπὸ μέρους τί περιέχει ἕκαστον . . .
14vo. Theodoret, εἰς τὰ ἄπορα τῆς θείας γραφῆς.
15. Pentateuch with Catena.
311. Joshua—Chronicles, Esdras 1—3, Esther, Judith, Maccabees 1—4, Tobit (to 3. 15).
544
It contains the inscription, 'Codicem a Liguria advectum proponente 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. xiii. bombycinus, 539 foll.
προς |
|
fol. 2 | Aristeas inc. (522. 12) ανων υποτιθεμενος λογον. |
15. | Catena on the Octateuch. |
It is written in double columns: size of page 13¼ x 9¼ in., of writing 10½ x 3¼ 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 Ἰορδάνου, 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, xiii.—xiv. chart. et bombyc., 402 foll.
fol. | 1. | Aristeas fragments. |
14. | Anonymous introduction to the books of the O.T. (inc. το μεν ουω βιβλιον). | |
45. | Catena on the Octateuch. |
The Aristeas is written in a single column: the size of page being 12½ x 9 in., of writing varying from 9 x 7 in. to 7¾ x 5¾ in. 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 ησαν τη, 553. 10 ο δε ειπεν ευχομενος—563. 16 ηρωτα, 567. 7 -σιλευ κροτω δε—end.
P, CODEX BARBERINUS. Rome. Bibl. Barberina Gr. IV. 56, saec.? xiii. membr., 229 foll.
fol. | 1. | Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis (frag.). |
inc. πασα γραφη ημων των Χριστιανων θεοπνευστος εστι, at end λειπει. |
2. | Fragment of Aristeas inc. (538. 10) πινοησαντες· της γαρ χωρας expl. (568. 1) περιβαλλοντας το ζην· ως (note λειπει). | |
10. | Catena on the Octateuch. | |
224. | Catena on the Apocalypse inc. δηλει (sic) τον της 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 9¾ x 7 in., of writing 8¼ x 3¾ in. At the bottom of fol. 1 is written 'Carob 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 12¼ x 8½ in., and the writing hanging from ruled lines; there are quires of 8 leaves.
fol. | 1—37vo. | Aristeas (complete). |
37vo.—358 | Catena on Genesis. |
On the recto of the first leaf is the note 'Emptus ex libris illmi Lelii Ruini epi 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. xiii. bombyc., 736 pagg.[1]
p. 1. Aristeas.
p. 1 (= 21). Catena on the Octateuch.
p. 669. Ιερωνυμου επιστολη προς Δεξτρον επαρχον πραιτωρῑ απο ρωμαικ εις ελληνικα μεταβληθεισα ('S. Hieronymi liber de viris illustribus a Sophronio graece versus,' Omont). It is written in single column, the size of page being 13½ x 9 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. ισως φιλοφρονησεσι, ισως μαλλον). 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[1] the 546members of the group which are extant at the several passages referred to.
(1) 523. 9. εγκρατεις εγενοντο—και την χωραν (78 letters) om BTZ.
(2) 529. 11. βουλεσθαι και—δισταζειν δε (51 letters) om BCTZ.
(3) 532. 17. απο της βασεως—τορεια και (48 letters) om BTZ.
(4) 533. 13. θεσιν ηθελεν—ως αν τις (41 letters) om BTZ.
(5) 547. 12. και κακοποιουσι—τροφην αλλα (48 letters) om BPTZ.
(6) 548. 13. -τας ημερα θυσιαζειν—οι προσφερον- (46 1etters) om BPTZ.
(7) 552. 13. γενοιο—τη περι σεαυτον (47 letters) om BPTZ.
(8) 564. 25. θεου δε—τοις αξιοις (45 letters) om BPTZ.
(9) 566. 24. ησαν γαρ ικανοι πρεσβεις (20 letters) om BPTZ.
Also at 533. 4 the words προς την της αληθειας—τεθεντων (48 letters) are omitted by TtxtSZ (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 1etters) 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 corrections of its own, not found in the parent MS.[1]
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 εν λογω before βραχει, 525. 12 εαν ουν φανηταισοι εννομον B (εαν 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 εννομον receives no support. Again we have 526. 13 χαριστηριον B (χαριστικον cett. Eus.), 527. 18 ανδρες των τετιμημενων παρα σοι Ανδρεας και Αριστεας B (Ανδρεασ των τετ. παρα σοι και Αρ. cett.: B has misunderstood the genitive), 529. 18 οιδα γαρ ως δαψιλους της υλης αυτοις ουσης B (ετι γαρ επι τα της ουσης cett. Eus.), 538. 1 σχημα, B (χυμα = '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 νομισματα BT (νομισματος cett. Eus. Jos.), 526. 25 δυναμενους BT (δυνατους cett. Eus.): they have occasionally corrected the order of words, 551. 19 διατελοιη εχων BT (εχ. διατ. cett.), 547569. 5 των ιδιωτων τινες BT (τιωεσ τ. ιδ. 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 Eus¹ (αναρπαστους HKA), 526. 6 προοντας BcorrTZ Eus. (παροντας cett.), 547. 7 ins και ποτων PZGI Eus¹ (om cett.), the B reading is right. But to some places the whole group has been affected by correction. Thus in 519. 11 TSZ (the only extant members at this point) read εαυτους προεδωκαμεν εις τον προειρημενον ανδρα πρεσβειαν, but the reading εαυτους επεδωκαμεν κ.τ.λ. of the other MSS. is corroborated by the usage of the papyri of the second century B.C. (Paris Pap. 49 καταπεπειραμαι . . . εις παν το σοι χρησιμον εμαυτον επιδιδοναι, Par. Pap. 63 col. 6 προθυμως εαυτους επιδιδοντων, Grenfell, Erotic Fragment, etc. XLII. 6 εις τε παν το παρανγελλομενον | προθυμ]ως εαυτους επιδεδωκοτων).
A few instances where correction is seen at work may be quoted. At 550. 10 HKAGI read παντα δυναμιν ειπε παρεσται καθηκοντως, οις συγχρησησθε (-σεσθε), καμοι μεθ υμων. Παντα δυναμιν, which is clearly wrong, is corrected by BTZ to πασαν δυναμιν, by P to παντ(= πανθ)α δυναιμην; παρεσται is further corrected by BT to παρεσταναι and καμοι to καμε, corrections which give a grammatical but hardly an intelligible sentence. The slight alteration of δ᾿ υμιν for δυναμιν (a correction of Mendelssohn, which had also suggested itself to the present writer) 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 απεφηνατο ('answer'), B reading ειπε and P απεκρινατο: a little before (553. 21) B reads αποκρινεσθαι where the remaining MSS. have αποφαινεσθαι. At 527. 1 BTZ read αρχισωματοφυλακα (B at first wrote σωματοφυλακα: των 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 coincidence in emendation. Such a passage is 527. 4 γραφε BT Eus. (γραφων cett.). In this instance Eusebius altered the form of the sentence by reading γραφε and inserting γαρ after κεχαρισμενος; in BT the change to γραφε was due to κεχαρισμενος εση having become 548corrupted to και χαρισαμενος εση; the participle γραφων is corroborated by Josephus (ἐπιστέλλων περὶ ὧν ἄν θέλῃς ποιήσεις κεχαρισμένα).
The extracts of Eusebius, consisting of about a quarter of the letter, are contained in the eighth and ninth books of the Praeparatio Evangelica (VIII. 2—5, 9, IX. 38). The Eusebian MSS. which are to be followed in these books are, as Heikel[1] 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, anti their evidence is quoted as Eus¹ and Eus². 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[1] 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 Doppelglieder), 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 fundamental 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 ει δυνατον om Eus. (ins Jos. Ar. codd.), 525. 10 και πολιτευομενων οm 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 is altered to χρηματοφυλακας (Jos. paraphrases τοὺς φύλακας τῶν κιβωτῶν, ἐν αἷς ἐτύγχανον οἱ λίθοι), 526. 17 επικρινων κατεστησα (a bad correction, because 549the royal plural used throughout the rest of the letter of Ptolemy is dropped), 572. 9 ακριβως (ηκριβωμενως Ar. codd.), 573. 2 κατα δε την αιτηησιν (κατα δε την ανεσιν Jos. Ar. codd.). In a few cases a rather longer addition is made; at 544. 22 before των συγγενικων the words ουτε των υποβεβηκοτων ουτε are possibly, and at 546. 14 the words επι των πολεων και οικησεων δια το σκεπαζεσθαι are certainly to be attributed to the hand of Eusebius; just before the last passage (546. 11) συντηρουντας τας αρχας και μεσοτητας και τλευτας is an unintelligible[1] alteration of the correct reading και συντηπουντος. Among passages where Eusebius is certainly right may be mentioned 526. 2 ανασπαστους Eus¹ GIBTZ (αναρπαστους cett.), 542. 10 ενδεικτικως (ενδικως Ar. codd.), 547. 7 the insertion of και ποτων Eus¹ GIPZ, and lastly 541. 21. The readings in this passage are instructive:
(1) προς τα δι μων επιζητηθεντα Eus.
(2) προς δι ημων επιζητηθεντα GIMZ*.
(3) προς ημων επιζητηθεντα HKADFL.
(4) προς δε ημων επιζητηθεντων BPTZcorr.
Eusebius preserves the true text; the τα then dropped out, and while in the HKA group the reading was still further corrupted, 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 αναγραφης (αντιγραφης Ar.), 525. 5 τετυχηκε (τετευχε Ar.), 526. 8 omission of the negative, ? 528. 7 the perfect απεσταλκαμεν (Jos. has the perfect πεπομφαμεν: απεστειλαμεν Ar.), 572. 20 ποιητων Jos. Eus. B (ποιητικων or 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 reconstruct his text, and at some of the most difficult passages his evidence is uncertain; in some cases the text was certainly unintelligible to him. He is however often useful in enabling us to detect the alterations which have been introduced into the text 550by 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 are known to the present writer, which he has not had the opportunity of collating: Codex Monacensis 9 (saec. xi.), quoted in Wendland's edition, Codex Atheniensis 389 (circa saec. xv., chart., foll. 328, Aristeas and Catena)[1], Codex Scorialensis Σ. 1. 6 (dated 1586, and written χειρὶ Νικολάου Τουρριανοῦ καὶ βασιλικοῦ ἀντιγραφέως, Aristeas and Catena on Genesis and Exodus)[1].
The collations here given are not absolutely complete. Itacisms and other orthographical details have not been generally recorded, neither have all the slight omissions of the Codex O of Eusebius; but apart from these no substantial variants have, it is hoped, been omitted. The dates of the various correctors' hands have not been accurately ascertained; the symbol B¹, T¹ 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 † † where the MS. reading is left in the text, although possibly 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.
ΑΡΙΣΤΕΑΣ ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ
551ΑΡΙΣΤΕΑΣ ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ |
||
Ἀξιολόγου διηγήσεωs, ὦ Φιλόκρατεs, περὶ τῆς γενηθείσης ἡμῖν |
1 | |
ἐντυχίαs πρὸς Ἐλεάζαρον τόν τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀρχιερέα σύνεσταμένης, |
||
διά τὸ σὲ περὶ πολλοῦ πεποιῆσθαι, παρ᾿ ἕκαστα †ὑπομιμνήσκων†, |
||
συνακοῦσαι περὶ ὧν ἀπεστάλημεν καὶ διὰ τί, πεπείραμαι σαφῶς |
||
5 |
ἐκθέσθαι σοι, κατειληφὼς ἣν ἔχειs φιλομαθῆ διάθεσιν, ὅπερ μέ- |
2 |
γιστόν ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ, προσμανθάνειν ἀεί τι καὶ προσλαμβάνειν, |
||
ἤτοι κατὰ τὰs ἱστορίας, ἢ καὶ κατ᾿ αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα πεπειραμέινῳ. |
||
οὕτω γὰρ κατασκευάζεται ψυχῆs καθαρὰ διάθεσις, ἀναλαβοῦσα τὰ |
||
κάλλιστα· καὶ πρὸs τὸ πάντων κυριώτατον νενευκυῖα τὴν εὐσέ- |
||
10 |
βειαν ἀπλανεῖ κεχρημένη κανόνι διοικεῖ. Τὴν προαίρεσιν ἔχοντες |
3 |
ἡμεῖς πρὸς τὸ περιέργως τὰ θεῖα κατανοεῖν, ἐαυτοὺς ἐπεδώκαμεν εἰς | ||
τὸν προειρημένον ἄνδρα πρεσβείαν, καλοκαγαθίᾳ καὶ δόξῃ προτε- | ||
τιμημένον ὑπό τε τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, καὶ κατακεκτημένον | ||
μεγίστην ὠφέλειαν τοῖς σὺν ἑαυτῷ καὶ τοῖς κατὰ τοὺς ἄλλους | ||
15 | τόπους πολίταις, πρὸς τὴν ἐρμηνείαν τοῦ θείου νόμου, διὰ τὸ γεγρά- | |
φθαι παῤ αὐτοῖς ἐν διφθέραις ἐβραϊκοῖς γράμμασιν. ἣν δὴ καὶ | 4 | |
ἐποιησάμεθα ἡμεῖς σπουδῇ, λαβόντες καιρὸν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα περὶ | ||
τῶν μετοικισθέντων εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς | ||
τοῦ βασιλέως, πρώτως κεκτημένου τήν τε πόλιν καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὴν | ||
20 | Αἴγυπτον παρειληφότος. Ἄξιόν ἐστι καὶ ταῦτά σοι δηλῶσαι. | |
πέπεισμαι γάρ σε μᾶλλον ἔχοντα πρόσκλισιν πρὸς τὴν σεμνότητα | 5 | |
καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων διάθεσιν τῶν κατὰ τὴν σεμνὴν νομο- | ||
θεσίαν διεξαγόντων, περὶ ὧν προαιρούμεθα δηλοῦν, ἀσμένως σε | ||
2 ευτυχιαs GZ | συνισταμενοs Τ 3 υπομιμνησκeιν Wend. (σκων codd |
HKAGITZ | |
omn 4 ων] ου K 6 προσμανμανοντι Z 7 om και I | κατ αυτο] κατα | ||
ταυτο HKAGI | πεπειραμενων HKGIT 8 διαθεσις καθ. K. 9 κυριω- | ||
τερον Κ 10 διοικ. την προαιρεσιν. Εχοντες codd corr Wend. 11 προε- | ||
δωκ. TZ | εις] εις την προς Wend. 12 τετιμ. TZ 13 κατεκτημ. HAI | ||
κατακτ. G txt KTZ 16 αυτου T 17 post σπουδη lacunam statuit | ||
Wend. 19 om τα TZ 21 προσκλησιν codd 23 δηλουντεσ μεν ως | ||
σε codd, txt ex conj Schmidt | ||
ἀκούσεσθαι, προσφάτως παραγεγενημένον ἐκ τῆς νήσου πρὸς | ||
ἡμᾶς, καὶ βουλόμενον συνακούειν ὅσα πρὸς ἐπισκευὴν ψυχῆς | ||
ὑπάρχει. καὶ πρόρερον δὲ διεπεμψάμην σοι περὶ ὧν ἐνόμιζον | 6 | |
ἀξιομνημονεύτων εἶναι τὴν ἀναγραφήν, ἣν μετελάβομεν παρὰ τῶν | ||
5 | κατὰ τὴν λογιωτάτην Αἴγυπτον λογιωτάτων ἀρχιερέων περὶ τοῦ | |
γένους τῶν Ἰουδαίων. φιλομαθῶς γὰρ ἔχοντί σοι περὶ τῶν δυνα- | 7 | |
μένων ὠφελῆσαι διάνοιαν δέον ἐστὶ μεταδιδόναι, μάλιστα μὲν πᾶσι | ||
τοῖς ὁμοίοις, πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον σοὶ γνησίαν ἔχοντι τὴν αἵρεσιν, οὐ | ||
μόνον κατὰ τὸ συγγενὲς ἀδελφῷ καθεστῶτι τὸν τρόπον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ | ||
10 | πρὸς τὸ καλὸν ὁρμῇ τὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα ἡμῖν. χρυσοῦ γὰρ χάρις ἢ | 8 |
κατασκευή τις ἄλλη τῶν τετιμημένων παρὰ τοῖς κενοδόξοις ὠφέλειαν | ||
οὐκ ἔχει τὴν αὐτήν, ὅσον ἡ παιδείας ἀγωγὴ καὶ ἡ περὶ τούτων | ||
φροντίς. ἵνα δὲ μὴ περὶ τῶν προλεγομένων μηκύνοντες ἀδόλεσχόν | ||
τι ποιῶμεν, ἐπὶ τὸ συνεχὲς τῆς διηγήσεως ἐπανήξομεν. | ||
15 | §Κατασταθεὶς ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως βιβλιοθήκης Δημήτριος ὁ |
9 § Jos Eus |
Φαληρεὺς ἐχρηματίσθη πολλὰ διάφορα πρὸς τὸ συναγαγεῖν, εἰ | ||
δυντόν, ἅπαντα τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην βιβλία· καὶ ποιούμενος | ||
ἀγορασμοὺς καὶ μεταγραφὰς ἐπὶ τέλος ἤγαγεν, ὅσον ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτῷ, τὴν | ||
τοῦ βασιλέως ορόθεσιν. παρόντων οὖν ἡμῶν ἐρωτηθείς Πόσαι | 10 | |
20 | τινὲς μυριάδες τυγχάνουσι βιβλίων; εἶπεν Ὑπὲρ τὰς εἴκοσι, | |
βασιλεῦ· σπουδάσω δ᾿ ἐν ὀλίγῳ πρὸς τὸ πληρωθῆναι πεντή- | ||
κοντα μυριάδας τὰ λοιπά. προσήγγελται δέ μοι καὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων | ||
νόμιμα μεταγραφῆς ἄξια καὶ τῆς παρὰ σοὶ βιβλιοθήκης εἶναι. | ||
Τί τὸ κωλῦον οὖν, εἶπεν, ἐστὶ σε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι; πάντα γὰρ ὑπο- | 11 | |
25 | τέτακταί σοι τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν. ὅ δὲ Δημήτριος εἶπεν | |
Ἑρμηνείας προσδεῖται· χαρακτῆρσι γὰρ ἰδίοις κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίων | ||
χρῶνται, καθάπερ Αἰγύπτιοι τῇ τῶν γραμμάτων θέσει, καθὸ καὶ | ||
φωνὴν ἰδίαν ἔχουσιν. ὑπολαμβάνονται Συριακῇ χρῆσθαι· τὸ δ᾿ | ||
3 διεπεμψ. σοι] διεπεμψαμεθα G 6 σοι] μοι conj Schmidt 7 μα- | HKAGITZ | |
λιστα] μαλλον G 8 γνησιως G 9 αλλα και τον τροπον Wend. | Jos Eus | |
12 παιδεια αυτη G παιδειας διαγ. I 14 ποιυμεν Z παθωμεν Gvid | | ||
επανηξωμεν K 16 om ει δυνατον Eus 19 ουν ins Eus om Ar codd | ||
21 σποθδασω Eus πληρωσω Ar 22 προσηγγελται Eus (cf Jos | ||
μεμηνυσθαι)] προσαγγελλεται codd | των] pr τα Eus 24 εστι σε] | ||
αυτοι G | αποτετακται Eus 28 θπολαμβανονται] + δε Eus | ||
οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἕτερος τρόπος. Μεταλαβὼν δὲ ἕκαστα ὁ βασιλεὺς | ||
εἶπε γραφῆναι πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιερέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅπως τὰ προειρημένα | ||
τελείωσιν λάβῃ.¶ Νομίσας δὲ ἐγὼ καιρὸν εἶναι περὶ ᾧν πολ- | 12 ¶ Eus | |
λάκις ἠξιώκειν Σωσίβιόν τε τὸν Ταραντῖνον καὶ Ἀνδρέαν, τοὺς | ||
5 | ἀρχισωματοφύλακας, περὶ τῆς ἀπρολυτρώσεως τῶν μετηγμένων ἐκ | |
τῆς Ἰουδαίας ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως—ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἐπελθὼν | ||
τὰ κατὰ κοίλην Συρίαν καὶ Φοινίκην ἅπαντα, συγχρώμενος εὐημερίᾳ | ||
μετὰ ἀνδρείας, τοὺς μὲν μετῴκιζεν, οὕς δὲ ᾐχμαλώτιζε, φόβῳ πὰντα | ||
ὑποχείρια ποιούμενος· ἐν ὅσῳ καὶ πρὸς δέκα μυριάδας ἐκ τῆς τῶν | ||
10 | Ἰουδαίων χώρας εἰς Αἴγυπτον μετήγαγεν, ἀφ᾿ ὧν ὡσεὶ τρεῖς μυριάδας | 13 |
καθοπλίσας ἀνδρῶν ἐκλεκτῶν εἰς τὴν χώραν κατῴκισεν ἐν τοῖς | ||
φρουρίοις (ἤδη μὲν καὶ πρότερον ἱκανῶν εἰσεληλυθότων σὺν τῷ | ||
Πέρσῃ, καὶ πρὸ τούτων ἑτέρων συμμαχιῶν ἐξαπεσταλμένων πρὸς | ||
τὸν τῶν Αἰθιόπων βασιλέα μάχεσθαι σὺν Ψαμμιτίχῳ· ἀλλ᾿ οὐ | ||
15 | τοσοῦτοι τῷ πλήθει παρεγενήθησαν, ὅσους Πτολεμαῖος ὁ τοῦ | |
Λάγου μετήγαγε)· καθὼς δὲ προείπομεν, ἐπιλὲξας τοὺς ἀρίστους | 14 | |
ταῖς ἡλικίαις καὶ ῥώμῃ διαφέροντας καθώπλισε, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν χύμα | ||
πρεσβυτέρων καὶ νεωτέρων, ἔτι δὲ γυναικῶν, εἴασεν εἰς τὴν οἰκετίαν, | ||
οὐχ οὕτως τῇ προαιρέσει κατὰ ψυχὴν ἔχων, ὡς κατακρατούμενος | ||
20 | ὑπὸ τῶν στρατιωτῶν, δἰ ἂς ἐπεποίηντο χρείας ἐν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς | |
ἀγῶσιν—ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐπεί τινα παρεύρεσιν εἰς τὴν ἀπόλυσιν αὐτῶν | ||
ἀπελάβομεν, καθὼς προδεδήλωται, τοιούτοις ἐχρησάμεθα λόγοις | ||
πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Μήποτε ἄλογον ᾖ ἐλέγχεσθαι ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν | 15 | |
τῶν πραγμάτων, ὦ βασιλεῦ. τῆς γὰρ νομοθεσίας κειμένης πᾶσι | ||
25 | τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις, ἣν ἡμεῖς οὐ μόνον μεταγράψαι ἐπινοοῦμεν, ἀλλά καὶ | |
διερμηνεῦσαι, τίνα λόγον ἕξομεν πρὸς ἀποστολήν, ἐν οἰκετίαις | ||
ὑπαρχόντων ἐν τῇ σῇ βασιλείᾳ πληθῶν ἱκανῶν; ἀλλὰ τελείᾳ καὶ | ||
πλουσίᾳ ψυχῇ ἀπόλυσον τοὺς συνεχομένους ἐν ταλαιπωρίαις, | ||
κατευθύνοντός σου τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ τεθεικότος αὐτοῖς θεοῦ τὸν | ||
30 | νόμον, καθὼς περιείργασμαι. τὸν γὰρ πάντων ἐπόπτην καὶ κτίστην | 16 |
4 ηξιωσα σνεχως τους περι τον Ταρ. G 5 σωματοφυλακας Α | εκ] απο | HKAGI | |
TZ 8 μετοικ. Z | ους] τους Gvid 11 εκλελεγμενων T | κατελιπεν G | TZ Jos | |
12 μεν] + ουν I | ικανως H | συνεληλ. | om συν T 14 Αιθ.] Αιγυττιων T | ||
15 τω πληθ. om TZ 18 νεωτ. και πρεσβ. I | δε] + και K 21 ετει] επι | ||
GI 26 ικετειαις K 28 απολυσας G 29 σου] σοι TZ | ||
θεὸν οὗτοι σέβονται, ὃν καὶ πάντες, ἡμεῖς δέ, βασιλεῦ, προσονομά- | ||
ζοντες ἑτέρως Ζῆνα καὶ Δία· τοῦτο δ᾿ οὐκ ἀνοικείως οἱ πρῶτοι | ||
διεσήμαναν, δἰ ὃν ζωοποιοῦνται τὰ πάντα καὶ γίωεται, τοῦτον | ||
ἁπάντων ἡγεῖσθαί τε καὶ κυριεύειν. ὑπερηρκὼς δὲ σύμπαντας ἀνθρώ- | ||
5 | πους τῇ λαμπρότητι τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπόλυσιν ποίησαι τῶν ἐνεχομένων | |
ταῖς οἰκετίαις. Οὐδὲ πολὺν χρόνον ἐπισχών, καὶ ἡμῶν κατὰ | 17 | |
ψυχὴν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐχομένων, τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτοῦ κατασκευάσαι | ||
πρὸς τὸ τοὺς ἅπαντας ἀπολυθῆναι (κτίσμα γὰρ ὂν θεοῦ τὸ γένος | ||
τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ μεταλλοιοῦται καὶ τρέπεται πάλιν ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ· | ||
10 | διὸ πολλαχῶς καὶ ποικίλως ἐπεκαλούμην τὸν κυριεύοντα κατὰ | |
καρδίαν, ἵνα συναναγκασθῇ, καθὼς ἠξίουν, ἐπιτελέσαι· μεγάλην | 18 | |
γὰρ εἶχον ἐλπίδα, περὶ σωτηρίας§ ἀνθρώπων προτιθέμενος λόγον, ὅτι | § B | |
τὴν ἐπιτέλειαν ὁ θεὸς ποιήσει τῶν ἀξιουμένων· ὃ γὰρ πρὸς δικαιο- | ||
σύνην καὶ καλῶν ἔργων ἐπιμέλειαν ἐν ὁσιότητι νομίζουσιν ἄνθρωποι | ||
15 | ποιεῖν, κατευθύνει τὰς πράξεις καὶ τὰς ἐπιβολὰς ὁ κυριεύων ἁπάντων | |
θεός), ὁ δὲ διανακύψας καὶ προσβλέψας ἱλαρῷ τῷ προσώπῳ Πόσας | 19 | |
ὑπολαμβάνεις μυριάδας ἔσεσθαι; ἔφη. παρεστὼς δὲ Ἀνδρέας | ||
ἀπεφήνατο Βραχεῖ πλεῖον μυριάδων δέκα. ὁ δέ, Μικρόν γε, εἶπεν, | ||
Ἀριστέας ἡμᾶς ἀξιοῖ πρᾶγμα. Σωσίβιος δὲ καὶ τῶν παρόντων | ||
20 | τινὲς τοῦτ᾿ εἶπον Καὶ γὰρ ἄξιόν ἐστι τῆς σῆς μεγαλοψυχίας, ὅπως | |
χαριστήριον ἀναθῇ τῷ μεγίστῳ θεῷ τὴν τούτων ἀπόλυσιν. μεγίστως | ||
γὰρ τετιμημένος ὑπὸ τοῦ κρατοῦντος τὰ πάντα καὶ δεδοξασμένος | ||
ὑπὲρ τοὺς προγόνους, εἰ καὶ μέγιστα ποιήσεις χαριστήρια, καθῆκόν | ||
ἐστί σοι. Διαχυθεὶς δὲ εὖ μάλα τοῖς ὀψωνίοις εἶπε προσθεῖναι, | 20 | |
25 | καὶ σώματος ἑκάστου κομίζεσθαι δραχμὰς εἴκοσι, καὶ περὶ τούτων | |
ἐκθεῖναι πρόσταγμα, τὰς δὲ ἀπογραφὰς ποιεῖσθαι παῤ αὐτά, | ||
μεγαλείως χρησάμενος τῇ προθυμίᾳ, τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν πᾶσαν ἐπιτελέ- | ||
σαντος ἡμῶν προαίρεσιν, καὶ συναναγκάσαντος αὐτὸν ἀπολυτρῶσαι | ||
μὴ μόνον τοὺς συνεληλυθότας τῷ στρατοπέδῳ τοῦ πατρός, ἀλλὰ καὶ | ||
1 ω βασιλευ TZ 2 ετερως AR codd] ετυμως hic hab Jos sed fort pro |
HKAGIBT | |
ουκ ανοικειως | ζηνα· (al ζην· α) και δια τουπο δ codd (δ codd (δ om T) | Z Jos | |
3 τουτων Z 5 απολ. ποι.] αποποιησαι I 6 ικετιαις I 8 ον] ων Z 12 om γαρ | ||
TZ | υποτιθεμενος B* (προστιθ. Bcorr) | στε Z 13 δικαιοσ.] ελεημοσυνην G | ||
15 βουλας B επιβουλ. T 16 διακυψας A ανακυψας G 18 Βραχει] pr | ||
εν λογω B βραχυ K | ενδεκα Jos 19 αξιω G 24 εφη B 25 δραγμας I | ||
εἴ τινες προῆσαν, ἢ μετὰ ταῦτα παρεισήχθησαν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν. | ||
ὑπὲρ τὰ τετρακόσια τάλαντα τὴν δόσιν ἀπέφαινον εἶναι. καὶ τοῦ | 21 | |
προστάγματος δὲ τὸ ἀντίγραφον οὐκ ἄχρηστον οἴομαι κατακε- | ||
χωρίσθαι. πολλῷ γὰρ ἡ μεγαλομοιρία φανερωτέρα καὶ εὔδηλος | ||
5 | ἔσται τοῦ βασιλέως, τοῦ θεοῦ κατισχύοντος αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ σωτηρίαν | |
γενέσθαι πλήθεσιν ἱκανοῖς. ἦν δὲ τοιοῦτο Τοῦ βασιλέως προσ- | 22 | |
τάξαντος—Ὅσοι τῶν συνεστρατευμένων τῷ πατρὶ ἡμῶν εἰς τοὺς κατὰ | ||
Συρίαν καὶ Φοινίκην τόπους ἐπελθόντες τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων χώραν | ||
ἐγκρατεῖς ἐγένοντο σωμάτων Ἰουδαϊκῶν καὶ ταῦτα διακεκομίκασιν εἴς | ||
10 | τε τήν πόλιν καὶ τὴν χώραν ἢ καὶ πεπράκασιν ἑτέροις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ | |
εἴ τινες προῆσαν ἢ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτά εἰσιν εἰσηγμένοι τῶν τοιούτων, | ||
ἀπολύειν παρὰ χρῆμα τοὺς ἔχπμτας, κομιζομένους αὐτίκα ἑκάστου | ||
σώματος δραχμὰς εἴκοσι, τοὺς μὲν στρατιώτας τῇ τῶν ὀψωνίων | ||
δόσει, τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλικῆς τραπέζης. νομίζομεν | 23 | |
15 | γὰρ καὶ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν βούλησιν καὶ παρὰ τὸ καλῶς | |
ἔχον ᾐχμαλωτεῦσθαι τούτους, διὰ δὲ τὴν στρατιωτικὴν προπέτειαν | ||
τήν τε χώραν αὐτῶω κατεφθάρθαι καὶ τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων μεταγωγὴν | ||
εἰς τὴν Αἴγυπτον γεγονέναι· ἱκανὴ γὰρ ἦν ἡ παρὰ τὸ πεδίον | ||
γεγονυῖα ἐκ τῶν στρατιωτῶν ὠφέλεια· διὸ παντελῶς ἀνεπιεικής | ||
ἐστι καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων καταδυναστεία. πᾶσιν οὖν ἀνθρώποις τὸ | 24 | |
δίκαιον ἀπονέμειν ὁμολογούμενοι, πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον τοῖς ἀλόγως | ||
καταδυναστευομένοις, καὶ κατὰ πᾶν ἐκζητοῦντες τὸ καλῶς ἔχον πρός | ||
τε τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν κατὰ πάντων εὐσέβειαν, προστετάχαμεν ὅσα | ||
τῶν Ἰοθδαϊκῶν ἐστι σωμάτων ἐν οἰκετίαις πανταχῆ καθ᾿ ὁντινοῦν | ||
25 | τρόπον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ, κομιζομένους τοὺς ἔχοντας τὸ προκείμενον | |
κεφάλαιον ἀπολύειν, καὶ μηδένα κακοσχόλως περὶ τούτων μηδὲν | ||
οἰκονομεῖν· τὰς δ᾿ ἀπογραφὰς ἐν ἡμέραις τρισίν, ἀφ᾿ ἧς ἡμέρας | ||
ἐκκεῖται τὸ πρόσταγμα, ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς τοὺς καθεσταμένους περὶ | ||
2 υπερ Fort deperiit aliquid ante hoc verbum | τριακοσια TB (τ) | HKAGIBT | |
3 κατακεχωπισθαι BT* vid (-ησθαι)] κατακεχωρισται cett 6 του βασ. | Z Jos | |
προστ. (cum praeced conj codd) ad decretum refert Wend. quasi titulum | ||
habet Nestle 9 εγκρατεις—την χωραν 10 om BTZ 12 κομιζομενου T | ||
13 δραγμας BTZ | τους] + εχοντας BTZ 17 om των BTZ | ||
21 ομολογουμενως HKAGIT* vid -μενοις ZTcorr vid txt ex corr Schmidt | ||
23 παντα B 21 εστι] + των HAGI | οικεταις TZ | πανταχη ex conj] παντι μη HKAITZ παντα μη G παντι B παντι και We. | οντινα ουν KBT | ||
28 κατεσταμενους HKATZ κατεσταλμ. GI | ||
τούτων, καταδεικνύντας εὐθὺ καὶ τὰ σώματα. διειλήξαμεν γὰρ καὶ | 25 | |
ἡμῖν συμφέρειν καὶ τοῖς πράγμασι τοῦτ᾿ ἐπιτλεσθῆναι. τὸν δὲ | ||
βουλόμενον προσαγγέλλειν περὶ τῶν ἀπειθησάντων, ἐφ᾿ ᾧ τοῦ φανέν- | ||
τος ἐνόχου τὴν κυρίαν ἕξειν· τὰ δὲ ὑπάρχοντα τῶν τοιούτων εἰς | ||
5 | τὸ βασιλικὸν ἀναληφθήσειται. Εἰσδοθέντος τοῦ προστάγ- | 26 |
ματος, ὅπως ἐπαναγνωσθῇ τῷ βασιλεῖ, τὰ ἄλλα πάντ᾿ ἔχοντος | ||
πλὴν τοῦ Καὶ εἴ τινες προῆσαν ἢ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰσηγμένοι εἰσι | ||
τῶν τοιούτων, αὐτὸς τοῦτο ὁ βασιλεὺς προσέθηκε, μεγαλομοιρίᾳ | ||
καὶ μεγαλοψυχίᾳ χρησάμενος, ἐκέλευσέ τε τῶν διαφόρων δόσιν | ||
10 | ἀθρόαν οὖσαν ἀπομερισαι τοῖς ὑπηρέταις τῶν ταγμάτων καὶ βασι- | |
λικοῖς τραπεζίταις. οὕτω δοχθὲν ἐκεκύρωτο ἐν ἡμέραις ἑπτά· πλεῖον | 27 | |
δὲ ταλάντων ἑξακοσίων ἑξήκοντα ἡ δόσις ἐγεγονει. πολλὰ γὰρ καὶ | ||
τῶν ἐπιμαστιδίων τέκνων σὺν ταῖς μητράσιν ἐλευθεροῦντο. προσαν- | ||
ενεχθέντος εἰ καὶ περὶ τούτων εἰκοσαδραχμία δοθήσεται, καὶ τοῦτ᾿ | ||
15 | ἐκέλευσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ποιεῖν, ὁλοσχερῶς περὰ τοῦ δόξαντος ἅπαντ᾿ | |
ἐπιτελῶν. | ||
§ Ὡς δὲ κατεπράχθη ταῦτα, τὸν Δημήτριον ἐκέλευσεν εἰσδοῦναι | 28 § Eus | |
περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν βιβλίων ἀναγραφῆς. πάντα γὰρ διὰ | ||
προσταγμάτων καὶ μεγάλης ἀσφαλείας τοῖς βασιλεῦσι τούτοις | ||
20 | διῳκεῖτο, καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπερριμμένως οὐδ᾿ εἰκῇ. διόπερ καὶ τὸ τῆς | |
εἰσδόσεως καὶ τὰ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν ἀντίγραφα κατακεχώρικα, καὶ τὸ | ||
τῶν ἀπεσταλμένων πλῆθος καὶ τὴν ἑκάστου κατασκευήν, διὰ τὸ | ||
μεγαλομοιρίᾳ καὶ τέχνη διαφέρειν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν. τῆς δὲ εἰσδό- | ||
σεώς ἐστιν ἀντίγραφον τόδε Βασιλεῖ μεγάλῳ παρὰ Δημητρίου. | 29 | |
25 | προστάξαντός σου, βασιλεῦ, περὶ τῶν ἀπολιπόντων εἰς τὴν συμπλή- | |
ρωσιν τῆς βιβλιοθήκης βιβλίων, ὅπως ἐπισυναχθῇ, καὶ τὰ διαπεπ- | ||
τωκότα τύχῃ τῆς προσηκούσης ἐπισκευῆς, πεποιημένος οὐ παρέργως | ||
3 εφ ω ex conj
(cf. |
HKAGIBT | |
+ ουν B δε Wend. cum cod Mon (Jos) 7 ει καὶ Κ | η] ει GIZ | εισιν | Z Jos Eus | |
εισηγ. Wend. cum cod Mon 8 αυτος Wend. cum Jos] αυτο codd | ||
10 ουσαν] + δοσιν B 11 πλειων TZ 12 εξηκ. καὶ τετρακοσ. Jos | ||
13 ηλευθ. B 14 προσανεν.] + δε We. (cod Mon) 15 ολοσχ. ποι. ο β. B | ||
17 τω Δημητριω BT | εκδουναι Eusi et Joscodd aliq 18 αναγραφης Jos et | ||
Eus] αντιγραφης Ar codd omn 19 ασφαλ.] ακριβειας Eus 20 διωκητο | ||
Ar codd txt Eus (διωκειται Eusº) | καὶ 1º] ins Eus om Ar | το Eus] τα Ar | ||
21 εκδοσεως BTZ Euscodd aliq 24 αντιγραφον (-φα B) εστιν ουτως BT | ||
25 προστεταχοτος Eusº | απολειφθεντων Eus 26 της] + δια Eusº | ||
τὴν ἐν τούτοις ἐπιμέλειαν, προσαναφέρω σοι τάδε. τοῦ νόμου | 30 | |
τῶν Ἰουδαίων βιβλία σὺν ἑτέροις ὀλίγοις τισὶν ἀπολείπει· τυγχάνει | ||
γὰρ Ἑβραϊκοῖς γράμμασι καὶ φωνῇ λεγόμενα, ἀμελέστερον δέ, καὶ | ||
οὐχ ὡς ὑπάρχει, σεσήμανται, καθὼς ὑπὸ τῶν εἰδότων προσανα- | ||
5 | φέρεται· προνοίας γὰρ βασιλικῆς οὐ τέτευχε. δέον δέ ἐστι καὶ | 31 |
ταῦθ᾿ ὑπάρχειν παρά σοι διηκριβωμένα, διὰ τὰ καὶ φιλοσαφωτέραν | ||
εἶναι καὶ ἀκέραιον τήν νομοθεσίαν ταύτην, ὡς ἄν οὖσαν θείαν. διὸ | ||
πόρρω γεγόονασιν οἵ τε συγγραφεῖς καὶ ποιηταὶ καὶ τὸ τῶν ἱστορικῶν | ||
πλῆθος τῆς ἐπιμνήσεως τῶν προειρημένων βιβλίων, καὶ τῶν κατ᾿ | ||
10 | αὐτὰ πεπολιτευμένων [καὶ πολιτευομένων] ἀνδρῶν, διὰ τὸ ἁγνήν τινα | |
καὶ σεμνὴν εἶναι τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς θεωρίαν, ὥς φησιν Ἑκαταῖος ὁ | ||
Ἀβδηρίτης. ἐὰν οὖν φαίνηται, βασιλεῦ, γραφήσεται πρὸς τὸν | 32 | |
ἀρχιερέα τὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις, ἀποστεῖλαι τοὺς μάλιστα καλῶς | ||
βεβιωκότας καὶ πρεσβυτέρους ὄντας ἄνδρας, ἐμπειρους τῶν κατὰ | ||
15 | τὸν νόμον τὸν ἑαυτῶν, ἀφ᾿ ἑκάστης φυλῆς ἕξ, ὅπως τὸ σύμξωνον ἐκ | |
τῶν πλειόνων ἐξετάσαντες καὶ λαβόντες τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν | ||
ἀκριβές, ἀξίως καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ τῆ σῆς προαιρέσεως, θῶμεν | ||
εὐσήμως. εὐτύχει διὰ παντός. Τῆς δὲ εἰσδόσεως ταύτης γενο- | 33 | |
μένης, ἐκέλευσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς γραφῆναι πρὸς τὸν Ἐλεάζαρον περὶ | ||
20 | τούτων, σημάναντας καὶ τὴν γενομένην ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν αἰχμα- | |
λώτων. ἔδωλε δὲ καὶ εἰς κατασκευὴν | ||
τραπέζης καὶ σπονδείων χρυσίου μὲν ὁλκῆς τάλαντα πεντήκοντα | ||
καὶ ἀργυρίου τάλαντα ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ λίθων ἑκανόν τι πλῆθος— | ||
ἐκέλευσε δὲ τοὺς ῥισκοφύλακας τοῖς τεχωίταις, ὡν ἂν προαιρῶνται, | ||
25 | τὴν ἐκλογὴν διδόναι—καὶ νομίσματος εἰς θυσίας καὶ ἄλλα πρὸς | |
τάλαντα ἑκατόν. δηλώσομεν δέ σοι περὶ τῆς κατασκευῆς, ὡς ἂν | 34 | |
τὰ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν ἀντίγραφα διέλθωμεν. ἦν δὲ ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως | ||
ἐπιστολὴ τὸν τύπον ἔχουσα τοῦτον Βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος | 35 | |
1 εν] επι H | ταδε] τα δε cum seqq conj Ar Eus 5 τετυχηκε Jos |
HKAGIBT | |
Eus | ετι Eus 10 αυτας Ar et Eusio. Fort βιβλων supra legendum | και | Z Jos Eus | |
πολιτευομενων om Eus et Josvid 11 om φησιν Eusi 12 om ουν Eusº | | ||
φαιν. Eus] φανηται Ar codd φανηται σοι εννομον B 14 om οντας Eus | ||
15 αφ Jos Eus] εφ HAGIBT 18 εκδοσεως Eusi 20 σημαναντα Ar | ||
txt Eus et Josvid (δηλουντας) | γεναμενην GBvidTZ 23 ικανων I καλον | ||
Eusi 24 χρηματοφυλ. Eus | om τοις Eusi | om αν BTZ | προαιρουνται B | ||
25 νομισματα BT txt codd cett Eus Jos | ||
Ἐλεαζάρῳ ἀρχιερεῖ χαίρειν καὶ ἐρρῶσθαι. ἐπεὶ συμβαίνει πλείονας | ||
τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν χώραν κατῳκίσθαι γενηθέντας ἀνα- | ||
σπάστους ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροςολύμνω ὑπὸ Περσῶν, καθ᾿ ὃν ἐπεκράτουν | ||
χρόνον, ἔτι δὲ καὶ συνεληλυθέναι τῷ πατρὶ ἡμῶν εἰς τὴν Αἴγυπτον | ||
5 | αἰχμαλώτους,—ἀφ᾿ ὧν πλείονας εἰς τὸ στρατιωτικὸν σύνταγμα | 36 |
κατεχώρισεν ἐπὶ μείζοσι μισθοφορίαις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τοὺς προόντας | ||
κρίνας πιστοὺς φρούρια κτίσας ἀπέδωκεν αὐτοῖς, ὅπως τὸ τῶν Αἰγυ- | ||
πτίων ἔθνος φόβον [μὴ] ἔχῃ διὰ τούτων· καὶ ἡμεῖς δὲ παραλαβόντες | ||
τὴν βασιλείαν φιλανθρωπότερον ἀπαντῶμεν τοῖς πᾶσι, πολὺ δὲ | ||
10 | μᾶλλον τοῖς σοῖς πολίταις—ὑπὲρ δέκα μυριάδας αἰχμαλώτων ἠλευ- | 37 |
θερώκαμεν, ἀποδόντες τοῖς κρατοῦσι τὴν κατ᾿ ἀξίαν ἀργθρολὴν τιμήν, | ||
διορθούμενοι καὶ εἴ τι κακῶς ἐπράχθη διὰ τὰς τῶν ὄχλων ὁρμάς, | ||
διειληφότες εὐσεβῶς τοῦτο πρᾶξαι, καὶ τῷ μεγίστῳ θεῷ χαριστικὸν | ||
ἀνατιθέντεσ, ὃς ἡμῖν τὴν βασιλείαν ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ δόκῃ κρατίστῃ | ||
15 | παῤ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην διατετήρηκεν· εἴς τε τὸ στράτευμα τοὺς | |
ἀκμαιοτάτους ταῖς ἡλικίαις τετάχαμεν, τοὺς δὲ δυναμένους καὶ περὶ | ||
ἡμᾶς εἶναι, τῆς περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν πίστεως ἀξίους, ἐπὶ χρειῶν καθεστά- | ||
καμεν. βουλομένων δ᾿ ἡμῶν καὶ τούτοις χαρίζεσθαι καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς | 38 | |
κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην Ἰουδαίοις καὶ τοῖς μετέπειτα, προῃρήμεθα τὸν | ||
20 | νόμον ὑμῶν μεθερμηνευθῆναι γράμμασιν Ἑλληνικοῖς ἐκ τῶν παῤ | |
ὑμῶν λεγομένων Ἑβραϊκῶν γραμμάτων, ἵν᾿ ὑπάρχῃ καὶ ταῦτα παῤ | ||
ἡμῖν ἐν βιβλιοθήκῃ σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις βασιλικοῖς βιβλίοις. καλῶς | 39 | |
οὖν ποιήσεις καὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας σπουδῆς ἀξίως ἐπιλεξάμενος ἄνδρας | ||
καλῶς βεβιωκότας πρεσβυτέρους, ἐμπειρίαν ἔχοντας τοῦ νόμου, καὶ | ||
25 | δυνατοὺς ἑρμηνεῦσαι, ἀφ᾿ ἑκάστξς φυλῆς ἕξ, ὅπως ἐκ τῶν πλείονων | |
τὸ σύμξωνον εὑρεθῇ, διὰ τὸ περὶ μειζόνων εἶναι τὴν σκέψιν. | ||
οἰόμεθα γάρ ἐπιτελεσθέντος τούτου μεγάλην ἀποίσεσθαι δόξαν. | ||
1 επει συμβ. KZ Eus] επισυμβαινει codd cett 2 κατοικεισθαι Ar codd | HKAGIBT | |
κατωκεισθαι Eus txt Josvid | αναρπαστους HKA Eusedd txt GIBTZ Eusi | Z Jos Eus | |
4 συνεισελ. Gvid I Eusi 5 ων ] + και Eus 6 προοντας BcorrTZ Eus] | ||
παροντας HKAGIB* vid 8 μη hab Ar codd omn om Jos Eus recte ut | ||
videtur | εχει GI 11 αργυρ. κατ. αξ. Z 13 πρασσειν Eus | χαριστηριον | ||
B txt codd cett Eus 14 δοξη] + τη Eus 16 και om GI 17 της] | ||
pr και Eus | αξιως ZT? | επι χειρων κατεστακαμεν (-ησαμεν B) Ar codd | ||
επικρινων κατεστησα Eus txt emend Schmidt 21 υμιν (-ωνi) εβρ. λεγ. Eus | ||
23 επιλεξας Eus txt Ar Jos 25 δυναμενους BT | ||
ἀπεστάλκαμεν δὲ περὶ τούτων Ἀνδρέαν τῶν ἀρχισωματοφυλάκων | 40 | |
καὶ Ἀριστέαν, τιμωμένους παῤ ἡμῖν, διαλεξομένους σοι καὶ κομί- | ||
ζοντας ἀπαρχὰς εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν ἀναθημάτων καὶ εἰς θυσίας καὶ τὰ ἄλλα | ||
ἀργυρίου τὰλαντα ἑκατόν. γράφων δὲ καὶ σὺ πρὸς ἡμᾶς περὶ ὧν ἐὰν | ||
5 | βούλῃ κεχαρισμένος ἔσῃ, καὶ φιλίας ἄξιόν τι πράξεις, ὡς ἐπιτελεσ- | |
θησομένων τὴν ταχίστην περὶ ὧν ἂν αἱρῇ. ἔρρωσο. Πρὸς | 41 | |
ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἀντέγραψεν ἐνδεχομένως ὁ Ἐλεάζαρος | ||
ταῦτα Ἐλεάζαρος ἀρχιερεὺς βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαέῳ φίλῳ | ||
γνησίῳ χαίρειν. αὐτός τε ἔρρωσο καὶ ἡ βασίλισσα Ἀρσινόη, | ||
10 | ἡ ἀδελφή, καὶ τὰ τέκνα, καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι καὶ ὡς βουλόμεθα, καὶ | |
αὐτοὶ δὲ ὑγιαίνομεν. λαβόντες τὴν παρὰ σοῦ ἐπιστολὴν μεγάλως | 42 | |
ἐχάρημεν διὰ τὴν προαίρεσίν σου καὶ τὴν καλὴν βουλήν, καὶ συνα- | ||
γαγόντες τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος παρανέγνωμεν αὐτοῖς, ἵνα εἰδῶσιν ἣν ἔχεις | ||
πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἡμῶν εὐσέβειαν. ἐπεδείξαμεν δὲ καὶ τὰς διάλας ἃς | ||
15 | ἀπέστειλας, χρυσᾶς εἴκοσι καὶ ἀργυρᾶς τριάκοντα, κρατῆρας πέντε, | |
καὶ τράπεζαν εἱς ἀνάθεσιν, καὶ εἰς προσαγωγὴν θυσιῶν καὶ εἰς | ||
ἐπισκευὰς ὧν ἂν δέηται τὸ ἱερὸν ἀργυρίου τάλαντα ἑκατόν, ἅπερ | 43 | |
ἐκόμισεν Ἀνδρέας τῶν τετιμημένων παρὰ σοὶ καὶ Ἀριστέας, ἄνδρες | ||
καλοὶ καὶ ἀγαθοὶ καὶ παιδείᾳ διαφέροντες καὶ τῆς σῆς ἀγωγῆς καὶ | ||
20 | δικαιοσύνης ἄξιοι κατὰ πάντα· οἳ καὶ μετέδωκαν ἡμῖν τὰ παρὰ σοῦ, | |
πρὸς ἃ λαὶ παῤ ἡμῶν ἀκηκόασιν ἁρμόζοντα τοῖς σοῖς γράμμασι. | ||
πάντα γὰρ ὅσα σοι συμφέρει, καὶ εἰ παρὰ φύσιν ἐστίν, ὑπακουσό- | 44 | |
μεθα· τοῦτο γὰρ φιλίας καὶ ἀγαπήσεως σημεῖόν ἐστι. μεγάλα γὰρ | ||
καὶ σὺ καὶ ἀνεπίληστα τοὺς πολίτας ἡμῶν κατὰ πολλοὺς τρόπους | ||
1 τουτων Jos Eus] τουτου Ar | τον αρχισωματοφυλακα B (αρχι sup lin |
HKAGIBT | |
prima manu) TZ Jos txt Ar codd cett Eusi (των σωμ.º) 2 Αρισταιον Jos | Z Jos Eus | |
Eusº (-εαν Eusi cum Ar codd) | κομιζοντες Z 4 γραφε BT Eus txt codd | ||
cett et Josvid | αν B Eusº (εαν Eusi cum codd cett) 5 κεχαρ.] και χαρισαμενος | ||
Ar codd κεχαρισμενος γαρ Eus 7 ταυτ. την επ.] ταυτα Eusº | ||
8 ταδε Eusi
(ουτωςº) 9
ει αυτος τε ερρωσαι Eus txt (cf |
||
Ar codd (-σαι Z) 12 συναγοντες K 13 ανεγνωμεν Gcorr vid Jos παρεγν. | ||
IG*?B* + αυτην Eusº Jos 16 προαγωγην Z 17 προσδεηται Eus txt | ||
Ar codd Jos 18 εκομιζον Ar codd -σεν Eusi (-ζεν cett) -σαν Jos | Ανδρεας] | ||
ανδρες B | και] pr Ανδρεας Jos Eusº (-εαςi) 20 παρεδωκαν | ||
B 21 γραμμασι] οραγμασι Eus 24 και συ BT (σοι G και σοι IZ cf | ||
Jos τας σας ευεργεσιας)] om codd cett Eus | ανεπιληπτα A ] πολλους τροπους | ||
Eus (cf Jos πολυμερως)] πολλοις HA πολυ K πολλους cett | ||
εὐηργέτηκας. εὐθέως οὖν προσηγάγομεν ὑπὲρ θυσίας καὶ τῆς | 45 | |
ἀδελφῆς καὶ τῶν τέκνων καὶ τῶ φίλων· καὶ ηὔξατο πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος, | ||
ἵνα σοι γένηται καθὼς προαιρῇ διὰ παντός, καὶ διασώζῃ σοι τὴν | ||
βασιλείαν ἐν εἰρήνῃ μετὰ δόξης ὁ κυριεύων ἁπάντων θεός, καὶ ὅπως | ||
5 | γένηταί σοι συμφερόντως καὶ μετὰ ἀσφαλείας ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου νόμου | |
μεταγραφή. παρόντων δὲ πάντων ἐπελέξαμεν ἄνδρας καλοὺς καὶ | 46 | |
ἀγαθοὺς πρεσβυτέρους, ἀφ᾿ ἑκάστης φυλῆς ἕξ, οὓς καὶ ἀπεστείλαμεν | ||
ἔχοντας τὸν νόμον. καλῶς οὖν ποιήσεις, βασιλεῦ δίκαιε, προστάξας, | ||
ὡς ἂν ἡ μεταγραφὴ γένηται τῶν βιβλίων, ἵνα πάλιν ἀποκαταστα- | ||
10 | θῶσι πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀσφαλῶς οἱ ἄνδρες. ἔρρωσο.¶ Εἰσὶ δὲ πρώτης | 47 ¶Jos Eus |
φυλῆς· Ἰώσηφος Ἐζεκίας Ζαχαρίας Ἰωάννης Ἐζεκίας Ἐλισσαῖος. | ||
δεθτέρας· Ἰούδας Σίμων Σομόηλος Ἀδαῖος Ματταθίας Ἐσχλεμίας. | ||
τρίτης· Νεεμίας Ἰώσηφος Θεοδόσιος Βασέας Ὀρνίας Δάκις. | ||
τετάρτης· Ἰωνάθας Ἀβραῖος Ἐλισσαῖος Ἁνανίας Χαβρίας . . . | 48 | |
15 | πέμπτης· Ἴσακος Ἰάκωβος Ἰησοῦς Σαββαταῖος Σίμων Λευίς. | |
ἕκτης· Ἰούδας Ἰώσηφος Σίμων Ζαχαρίας Σομόηλος Σελεμίας. | ||
ἑβδόμης· §Σαββαταῖος Σεδεκίας Ἰάκωβος Ἴσαχος Ἰησίας Νατθαῖος. | 49 § C | |
ὀγδόης· Θεοδόσιος Ἰάσων Ἰησοῦς Θεόδοτος Ἰωάννης Ἰωνάθας. | ||
ἐνάτης· Θεόφιλος Ἄβραμος Ἄρσαμος Ἰάσων Ἐνδεμίας Δανίηλος. | ||
20 | δεκάτης· Ἰερεμίας Ἐλεάζαρος Ζαχαρίας Βανέας Ἐλισσαῖος Δαθαῖος. | 50 |
ἑνδεκάτης· Σαμούηλος Ἰώσηφος Ἰούδας Ἰωνάθης Χαβεῦ Δοσίθεος. | ||
δωδεκάτης· Ἰσάηλος Ἰωάννης Θεοδόσιος Ἄρσαμος Ἀβιήτης Ἐζε- | ||
κῇλος. οἱ πάντες ἑβδομήκοντα δύο. Καὶ τὰ μὲν πρὸς τὴν | 51 | |
τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπιστολὴν τοιαύτης ἐτύγχανεν ἀντιγραῆς ὑπὸ | ||
25 | τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἐλεάζαρον. | |
4 om εν BT | κθριευοντωων απαντων BT 5 om σαι Eus 6 om δε |
HKAGIBC | |
Eus | επελεξαμεν Jos] επιλεξαμην (sic) Eusi εξελεξαμην Eusº επελεξαμεθα | TZ Jos Eus | |
(απελ. BT om Z) Ar codd 7 απεσταλκαμεν Eus Josvid (πεπομφαμεν) | ||
10 οι ανδρ. ασφ. K om ασφ. GI 11 Ιωσηπος ιεζεκιας B 12 Ματθιας | ||
ΚΑ | Σεχλεμιας Bvid 13 Ιωσηπος B* vid | Βασαιασ T Βασβιας Z | ||
14 Αζραιος B | post Χαβριας nomen excidit for Χελκιας (Epiphan. De | ||
mens. et pond. 9 vers. Syr.) Wend. 15 Σαβατταιος I 16 Σιμων | ||
Ιωσηφος HKA 17, 18 om Σedek.—Θεοδοσιος I om Σεδεκ.—Ιησους Αtxt | ||
ins Amg om Ισαχος—Νατθαιος C 17 Ιεισιας GZ | Ματθαιος HKA | ||
18 Ιωναθαν B 19 Δανιλ TZ om C 20 Βαναιας BCTZ | Θαδδαιος Z | ||
22 δωδεκατος C 24 επιβολην AGICT* (-βουλ. T1) | υπο] υπερ codd | ||
§Ὡς δὲ ἐπηγγειλάμην καὶ τὰ τῶν κατασκευασμάτων διασαφῆσαι, |
§Jos | |
ποιήσω. πολυτεχνίᾳ γὰρ διαφέροντα συνετελέσθη, τοῦ βασθκέως | ||
πολλὴν ἐπίδοσιν ποιουμένου καὶ παῤ ἕκαστον ἐπιθεωροῦντος τοὺς | ||
τεχωίτας. διὸ παριδεῖν οὐδὲν ἡδύναντο οὐδὲ εἰκῇ συντελέσαι. | ||
5 | πρῶτον δέ σοι τὰ περὶ τῆς τραπέζης ἐξηγήσομαι. Προεθυ- | 52 |
μεῖτο μὲν οὖν ὁ βασιλεὺς ὐπέροπλόν τι ποιῆσαι τοῖς μέτροις τὸ | ||
κατασκεύασμα. προσέταξε δὲ πυθέσθαι τῶν ἀνὰ τὸν τόπον, πηλίκη | ||
τίς ἐστιν ἡ προοῦσα καὶ κειμένη κατά τὸ ἑερὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις. | ||
ὡς δὲ ἀπεφήναντο τὰ μέτρα, προσεπηρώτησεν, εἰ κατασκευάσει | 53 | |
10 | μείζονα. τινὲς μὲν οὖν καὶ τῶ ἱερέων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἔλεγον μηδέν | |
ἐπικωλύειν. ὁ δέ εἶπε βούλεσθαι καὶ πεωταπλῆν τοῖς μεγέθεσι | ||
ποιῆσαι, διστάζειν δὲ μήποτε ἄχρηστος γένηται πρὸς τὰς λειτουρ- | ||
γίας. οὐ γὰρ αἱρεῖσθαι τὸ κεῖσθαι μόνον ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τὰ παῤ | 54 | |
αὐτοῦ, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον χάριν ἕξειν, ἐὰν τὰς καθηκούσας λειτουργίας | ||
15 | ἐπὶ τῶν ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευασμένων οἷς καθῆκε ποιῶνται δεόντως. | |
οὐ γὒρ ἕνεκεν σπάνεως χρυσοῦ τὰ προσυντετελεσμένα βραχύμετρα | 55 | |
καθέστηκεν, ἀλλὰ φαίνεται πρός τινα λόγον, εἶπεν, οὕτως συνεστη- | ||
κέναι τοῖς μέτροις. ἔτι γὰρ ἐπιταγῆς οὔσης οὐθὲν ἂν ἐσπάνιζε· | ||
διόπερ οὐ παραβατέον οὐδὲ ὑπερθετέον τὰ καλῶς ἔχοντα. τῇ μὲν | 56 | |
20 | οὖν ποικιλίᾳ τῶν τεχνῶν ἐκέλευσεν ὅτι μάλιστα χρήσασθαι, σεμνῶς | |
ἅπαντα διανοούμενος καὶ φύσιν ἔχων ἀγαθὴν εἰς τὸ συνιδεῖν πραγ- | ||
μάτων ἔμφασιν. ὅσα δ᾿ ἂν ᾖ ἄγραφα, πρὸς καλλονὴν ἐκέλευσε | ||
ποιεῖν· ὅσα δὲ διὰ γραπτῶν, μέτρα αὐτοῖς κατακολουθῆσαι. | ||
γὰρ , δὲ | 57 | |
25 | συνετέλουν, στερεὰν πάντοθεν τὴν ποίησιν ἐργα- | |
24 |
||
1 των] pr κατα GIC | επισκευασματων B σκευασμ. B 2 om ποιησω |
HKAGIB | |
BU 3 επιθεωρουντας CTZ 4 ουδεν] ουδε B 6 om ουν C 7 om | CTZ Jos | |
δε Z 11 κωλυειν BCTZ Jos | βουλεσθαι—δε 12 om BCTZ 12 μηποτε] | ||
μητε GI 13 τα ins Schmidt 14 καταθηκουσας GI 16 ενεκα | ||
B | προσσυν. A* (προσυν. Acorr) προτετ. B (συν suprascr pr man) 18 ετι γαρ | ||
επιταγης bene conj Mend. cf § 103] οιδα γαρ ως δαψιλους της υλης αυτοις | ||
B ετι γαρ επι τα (τας CT*Z) της codd cett | αν om H supra lin Z 22 εγγραφα | ||
K 24 πηχεων] pr και ημισους Jos qui et post μηκος add (ex LXX. | ||
vid) ενος δε το ευρος | ||
σάμενοι, λέγω δὲ οὐ περί τι περιεπτυγμένου τοῦ χρυσοῦ, τὸν δὲ | ||
ἐλασμὸν αὐτὸν ἐπιδεδέσθαι. δὲ ἐποίησαν | 58 | |
· τὰ δὲ , τὴ ἀναγλυφὴν ἔχοντα σχοινί- | ||
δων ἔκτυπον, τῇ τορείᾳ θαυμαστῶς ἔχουσαν ἐκ τῶν τριῶν μερῶν˙ | ||
5 | ἦν γὰρ τριγωνία. καὶ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον μέρος ἡ διατύπωσις τῆς ἐωεργείας | 59 |
τὴν αὐτὴν διάθεσιν εἶχεν, ὥστε, καθ᾿ ὃ ἂν μέρος στρέφοιτο, τὴν | ||
πρόσοψιν εἶναι τὴν αὐτήν, κειμένου δὲ κατὰ τῆς στεφάνης τὸ μὲν | ||
εἰς αὐτὴν τὴν τράπεζαν ¶ ἀπόκλιμα τὴν διατύπωσιν ἔχειν τῆς ὡραιό- | ¶ H | |
τητος, τὸ δὲ ἐκτὸς κλίμα πρὸς τὴν τοῦ προσάγοντος εἶναι θεωρίαν. | ||
10 | διὸ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ὀξεῖαν εἶναι τῶν δύο κλιμάτων συνέβαινε, μετέωρον | 60 |
ἐπικειμένη, ὡς προειρήκαμεν, τριγώνου κατεσκευασμένου, καθ᾿ ὃ ἂν | ||
μέρος στρέφοιτο. λίθων τε πολυτελῶν ἐν αὐτῷ διαθέσεις ὑπῆρχον | ||
ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν σχοινίδων· ἕτερος παρὰ ἕτερον πλοκὴν εἶχον ἀμί- | ||
μητον τῇ ποιήσει. πάντες δ᾿ ἦσαν διὰ τρημάτων κατειλημμένοι | 61 | |
15 | χρυσαῖς περόναις πρὸς τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν γωνιῶν αἱ | |
κατακλεῖδες συνέσφιγγον πρὸς τὴν συνοχήν. ἐκ πλαγ͗ων δὲ κατὰ | 62 | |
τὴν στεφάνην κυκλόθεν τὰ πρὸς τὴν ἄνω πρόσπψιν ᾠοθεσία κατε- | ||
σκεύαστο διάλιθος, † ἐκτύπωσιν ἔχουσα προσοχῆς † συνεχέσιν ἀνα- | ||
γλυφαῖς ῥαβδωταῖς, πυκνὴν ἐχούσαις τὴν πρὸς ἄλληλα θέσιν περὶ | ||
20 | ὅλην τὴν τράπεζαν. ὑπὸ τὴν ἐκτύπωσιν τῶν λίθων τῆς | 63 |
ᾠοθεσίας, στέφανον ἐποίησαν οἱ τεχωῖται πάγκαρπον, ἐν ὑπεροχῇ | ||
προδήλως ἔχοντα βοτρύων καὶ σταχύων, ἔτι δὲ φοινίκων καὶ μήλων | ||
ἐλαίας τε καὶ ῥοῶν καὶ τῶν παραπλησίων. τοὺς δὲ λίθους ἐργασά- | ||
μενοι πρὸς τὴν τῶν προειρημένων καρπῶν διατύπωσιν, ἔχοντας | ||
1 χρυσου] ad hoc Acorr in mg add ου κατα τι μερος της τραπεζης |
HKAGIB | |
συνεσταλμενου του χρυσου και ουχ ορωμενου· αλλα δια παντων | CTZ Jos | |
επιλαμποντος· και κατα τας σωματικας διαστασεις τηοι | ||
κατα βαθος και κατα μηκος και κατα πλατος ομοιως εχοντος· στερεα | ||
γαρ ην δι ολου του σχηματος. το δε ειδος ως φησιν Θεοδωριτος (-ρητ. L) | ||
τριγωνος κατα λογον αναγωγης υψηλοτερας και θειοτερας. Haec verba | ||
L textui inseruit 3, 4 σχοινιδῶν GIBT* ?] σχοινιδον HKAC -ηδον | ||
T1 ?Z (σχοινοειδη Jos) 4 εκτυπον T1 ? εκτοπον cett 5 τριγωνα | ||
Wend. (cf Jos) 7 κειμενου δε κατα] κειμενης δε και B 11 κειμενην | ||
BCTZ 12 εν αυτω] εν εαυτω GICZ εαυτω T 13 σχοινιδῶν (-ηδ. Z) codd | ||
16 κατακλειδαι C | συνεσφιγγον KA] + δε cett 18 εκτυπωσιν B] | ||
εκτυπων (εκ τυπων GI) cett | Fort legendum προοχης (conj Schmidt) | | ||
συνοχεσιν GIBC 19 εχουσας CZ 22 δε] + και A | ||
ἑκάστου γένους τὴν χρόαν, ἀνέδησαν τῷ χρυσίῳ κύκλῳ περὶ ὅλην | ||
τὴμ τῆς τραπέζης κατασκευὴν κατὰ κρόταφον. μετὰ δὲ τὴ τοῦ | 64 | |
στεφάνου διάθεσιν, ὁμοίως κατά τὴν τῆς ᾠοθεσίας διασκευὴν κατε- | ||
σκεύαστο, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῆς ῥαβδώσεως καὶ διαγλυφῆς διὰ τὸ | ||
5 | κατ᾿ ἀμφότερα τὰ μέρη τὴν τράπεζαν πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν πεποιῆσθαι, | |
καθ᾿ ὃ ἂν μέρος αἴρωνται, ὥστε καὶ τὴν τῶν κυμάτων θέσιν καὶ τὴν | ||
τῆς στεφάνης εἶναι κατὰ τὸ τῶν ποδῶν μέρος. ἔλασμα γὰρ ἐποίη- | 65 | |
σαν καθ᾿ ὅλου τοῦ πλάτους τῆς τραπέζης στερεὸν δακτύλων τεσσάρων, | ||
ὥστε τοὺς πόδας ἐνίεσθαι εἰς τοῦτο, περόνας σὺν κατακλεῖσιν | ||
10 | ἔχοντασ ἐσφίγχθαι κατὰ τὴν στεφάνην, ἵνα, καθ᾿ ὃ ἂν αἴρωνται | |
μέρος, ἡ χρῆσις ᾖ· τοῦτο δὲ κατὰ ἐπιφάνειαν θεωρεῖται ἀμφοτε- | ||
ροδεξίου τῆς κατασκευῆς οὔσης. ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς δὲ τῆς τραπέζης | 66 | |
μαίανδρον ἔκτυπον ἐποίησαν, ἐν ὑπεροχῇ λίθους ἔχοντα κατὰ μέσον | ||
πολυτελεῖς τῶν πολυειδῶν, ἀνθράκων τε καὶ σμαράγδων, ἔτι δὲ | ||
15 | ὄνυχος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων γενῶν τῶν διαφερόντων ἐν ὡραιότητι. | |
μετὰ δὲ τὴν τοῦ μαιάνδρου διάθεσιν ἐπέκειτο σχιστὴ πλοκή, | 67 | |
θαυμασίως ἔχουσα, ῥομβωτὴν ἀποτελοῦσα τὴν ἀνὰ μέσον θεωρίαν· | ||
ἐφ᾿ ᾗ κρυστάλλου λίθος καὶ τὸ λεγόμενον ἤλεκτρον ἐντετύπωτο, | ||
ἀμίμητον θεωρίαν ἀποτελοῦν τοῖς θεωροῦσι τοὺς δὲ πόδας ἐποίησαν | 68 | |
20 | τὰς κεφαλίδας ἔχοντας κρινωτάς, ἀνάκλασιν κρύνων ὑπὸ τὴν τράπεζαν | |
λαμβανόντων, τὰ δὲ τῆς ἐντὸς προσόψεως ὀρθὴν ἔχοντα τὴν πετά- | ||
λωσιν. ἡ δὲ ἐπ᾿ ἐδάφους ἔρεισις τοῦ ποδὸς ἄνθρακος λίθου πάν- | 69 | |
τοθεν παλιστιαία, κρηπῖδος ἔχουσα τάξιν κατὰ τὴν πρόσοψιν, ὀκτὼ | ||
δὲ δακτύλων τὸ πλάτος ἔχουσα· ἐφ᾿ ὃν ἐπίκειται τὸ πᾶν ἔλασμα | ||
25 | τοῦ ποδός. κατεσκεύασαν δὲ ἐκφύοντα κισσὸν ἀκάνθῳ πλεκόμενον | 70 |
ἐκ τοῦ λίθου, σὺν ἀμπέλῳ περιειλούμενον κυκλόθεν τῷ ποδὶ σὺν | ||
1, 2 ολην την] ολην T την ολην C 3 κατα] pr κατω τα Wend. |
KAGIBC | |
διασκευην] κατασκευην KBCTZ + η codd omn 4 δια το] και codd ωστε | TZ Jos | |
Wend. et om in lin 6 5 προς την χρ. την τρ. I 6 ωστε—θεσιν om | ||
BT | θεσιν ] + πεποιησθαι καθ ο αν μερος CZ 8 στερεων T 9 περονας | ||
14 πολυειδων ex Jos (λιθους . . . αξιολογους ωσπερ αστερας ποικιλης ) | ||
ιδεας) conj Lumbroso] πθλιαδων codd 16 σχιστη] κτιστη B | ||
18 om ηλεκτρον C |εντετυπωτο Jos B1] ενετυπ. KAGIB* ενετετυπ. | ||
Z ετετυπωτο C 21 ορθην] αρκουντως T 23 παλαισταιου BCTZ | ||
24 ον] ων C 25 κατεσκευασαν corr Wend. -σεν GIC -σε cett | ακανθη BT | ||
26 περιειλημενον G | ||
τοῖς βότρυσιν, οἳ λιθουργεῖς ἦσαν, μέχρι τῆς κεφαλῆς. ἡ δ᾿ | ||
αὐτὴ διάθεσις ἦν τῶν τεσσάρων [ποδῶν, πάντα ἐνεργῶς πεποιη- | ||
μένα καὶ προσηγμένα, τῆς ἐμπειρίας καὶ τέχνης τὰς ὑπεροχὰς | ||
ἀπαραλλάκτως ἔχοντα πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὥστε καὶ ῥιπίζοντος τοῦ | ||
5 | κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα πνεύματος κίνησιν ἐπιδέχεσθαι τὴν τῶν φύλλων | |
θέσιν, πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας διάθεσιν τετυπωμένων ἁπάντων. | ||
ἐποίησαν δὲ τριμερὲς τὸ στόμα τῆς τραπέζης, οἱονεὶ τρίπτυχον, | 71 | |
πελεκίνοις συναρμοζόμενα γομφωτοῖς πρὸς ἑαυτὰ κατὰ τὸ πάχος τῆς | ||
κατασκευῆς, ἀθέατον καὶ ἀνεύρετον τὴν τῶν ἁρμῶν κατασκευάσαντες | ||
10 | συμβολήν. ἡμιπηχίου δὲ οὐκ ἐλάσσονος ἦν τὸ πάχος τῆς ὅλης | |
τραπέζης, ὥστε πολλῶν εἶναι ταλάντων τὴν ὅλην διασκευήν. ἐπεὶ | 72 | |
γὰρ οὐ προῄρητο τοῖς μεγέθεσιν οὐδὲν προσθεῖναι ὁ βασιλεύς, ὅσον | ||
ἔδει δαπανηθῆναι κατασκευαζομένων μειζόνων, ταῦτα ἀποδέδωκε | ||
πλείονα· καὶ κατὰ τὴν προαίρεσιν αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐπετελέσθη | ||
15 | θαυμασίως καὶ ἀξιολόγως ἔχοντα, καὶ ταῖς τέχναις ἀμίμητα, καὶ τῇ | |
καλλονῇ διαπρεπῆ. Τῶν δὲ κρατήρων δύο μὲν ἦσαν χρυσ οῖ | 73 | |
τῇ¶ κατασκευῇ, φολιδωτὴν ἔχοντες ἀπὸ τῆς βάσεως μέχρι τοῦ μέσου | ¶ C | |
τὴν διασκευὴν τῇ τορείᾳ, καὶ τὴν τῶν λίθων ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν φολίδων | ||
σύνδεσιν πολυτέχνως ἔχοντες. εἶτα μαίανδρος ἐπέκειτο πηχυαῖος | 74 | |
20 | ὕψει, τὴν δ᾿ ἐκτύπωσιν ἐνυπῆρχε διὰ λιθώσεως ποικίλης, ἐμφαίνων | |
σὺν ὡραιότητι τὸ τῆς τέχνης φιλόπονον. ἐπὶ δὲ τούτου ῥάβδωσις, | ||
ἐφ᾿ ᾗ διαπλοκὴ ῥόμβων, δικτυωτὴν ἔχουσα τὴν πρόσοψιν ἕως ἐπὶ τὸ | ||
στόμα. τὸ δ᾿ ἀνὰ μέσον ἀσπιδίσκοι λίθων ἑτέρων παῤ ἑτέροις, τοῖς | 75 | |
γένεσι παραλλαγὴν ἐχόντων, τετραδακτύλων οὐκ ἔλαττον, ἀνεπλή- | ||
25 | ρουν τὸ τῆς καλλονῆς ἐναργές. ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς στεφάνης τοῦ στόματος | |
κρίνων τύπωσις σὺν ἀνθεμίσι καὶ βοτρύων σχοινιαὶ διάπλοκοι | ||
διετυποῦντο κυκλόθεν. οἱ μὲν οὖν διὰ τοῦ χρυσοῦ τοιαύτην εἶχον | 76 | |
τὴν κατασκευήν, χωροῦντες ὑπὲρ δύο μετρητάς· οἱ δ᾿ ἀργυροῖ λείαν | ||
1 οι] ο GI 2 εναργως BZ 3 προηγμενα Wend. 7 στομα] |
KAGIBC | |
σχημα Jos 8 συναρμοζομενον KA 9 αθετον codd txt ex Jos (αορατον) | TZ Jos | |
10 ημιπηχοαιου B | ην KB] η cett 12 προειρητο GCTZ | οσων CTZ 13 om | ||
μειζνονων C | απεδωκε Wend. cf autem § 173 14 απετελεσθη BCT | ||
15 την τεχνην C 16 χρυσοι (om codd) ex Jos (χρυσεοι) supplevi | ||
17, 18 απο της βασ.—τορεια και om BTZ 18 πορεια G 19 συνθεσιν | ||
GI 25 ? ενεργες 26 σχοινιω codd txt ex Jos conj Schmidt 28 λιαν | ||
GIZT* fort | ||
εἶχον τὴν διασκευήν, ἔνοπτρον δὴ γεγονυῖαν πρὸς αὐτὸ τοῦτο θαυμα- | ||
σίως ἔχουσαν, ὥστε πᾶν τὸ προσαχθὲν ἀπαυγάζεσθαι σαφέστερον | ||
μᾶλλον ἢ ἐν τοῖς κατόπτροις. οὐκ ἐφικτὸν δ᾿ ἐστὶν ἐξηγήσασθαι | 77 | |
τὰ προσυντελεσθέντα πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἔμφασιν. ὡς γὰρ | ||
5 | ἐπετελέσθη, τεθέντων τῶν κατασκευασμάτων ἑτέρου παῤ ἕτερον— | |
λέγω δὲ πρῶτον ἀργυροῦ κρατῆρος, εἶτα χρυσοῦ, πάλιν ἀργυροῦ καὶ | ||
χρυσοῦ—παντελῶς ἀνεξήγητος ἐγένετο τῆς προσόψεως ἡ διάθεσις, | ||
καὶ τῶν πρὸς τὴν θεωρίαν προσιόντων οὐ δυναμένων ἀφίστασθαι διὰ | ||
τὴν περιαύγειαν καὶ τὸ τῆς ὄψεως τερπονόν. ποικίλη γὰρ ἦν ἡ τῆς | 78 | |
10 | ἐπιφανείας ἐνέργεια. προσορώντων γὰρ πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν τοῦ χρυσίου | |
κατασκευήν, ψυχαγωγία τις ἦν μετὰ θαυμασμοῦ, συνεχῶς ἐφ᾿ ἕκαστον | ||
ἐπιβαλλούσης τῆς διανοίας τεχνίτευμα. καὶ πάλιν ὅτε πρὸς τὴν | ||
τῶν ἀργυρῶν προσβλέψαι τις θέσιν ἤθελεν, ἀπέλαμπε τὰ πάντα | ||
κυκλόθεν, ὡς ἄν τις ἕστηκε, καὶ διάχυσιν ἐποίει μείζονα τοῖς θεω- | ||
15 | μένοις· ὥστε παντελῶς ἀνεξήγητον εἶναι τῶν ἐνηργημένων τὴν | |
πολυτεχνίαν. Τὰς δὲ χρυσᾶς φιάλας διετόρευσαν στεφάνοις | 79 | |
ἀμπέλου κατὰ μέσον, περὶ δὲ τὰ χείλη κισσοῦ τε καὶ μυρσίνης ἔτι | ||
δ᾿ ἐλαίας ἀνέπλεξαν στέφανον ἔκτυπον, πολυτελεῖς ἐνέντες λίθους· | ||
καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς δὲ τορείας διηλλαγμένως ἐπετέλεσαν, ἅπαντα φιλοτι- | ||
20 | μηθέντες εἰς ὑπεροχὴν δόξης τοῦ βασιλέως ποιῆσαι. καθόλου γὰρ | 80 |
οὔτ᾿ ἐν τοῖς βασιλικοῖς ὑπῆρχε ῥισκοφυλακίοις τοιαύτη κατασκευὴ | ||
τῇ πολυτελείᾳ καὶ τεχνουργίᾳ, οὔτ᾿ ἔν τινι ἄλλῳ. πρόνοιαν γὰρ οὐ | ||
μικρὰν ἐποιεῖτο ὁ βασιλεύς, φιλοδοξῶν εἰς τὰ καλῶς ἔχοντα. | ||
πολλάκις γὰρ τὸν δημόσιον χρηματισμὸν παρίει, τοῖς δὲ τεχνίταις | 81 | |
25 | παρήδρευεν ἐπιμελῶς, ἵνα καθηκόντως τῷ τόπῳ συντελέσωσιν, εἰς | |
ὃν ἀπεστέλλετο τὰ τῶν ἔργων.¶ διὸ πὰντα σεμνῶς ἐγεγόνει, καὶ | ¶ Jos | |
καταξίως τοῦ τε ἀποστέλλοντος βασιλέως καὶ τοῦ προστατοῦντος | ||
ἀρχιερέως τοῦ τόπου. καὶ γὰρ τὸ τῶν λίθων πλῆθος ἄφθονον, καὶ | 82 | |
1 δη] δε TZ om BC 2 προσαχεν GI προσταχθεν Z 4 προσσυντ. B |
KAGIBTZ | |
4, 5 προς την—τεθεντων om Ttxt (insmg) Z 6 προτερον Z | Jos | |
13 προσβλεψεται T επιβλεψεται B 13, 14 θεσιν—ως αν τις om BTZ | ||
14 εστηκη Wend. 18 ενιεντες BTZ 19 τορειας KAcorr] πορειας cett | | ||
διηλλαγμενας Β 22 και τεχν.] της τεχνοργιας B 23 εποιει KAGI | ||
24 παριει TZ] παρηει cett 25 επιτελεσωσιν Β* | ||
μεγάλοι τοῖς μεγέθεσιν, οὐκ ἔλαττον πεντακισχιλίων· καὶ ταῖς τέχωαις | ||
κρατιστεύοντα πάντα, ὧστε πενταπλασίως τοῦ χρυσοῦ τιμιωτέραν | ||
εἶναι τὴν τῶν λίθων δόσιν καὶ τὴν τῶν τεχνῶν ἐνέργειαν. | ||
Ὑπολαμβάνων οὖν καὶ τούτων τὴν ἀναγραφὴν ἀναγκαίαν εἶναι, | 83 | |
5 | δεδήλωκά σοι. τὰ δ᾿ ἑξῆς περιέχει τὴν πρὸς τὸν Ἐλεάζαρον ὁδὸν | |
ἡμῖν γενομένην· τὴν δὲ θέσιν τῆς ὅλης χώρας πρῶτον δηλώσω. | ||
Ὡς γὰρ παρεγενήθημεν ἐπὶ τοὺς τόπους, ἐθεωροῦμεν τὴν πόλιν μέσην | ||
κειμένην τῆς ὅλης Ἰουδαίων ἐπ᾿ ὄρους ὑψηλὴν ἔχοντος τὴν ἀνάτασιν. | ||
ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς κορυφῆς κατεσκεύαστο τὸ ἱερὸν ἐκπρεπῶς ἔχον· καὶ οἱ | 84 | |
10 | περίβολοι τρεῖς, ὑπέρ ἑβδομήκοντα δὲ πήχεις τῷ μεγέθει, καὶ τὸ | |
πλάτος ἀκόλουθον καὶ τὸ μῆκος τῆς κατὰ τὸν οἶκον διασκευῆς | ||
ὑπῆρχε, μεγαλομοιρίᾳ καὶ χορηγίᾳ κατὰ πάντα ὑπερβαλλούσῃ | ||
διῳκοδομημένων ἁπάντων. καὶ τοῦ θυρώματος δὲ καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸ | 85 | |
συνδέσμων κατὰ τὰς φλιὰς καὶ τῆς τῶν ὑπερθύρων ἀσφαλείας | ||
15 | ἔκδηλος ἦν ἡ τῶν χρημάτων γεγονυῖα ἀφειδὴς δαπάνη. τοῦ τε | 86 |
καταπετάσματος ἡ διατύπωσις θυρώσει κατὰ πᾶν ὁμοιοτάτη ὑπῆρχε· | ||
καὶ μάλιστα διὰ τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ὑποδρομὴν ἀδιάλειπτον κίνησιν | ||
λαμβανούσης τῆς διφῆς, διὰ τὸ ἀπ᾿ ἐδάφους γινομένης τῆς ὑποδρο- | ||
μῆς κατατείνειν τὴν κόλπωσιν μέχρι τῆς ἄνω διατάσεως, ἡδεῖάν | ||
20 | τινα καὶ δυσαπάλλακτον τὴν θεωρίαν ἔχοντος τοῦ πράγματος. | |
Ἥ τε τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου κατασκευὴ συμμέτρως ἔχουσαν πρὸς τὸν | 87 | |
τόπον καὶ τὰ θύματα διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς ἐξαναλούμενα τὴν διοικοδομὴν | ||
εἶχε, τῆς δ᾿ ἀναβάσεως τῆς πρὸς αὐτό, πρὸς τὴν εὐκοσμίαν ἔχοντος | ||
τοῦ τόπου καθηκόντως τὸ κλίμα τῶν λειτουργούντων ἱερέων κεκα- | ||
1 μεγαλοις GI | ελαττον] + των KA 5 ημιν οδον B 6 δηλωσον GIZ -σαι K | KAGIBTZ | |
7 επι του τοπου BT¹ επι του και τοπους GI et sic cett sed cum lacuna |
||
post του et ς̀ (+ τους LD) τοπους. Txt ex papyris confirmatur |
||
8 Ιουδαιων KAGI] Ιουδαιας cett | ψιλην K | αναστασιν GI 9 ευπρεπως BT | ||
12 υπερβαλλ. B] υπερβαλουση Acorr περιβαλουση cett 13 και 1º] κακ | ||
conj Schmidt 16 θυρωσι GI -σιν Z 17 αδιαληπτον KGIZ 18 απ] επ B | | ||
γενμ. BTZ 19 κατα codd κατατεινειν conj Schmidt 20 εχειν ex εχοντος T* vid | ||
21 om κατασκευη T* (ins T¹) Z | συμμετρον εχουσα codd txt ex corr Mend. | ||
24 λειτουργουντων corr Mend.] λειτουργων (-γιων BT) των codd | ||
λυμμένων μέχρι τῶν σφυρῶν . § Ὁ δὲ οἶκος βλέ- | 88 § Eus | |
πει πρὸς ἔω, τὰ δ᾿ ὀπίσθια αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἑσπέραν· τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἔδαφος | ||
λιθόστρωτον καθέστηκε καὶ κλίματα πρὸς τοὺς κατήκοντας τόπους | ||
ἔχει τῆς τῶν ὑδάτων ἐπιφορᾶς ἕνεκεν, ἣ γίνεται διὰ τὴν σμῆξιν τῶν | ||
5 | ἀπὸ τῶν θυσιῶν αἱμάτων. πολλαὶ γὰρ μυριάδεσ κτηνῶν προσά- | |
γονται κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἑορτῶν ἡμέρας. ὕδατος δέ ἀνέκλειπτός ἐστι | 89 | |
σύστασις, ὡς ἂν καὶ πηγῆς ἔσωθεν πολυρρύτου φυσικῶς ἐπιρρεούσης, | ||
ἔτι δὲ θαυμασίων καὶ ἀδιήγητων ὐποδοχείων ὑπαρχόντων ὑπὸ γῆν, | ||
καθὼς ἀπέφαινον πέντε σταδίων κυκλόθεν τῆς κατὰ τὸ ἱερὸν κατα- | ||
10 | βολῆς καὶ ἑκάστου τούτων σύριγγας ἀναρίθμους, καθ᾿ ἕκαστον | |
μέρος ἑαυτὰ συναπτόντων τῶν ῥευμάτων· καὶ πάντα ταῦτα μεμο- | 90 | |
λιβῶσθαι κατ᾿ ἐδάφους καὶ τοῦ τοίχου· ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων κεχύσθαι | ||
πολύ τι πλῆθος κονιάσεως, ἐνεργῶς γεγενημένων ἁπάντων·¶ εἶναι | ¶ Eus | |
δὲ πυκνὰ τὰ στόματα πρὸς τὴν βάσιν, ἀοράτων ἔχοντα τοῖς πᾶσι | ||
15 | πλὴν αὐτοῖς οἷς ἐστιν ἡ λειτουργία, ὡς ῥοπῇ καὶ νεύματι πάντα | |
καθαρίζεσθαι τὰ συναγόμενα παμπληθῆ τῶν θυμάτων αἵματα. | ||
πεπεισμένος δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν τῶν ὑποδοχείων κατασκεὴν δηλώσω | 91 | |
καθὼς ἐπιστώθην. προήγαγον γὰρ πλέον σταδίων τεσσάρων ἐκ τῆς | ||
πόλεως, καὶ πρός τινα τόπον ἐκέλευσαν κατακύψαντα συνακοῦσαι | ||
20 | τοῦ γινομένου ψόφου τῆς ἀπαντήσεως τῶν ὑδάτων· ὥστε συμφανές | |
μοι γεγονέναι τὸ μέγεθος τῶν ἀγγείων, καθὼς δεδήλωται. | ||
Τῶν δὲ ἱερέων ἡ λειτουργία κατὰ πᾶν ἀνυπέρβλτός ἐστι τῇ ῥώμῃ | 92 | |
καὶ τῇ τῆς εὐκοσμίας καὶ σιγῆς διαθέσει. πάντεσ γὰρ αὐτοκελεύ- | ||
στως διαπονοῦσι πολλῆς γινομένης κακοπαθείας, καὶ ἑκάστῳ τὸ | ||
25 | διατεταγμένον μέλει. καὶ ἀδιαλείπτως ὑπηρετοῦσιν, οἱ μὲν τὴν | |
ξυλείαν, οἱ δὲ ἔλαιον, οἱ δὲ σεμίδαλιν, οἱ δὲ τὰ τῶν ἀρωμάτων, ἕτεροι | ||
1 |
||
1 αποβλεπει Eus 2 ηω Eus 4 επιφορας] επιρροης Eus 6 ανεπιληπτος | KAGIBTZ | |
B txt Eus (-λιπ.º) KT ανεκληπτος cett 9 επεφαινον Eus 10 εκαστου] εκ | Eus | |
Eus 11 εαυτας Ar codd Eusio (-ταις Eusal txt Schmidt | ταυτα παντα Eus | | ||
μεμολιβουσθαι Ar codd txt Eusio B1 12 τους τοιχους Eusº (των -ων Eusi) | | ||
πολυ τι πλην. κεχ. K 13 om τι Eus | κονιας εως Ar codd Eusº | ενεργων Z | ||
15 ριπη Tcorr | ρευματι B 16 παμπληθει KABcorr 17 πεπεισμενοις | ||
(-νως A) et αυτοις codd corr Schmidt 19 εκελευσαν B] εκελευσε | ||
(-σεν GI) cett 25 μελλει GIBTZ 26 ετερος G | ||
τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς ὁλοκαυτοῦντεσ, ἰσχύι διαφερόντως συγχρώμενοι· | ||
διαλαβόντες γὰρ ἀμφοτέραις τῶν μόσχων τὰ σκέλη, πλεῖον ὄντα | 93 | |
ταλάντων δύο σχεδὸν ἑκάστου, ἀναρρίπτουσιν ἑκατέραις θαυμασίως | ||
ὕψος ἱκανὸν καὶ οὐχ ἁμαρτάνουσι τῆς ἐπιθέσεως. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ | ||
5 | τῶν προβάτων ἔτι δ᾿ αἰγῶν τοῖς βάρεσι καὶ πιμελῇ θαυμασίως ἔχει. | |
κατὰ πᾶν γὰρ ἐκλεγομένων οἷς ἐπιμελές ἐστιν ἀμώμητα καὶ τῇ | ||
παχύτητι διαφέροντα, τὸ προειρημένον ἐπιτελεῖται. πρὸς δὲ τὴν | 94 | |
ἀνάπαυσιν τόπος αὐτοῖς ἐστὶν ἀποτεταγμένος, οὗ καθίζουσιν οἱ | ||
διαναπαυόμενοι. τούτου δὲ γινομένου, τῶν διαλελοιπότων ἐγείρονται | ||
10 | πρόθυμοι, οὐδενὸς ἐπιτάσσοντος τὰ τῆς λειτουργίας. ἥ τε πᾶσα | 95 |
σιγὴ καθέστηκεν, ὥστε ὑπολαμβάνειν, μηθ᾿ ἕνα ἄνθρωπον ἐν τῷ | ||
τόπῳ παρεῖναι, πρὸς τοὺς ἑπτακοσίους παρόντων τῶν λειτουργῶν— | ||
καὶ τῶν προσαγόντων δὲ τὰ θύματα πολύ τι πλῆθος—ἀλλὰ φόβῳ | ||
καὶ καταξίως μεγάλης θειότητος ἅπαντ᾿ ἐπιτελεῖται. Μεγύλην | 96 | |
15 | δὲ ἔκπληξιν ἡμῖν παρέσχεν, ὡς ἐθεασάμεθα τὸν Ἐλεάζαπρον ἐν τῇ | |
λειτουργίᾳ τά τε το̰ στολισμοῦ καὶ τῆς δόξης, ἣ συνίσταται διὰ | ||
τὴν ἔνδυσιν σὗ φορεῖ καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν λίθων· | ||
γὰρ περὶ τὸν εἰσὶν αὐτοῦ, μέλους ἦχον ἀνιέντες | ||
ἰδιάζοντα· παρ᾿ ἐκάτερον δὲ τούτων πεποικιλμένοι , | ||
20 | τῇ χρόᾳ θαυμασίως ἔχοντες. κατέζωστο δὲ διαφόρῳ δια- | 97 |
πρεπεῖ, διυφασμένῃ καλλίστοις χρώμασιν. δὲ | ||
φορεῖ τὸ λεγόμενον , ἐν ᾧ συνεσφιγμένοι , | ||
διαλλάσσοντες τοῖς γένεσι, χρυσῷ κεκολλημένοι, τῶν φυλὰρ- | ||
χων κατὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς διάταξιν γενηθεῖσαν, ἀπαυγά- | ||
25 | ζοντεσ ἕκαστος ἀνεξήγητον τῆς ἰδιότητος τὴν φυσικὴν χρόαν. ἐπὶ | 98 |
δὲ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχει τὴν λεγομένην , ἐπὶ δὲ ταύτης τὴν | ||
ἀμίμητον , τὸ καθηγιασμένον βασίλειον ἐπὶ | ||
17 ff |
||
26 |
||
1 χρωμενοι A 2 πλειων BT 3 ταλ. δυο] ταλαντου B 4 υψος] |
KAGIBTZ | |
pr εις BT | ετιθεσ.] επιθυμιας Z (-εσεως sup ras in T) 5 προβ.] πραγμα- | ||
των Ztxt (προβ. Zmg) | βαρέσι codd 6 οις τι πιμελες εστιν B 8 om | ||
αυτοις ΒΤ 11 ωστε υπολαμβανειν conj Schmidt] ως τυπον λαμβανειν | ||
codd | εν] επι A 12 τας επτακοσιας Z 16 η] ης BTZ | συνιστατο KA | ||
19 τουτον K 21 διυφασμενοι K 27 εκτυπον GI (-πων Z) | ||
γράμμασιν ἁγίοις ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ, κατὰ μέσον τῶν | ||
ὀφρύων, δόξῃ πεπληρωμένον, ὁ κριθεὶς ἄξιος τούτων ἐν ταῖς λει- | ||
τουργίαις. ἡ δὲ συμφάνεια τούτων ἐμποιεῖ φόβον καὶ ταραχήν, | 99 | |
ὥστε νομίζειν εἰς ἕτερον ἐληλυθέναι ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου· καὶ διαβε- | ||
5 | βαιοῦμαι, πάντα ἄνθρωπον προσελθόντα τῇ θεωρίᾳ τῶν προειρη- | |
μένων εἰς ἔκπληξιν ἥξειν καὶ θαυμασμὸν ἀδιήγητον, μετατραπέντα | ||
τῇ διανοίᾳ διὰ τὴν περὶ ἕκαστον ἁγίαν κατασκευήν. Πρὸς | 100 | |
γὰρ τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν ἁπάντῶν ἐπὶ τὴν παρακειμένην ἄκραν τῆς πόλεως | ||
ἀναβάντες ἐθεωροῦμεν· ἣ κεῖται μὲν ἐν ὑψηλοτάτῳ τόπῳ, πύργοις | ||
10 | ἐξησφαλισμένη πλείοσι, μέχρι κορυφῆς εὐμήκεσι λίθοις ἀνῳκοδομη- | |
μένων αὐτῶν, ὡς μεταλαμβάνομεν, πρὸς φυλακὴν τῶν περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν | ||
τόπων· ἵνα, ἐὰν ἐπίθεσίς τις ἢ νεωτερισμὸς ἢ πολεμίων ἔφοδος | 101 | |
γένηται, μηθεὶς δύνηται ὁδον εἰς τοὺς περιβόλους ποιήσασθαι τοὺς | ||
περὶ τὸν οἶκον· ἐπικειμένων καὶ ὀξυβελῶν ἐπὶ τῶν πύργων τῆς | ||
15 | ἄκρας καὶ ὀργάνων ποικίλων, καὶ τοῦ τόπου κατὰ κορυφὴν ὄντος τῶν | |
προειρημένων περιβόλων, ὡσανεὶ φυλασσομένων τῶν πύργων ὑπὸ | 102 | |
τῶν πιστοτάτων ἀνδρῶν καῚ τῇ πατρίδι μεγάλας ἀποδείξεις δεδωκό- | ||
τῶν· οἵτινες οὐκ εἶχον ἐξουσίαν ἐξιέωαι τῆν ἄκρας, εἰ μὴ ταῖς | ||
ἑορταῖς, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ μέρους, οὐδὲ εἰσοδεύειν εἴων οὐδένα. μετὰ | 103 | |
20 | ἀκριβείας δὲ πολλῆς εἶχον, εἰ καὶ τις ἐπιταγὴ γένοιτο διὰ τοῦ | |
προκαθηγουμένου πρὸς θεωρίαν ¶ εἰςδέξασθαί τινας· οἷον καὶ καθ᾿ | ||
ἠμᾶς ἐγεγόνει. μόλις γὰρ ἀνόπλους ὄντας ἡμᾶς δύο παρεδέξαντο | ||
πρὸς τὸ κατανοῆσαι τὰ τῶν θυσιῶν. ἔλεγον δὲ καὶ δι ὅρκων πεπι- | 104 | |
στῶσθαι τὸ τοιοῦτον· τοὺς γὰρ πάντας ὀμωμοκέναι, κατ᾿ ἀνάγκην | ||
25 | επιτελουμενους θείως τὸ κατὰ τὸν ὁρισμὸν πρᾶγμα, ὄντας πεντα- | |
κοσίους μὴ παραδέξασθαι πλεῖον ἀνθρώπων πέντε κατὰ τὸ αὐτό· | ||
τοῦ γὰρ ἱεροῦ τὴν πᾶσαν εἶναι φυλακὴν τὴν ἄκραν· καὶ τὸν κατα- | ||
βαλλόμενον αὐτὴν τὴν προφυλακὴν τῶν εἰρημένων οὕτως ἠσφαλί- | ||
1 κατα] + το BTZ 2 δοξης BT | post πεπληρ. for excidit |
KAGIBTZ | |
aliquid 3 εμφανεια IZ | ποιει B | φοβον] φημην Z 4 εισελ. A | | ||
διαβεβαιουται B 6 ηκειν BT | ανεκδιηγ. BT 11 ως μεταλαμβανωσι | ||
προφυλακης B 12 τις η η και νεωτ. BT (τις η και ν. Z) 13 δυνηται B] | ||
δυναται cett 19 εις μερος BT εις μερους Zvid 21 προκαθημενου B*T* | ||
txt B1T1 cett 25 επιτελουμενου codd (τελουμενους Zmg) | του B | ορκισμον | ||
conj Mend. | πραγματος B | ||
σθαι. Τῆς δὲ πόλεώς ἐστι τὸ χύμα συμμέτρως ἔχον, οἷον τεσσα- | 105 | |
ράκοντα σταδίων ὄντος τοῦ περιβόλου, καθόσον εἰκάσαι δυνατόν. | ||
ἔχει δὲ τὴν τῶν πύργων θέσιν θεατροειδῆ, καὶ φαινομένων διόδων— | ||
τῶν ὑποκειμένων, τῶν δ᾿ ἐπάνωθεν—εἰθισμένως, καὶ τὰς διὰ τούτων | ||
5 | διεξόδους. ἀνάκλασιν γὰρ ἔχει τὰ τῶν τόπων, ὡς ἂν ἐπ᾿ ὄρους τῆς | |
πόλεως ᾠκοδομημένης. εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ διαβάθραι πρὸς τὰς διόδους. οἱ | 106 | |
μὲν γὰρ μετέωροι τὴν ὁδείαν, οἱ δ᾿ ὑπ᾿ αὐτὰς ποιοῦνται, καὶ μάλιστα | ||
διεστηκότες τῆς ὁδείας, διὰ τοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἁγνείαις ὄντας, ὅπως μηδενὸς | ||
θιγγάνωσιν ὧν οὐ δέον ἐστίν. Οὐκ ἀλόγως δὲ τὴν πόλιν | 107 | |
10 | συμμετρίᾳ καθηκούσῃ κατεσκεύασαν οἱ πρῶτοι, σοφῶς δὲ §ἐπινοή- | § P |
σαντες. τῆς γὰρ χώρας πολλῆς οὔσης καὶ καλῆς, καί τινων §μὲν | § H | |
πεδινῶν, τῶν κατὰ τὴν Σαμαρεῖτιν λεγομένην, καὶ τῶν συναπτόντων | ||
τῇ τῶν Ἰδουμαίων χώρᾳ, τινῶν δὲ ὀρεινῶν, τῶν συναπτόντων | ||
τῇ τῶν Ἰουδαίων χώρᾳ, χρὴ πρὸς τὴν γεωργίαν καὶ τὴν ἐπιμέ- | ||
15 | λειαν τῆς γῆς γίνεσθαι συνεχῶς, ἵνα καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὗτοι τὴν εὐ- | |
καρπίαν ἔχωσιν· οὗ καὶ γινομένου γεωργεῖται πάντα μετὰ δαψιλείας | ||
πολλῆς ἐν πάσῃ προειρημένῃ χώρᾳ. τῶν δὲ πόλεων ὅσαι | 108 | |
μέγεθος ἔχουσι καὶ τὴν ἀκόλουθον εὐδαιμονίαν, ταύταις συμ- | ||
βέβηκεν εὐανδρεῖν, ἀμελέῖσθαι δὲ τῆς χώρας, πάντων ἐπὶ τὸ κατὰ | ||
20 | ψυχὴν ἱλαροῦσθαι νενευκότων, καὶ τῇ κατασκευῇ πάντας ἀνθρώπους | |
ἐπὶ τὰς ἡδονὰς εὐκαταφόρους εἶναι. τοῦτο δὲ ἐγίνετο περὶ τὴν | 109 | |
Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ὑπερβάλλουσαν πάσας τῷ μεγέθει καὶ εὐδαιμονίᾳ | ||
τὰς πόλεις. οἱ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας εἰς αὐτὴν ἀποξενούμενοι κατα- | ||
μένοντες ἐφ᾿ ἱκανὸν εἰς ἐλάττωσιν ἦγον τὰ τῆς ἐργασίας. ὅθεν ὁ | 110 | |
25 | βασιλεύς, ἵνα μὴ καταμένωσι, προσέταξε μὴ πλέον εἴκοσιν ἡμερῶν | |
παρεπιδημεῖν· καὶ τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν χρειῶν ὁμοίως δἰ ἐγγράπτων | ||
διαστολὰς ἔδωκεν, ἐὰν ἀναγκαῖον ᾖ κατακαλέσαι, διακρίνειν ἐν | ||
ἡμέραις πέντε. πρὸ πολλοῦ δὲ ποιούμενος καὶ χρηματιστὰς καὶ | 111 | |
1 χυμα] σχημα B 2 οντος] εντος Z 4 ειθισμενως conj Redpath | HKAGIBP | |
(usitato more theatri) ηθισμενων KGIT* vidZ ειθισμενων cett 5 εξοδους B | TZ | |
8 διεστηκοτας KGITZ (-κυιας edd) | της] τας K | μηδενι BZ 11 πεδινων | ||
μεν P 12 λεγομενων codd omn 13, 14 των—γεωργιαν] τω προς τη | ||
γεωργια B των πρ. την γεωργιαν cett verba ex conj addidi 15 om | ||
και P 16 παντα μετα Mend.] μεν παντα codd 19 ευανδρειν] ευ | ||
(sequente lacuna) B 20 και] και τω vel δια το conj Schmidt | ||
22 υπερβαλλουσα HA*GIT*Z 23 επιξενουμενοι BP | ||
τοὺς τούτων ὑπηρέτας ἐπέταξε κατὰ νομούς, ὅπως μὴ πορισμὸν | ||
λαμβάνοντες οἱ γεωργοὶ καὶ προστάται τῆς πόλεως ἐλαττῶσι τὰ | ||
ταμιεῖα, λέγω δὲ τὰ τῆς γεωργίας πρόσφορα. Παρεξέβημεν | 112 | |
δὲ ταῦτα διὰ τὸ καλῶς ἡμῖν τὸν Ἐλεάζαρον ὑποδεδειχέναι τὰ | ||
5 | προειρημένα. μεγάλη γὰρ ἐστ͖ν ἡ τῶν γεωργουμένων φιλοπονία. | |
καὶ γὰρ ἐλαϊκοῖς πλήθεσι σύνδενδρός ἐστι καὶ σιτικοῖς καρποῖς | ||
αὐτῶν ἡ χώρα καὶ ὀσπρίοις, ἔτι δὲ ἀμπέλῳ καὶ μέλιτι πολλῷ. τὰ | ||
μὲν τῶν ἄλλων ἀκροδρύων καὶ φοινί͗κων οὐδ᾿ ἀριθμεῖται παῤ αὐτοῖς. | ||
κτήνη τε πολλὰ παμμιγῆ, καὶ δαψιλὴς ἡ τούτων νομή· διὸ καλῶς | 113 | |
10 | ἔβλεψαν, ὅτι πολυανθρωπίας οἱ τόποι προσδέονται, καὶ τὴν κατα- | |
σκευὴν τῆς πόλεως καὶ τῶν κωμῶν ἔθεντο κατὰ λόγον. πολὺ δὲ | 114 | |
πλῆθος καὶ τῶν ἀρωμάτων καὶ λίθων πολυτελῶν καὶ χρυσοῦ παρα- | ||
κομίζεται διὰ τῶν Ἀράβων εἰς τὸν τόπον. ἐργάσιμος γὰρ καὶ πρὸς | ||
τὴν ἐμπορίαν ἐστὶ κατεσκευασμένη ἡ χώρα, καὶ πολύτεχνος ἡ πόλις, | ||
15 | οὐ σπανίζει δὲ οὐδὲν τῶν διακομιζομένων διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης. ἔχει | 115 |
γὰρ καὶ λιμένας εὐκαίρους χορηγοῦντας, τόν τε κατὰ τὴν Ἀσκαλῶνα | ||
καὶ Ἰόππην καὶ Γάζαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Πτολεμαίδα τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ | ||
βασιλέως ἐκτισμένην. μέση δὲ κεῖται πρὸς τοὺς προειρημένους | ||
τόπους, οὐκ ἀπέχουσα τούτων πολύ. ἔχει δὲ πάντα δαψιλῆ κάθυγρος | ||
20 | οὖσα πάντοθεν ἡ χώρα καὶ μεγάλην ἀσφάλειαν ἔχουσα. περιρρεῖ | 116 |
δ᾿ αὐτὴν ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰορδάνης ποταμὸς ἀείρρους. τῆς δὲ χώρας | ||
οὐκ ἔλαττον ἑξακισχιλίων μυριάδων ἀρουρῶν κατὰ τὸ ἀρχαῖον οὔσης | ||
(μετέπειτα δὲ οἱ γειτνιῶντες ἐπέβησαν αὐτῆς) ἑξήκοντα μυριάδες | ||
ἀνδρῶν ἔγκληροι καθειστήκεισαν ἑκατοντάρουροι. πληρούμενος δὲ | ||
25 | ὁ ποταμός, καθὼς ὁ Νεῖλος, ἐν ταῖς πρὸς τὸν θερισμὸν ἡμέραις, | |
πολλὴν ἀρδεύει τῆς γῆς· ὃς εἰς ἕτερον ποταμόν ἐκβάλλει τὸ ῥεῦμα | 117 | |
κατὰ τὴν Πτολεμαίων χώραν, οὗτος δὲ ἔξεισιν εἰς θάλασσαν. | ||
23
εξηκ. μυρ. cf |
||
6 ε λαικοις (sic) H εν λαικ. GIT ευλαικ. B εν ελαικ. KAPZ 7 om |
HKAGIBP | |
αθτων BPTZ 9 τε] τα HAGIZ 10 προσδεονται BPTZ] δεονται cett | TZ | |
14 εστθβ γ χ. κατεσκ. (κατασκ. T*) BPTZ | πολις] + εστιν P 16 τον B] | ||
των cett τα edd 17 om του P 18 εκτισμενην] κατεσκευασμενην P | | ||
ειρημ. BT 19 καθυγρατος GIPZ pr και P 21 verba inserui | ||
23 υπεβησαν P (cod Mon) απεβ. edd pr | μυριαδων T | ||
24 εκατονταρουροις codd txt ex papyris corr Mahaffy 26 πολυν B | | ||
εμβαλλει GBPZ 27—2 p 540 ουτος δε—Αζ. χωραν om A | ||
ἄλλοι δὲ χειμάρροι λεγόμενοι κατίασι, περιλαμβάνοντες τὰ πρὸς | ||
τὴν Γάζαν μέρη καὶ τὴν Ἀζωτίων χώραν. περιέχεται δὲ ἀσφαλέίαις | 118 | |
αὐτοφυέσι, δυσείσβολος οὖσα καὶ πλήθεσιν ἀπραγμάτευτος, διὰ τὸ | ||
στενὰς εἶναι τὰς παρόδους, κρημνῶν παρακειμένων καὶ φαράγγων | ||
5 | βαθέων, ἔτι δὲ τραχείας οὔσης πάσης τῆς περιεχούσης πᾶσαν τὴν | |
χώραν ὀρεινῆς. Ἐλέγετο δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῶν παρακειμένων ὀρέων | 119 | |
τῆς Ἀραβίας μέταλλα χαλκοῦ καὶ σιδήρου συνίστασθαι πρότε- | ||
ρον. ἐκλέλειπται δὲ ταῦτα, καθ᾿ ὃν ἐπεκράτξσαν Πέρσαι χρόνον, | ||
τῶν τότε προστατούντων ποιησαμένων διαβολήν, ὡς ἄχρηστος ἡ | ||
10 | κατεργασία γίνεται καὶ πολυδάπανος, ὅπως μὴ διὰ τὴν μεταλ- | 120 |
λείαν τῶν εἰρημένων συμβῇ καὶ τὴν χώραν καταφθείρεσθαι, καὶ | ||
σχεδὸν διὰ τὴν ἐκείνων δυναστείαν ἀλλοτριωθῆναι, παρεύρεσιν | ||
λαβόντων εἰς τοὺς τόπους εἰσόδου, διὰ τὸ τὴν διαβολὴν γεγονέναι | ||
ταύτην. | ||
15 | Ὅσον οὖν καὶ περὶ τούτων ἔδει, κεφαλαιωδῶς σεσήμαγκά σοι, |
|
ὦ Φιλόκρατες ἀδελφέ· τὰ δὲ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἑπομένως δηλώσομεν. | ||
Ἐπιλέξας γὰρ τοὺς ἀρίστους ἄνδρας καὶ παιδείᾳ διαφέροντας, ἅτε δὴ | 121 | |
γονέων τετευχότας ἐνδόξων, οἵτινες οὐ μόνον τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν | ||
γραμμάτων ἕξιν περιεποίησαν αὑτοῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν | ||
20 | ἐφρόντισαν οὐ παρέργως κατασκευῆς· διὸ καὶ πρὸς τὰς πρεσβείας | 122 |
εὔθετοι καθεστήκεισαν, καὶ τοῦτ᾿ ἐπετέλουν ὅτε δέοι, καὶ πρὸς τὰς | ||
ὁμιλίας καὶ τὰς ἐπερωτήσεις τὰς διὰ τοῦ νόμου μεγάλην εὐφυίαν | ||
εἶχον, τὸ μέσον ἐζηλωκότες κατάστημα (τοῦτο γὰρ κάλλιστόν ἐστιν), | ||
ἀποτεθειμένοι τὸ τραχὺ καὶ βάρβαρον τῆς διανοίας, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ | ||
25 | τὸ κατοίεσθαι καὶ νομίζειν ὑπερφρονεῖν ἑτέρους ὑπερβεβηκότες, τὴν | |
δ᾿ ὁμιλίαν καὶ τὸ συνακούειν καὶ πρὸς ἕκαστον ἀποκρίνεσθαι δεόντως | ||
παραδεδεγμένοι, καὶ πάντες ταῦτα συντηροῦντες καὶ μᾶλλον ἐν | ||
τούτοις βουλόμενοι ὑπερφέρειν ἕτερος ἑτέρου, καὶ τοῦ καθηγουμένου | ||
2 ασφαλες HKAGI ασφαλως BPTZ txt ex conj Schmidt 5 βραχειας |
HKAGIBP | |
I 7 μεταλα GP μετα I 8 Περσαι] pr οι I 11 προειρημενων G | TZ | |
15 om κεφαλ. P | σεσημακαμεν Z 16 δηλωσωμεν GIPZ 17 γαρ] ουν | ||
HKA 18 τετευχοτως Pvid 19 εαυτοις BT 21 απετελουν Β | ||
22 δια] εκ B 27 παραδεδεγμενοι BPTZ] παραδεδειγμενοι cett | ||
28 θποφερειν KA | ετερου] ετερω PT*vid | ||
πάντες ἄξιοι καὶ τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν ἀρετῆς. νοῆσαι δ᾿ ἦν, ὡς ἠγάπησαν | 123 | |
τὸν Ἐλεάζαρον δυσαποσπάστως ἔχοντες, καὶ ἐκεῖνος αὐτούς· χωρὶς | ||
καὶ τοῦ πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα γεγραφέναι περὶ τῆς ἀποκαταστάσεως | ||
αὐτῶν πολλὰ παρεκάλεσε τὸν Ἀνδρέαν ποιῆσαι, συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι | ||
5 | παρακαλῶν, καθ᾿ ὃ ἂν δυνώμεθα. καὶ ἡμῶν ἐπαγγελλομένων εὖ φρον- | 124 |
τίσειν περὶ τούτων, ἔφη καὶ λίαν διαγωνιᾷν· εἰδέναι γάρ, ὅτι | ||
φιλάγαθος ὢν ὁ βασιλεὺς πάντων μέγιστον ἡγεῖται τὸ μεταπέμ- | ||
πεσθαι, καθ᾿ ὃν ἂν τόπον ὀνομασθῇ τις ἄνθρωπος διαφέρων ἀγωγῇ | ||
καὶ φρονήσει παῤ ἑτέρους. μετείληφα γὰρ καλῶς αὐτὸν λέγειν, ὅτι | 125 | |
10 | περὶ ἑαυτὸν ἔχων ἄνδρας δικαίους καὶ σώφρονας τὴν μεγίστην ἂν | |
φυλακὴν τῆς βασιλείας ἕξειν, συμβουλευόντων παρρησίᾳ πρὸ τὸ | ||
συμφέρον τῶω φίλων· ὃ δὴ σύνεστι τοῖς ἀποστελλομένοις ὑπ᾿ | ||
αὐτοῦ. καὶ δἰ ὅρκων ἐπιστοῦτο, μὴ προΐεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, εἴ | 126 | |
τις ἑτέρα χρεία πρὸς τὰ κατ᾿ ἰδίαν αὐτῷ κατεπείγοι, πρὸς δὲ τὴν | ||
15 | κοινὴν πᾶσι τοῖς πολίταις ἐπανόρθωσιν ἐξαποστέλλειν αὐτούς. τὸ | 127 |
γὰρ καλῶς ζῇν ἐν τῷ τὰ νόμιμα συντηρεῖν εἶναι· τοῦτο δὲ ἐπιτε- | ||
λεῖσθαι διὰ τῆς ἀκροάσεως πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἢ διὰ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως. | ||
προτιθέμενος οὖν ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τούτοις παραπλήσια φανερὸς ἦν τὴν | ||
διάθεσιν, ὃσ ἦν πρὸς αὐτπύς. | ||
20 | § Ἄξιον δὲ ἐπιμνησθῆναι διὰ βραχέων τῶν ὑποδειχθέντων ὑπ᾿ |
128 § Eus |
αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὰ δἰ ἡμῶν ἐπιζητηθέντα. νομίζω γὰρ τοὺς πολλοὺς | ||
περιεργίαν ἔχειν τινὰ τῶν ἐν τῇ νομοθεσίᾳ περί τε τῶν βρωτῶν καὶ | ||
ποτῶν καὶ τῶν νομιζομένων ἀκαθάρτων εἶναι κνωδάλων. τυνθανομένων | 129 | |
20 ff |
||
2 δυσαποσπ.] + αυτου B | εκεινος] + δηλονοτι ηγαπησεν B | αυτους] |
HKAGIBP | |
+ ος B αυτος sine puncto sequente Wend. 3 om και P | γεγραπται I 4 τον | TZ Eus | |
ανδρα B 5 ευ φροντ. Wend] αφροντισειν codd 6 τουτου P | ||
7 φιλανος BT 9 αυτον καλως BTZ 10 αθτον BT | εχων] + ο Πτολεμαιος | ||
B 11 εξει B 12 συνεστη Z 14 om ιδιαν B (in fin lin fort evanuit) | αυτων | ||
BT 18 φανερως P 20 δια βραχεων ap Eus conj Vigerus] βραχεων codd et | ||
Eus (bis scr Eusº) | επιδειχθεντων Eusi 21 προς ημων επιζητηθεντα | ||
HKA προς δι ημων επιζητ. GIZ* προς δε ημων επιζητηθεντων | ||
BPTZcorr txt Eus | νομιζειν γαρ τοις πολλοις Ar codd (B excepto) Eus | ||
txt B 22 τινα εχειν BPT | περι] pr λεγω δε Eus | των 2º] om Eus | | ||
βρωματων GIBPTZ txt cett Eus 23 om και BPTZ | ||
γὰρ ἡμῶν, διὰ τί, μιᾶς καταβολῆς οὔσης, τὰ μὲν ἀκάθαρτα νομίζεται | ||
πρὸς βρῶσιν, τὰ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἁφὴν (δεισιδαιμόνως γὰρ τὰ | ||
πλεῖστα τὴν νομοθεσίαν ἔχειν, ἐ δὲ τούτοις † πάνυ † δεισιδαιμόνως) | ||
πρὸς ταῦτα οὕτως ἐνήρξατο Θεωρεῖς ἔφη, τὰς ἀναστροφὰς | 130 | |
5 | καὶ τὰς ὁμιλίας, οἷον ἐνεργάζονται πρᾶγμα, διότι κακοῖς ὁμιλήσαντες | |
διαστροφὰς ἐπιλαμβάνουσιν ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ταλαίπωροι δἰ ὅλου τοῦ | ||
ζῇν εἰσιν· ἐὰν δὲ σοφοῖς καὶ φρονίμοις συζῶσιν, ἐξ ἀγνοίας ἐπανορ- | ||
θώσεως εἰς τὸν βίον ἔτυχον. διαστειλάμενος οὖν τὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας | 131 | |
καὶ δικαιοσύνης πρῶτον ὁ νομοθέτης ἡμῶν, καὶ διδάξας ἕκαστα περὶ | ||
10 | τούτων, οὐκ ἀπαγορευτικῶς μόνον ἀλλ᾿ ἐνδεικτικῶς, καὶ τὰς βλάβας | |
προδήλους καὶ τὰς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ γινομένας ἐπιπομπὰς τοῖς αἰτίοις— | ||
προϋπέδειξε γὰρ πάντων πρῶτον, ὅτι μόνος ὁ θεός ἐστι, καὶ διὰ | 132 | |
πάντων ἡ δύναμις αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται, πεπληρωμένου παντὸς | ||
τόπου τῆς δυναστείας, καὶ οὐθὲν αὐτὸν λανθάνει τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς γινο- | ||
15 | μένων ὑπ᾿ ἀνθρώπων κρυφίως, ἀλλ᾿ ὅσα ποιεῖ τις αὐτῷ φαβερὰ | |
καθέστηκε, καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα γίνεσθαι—ταῦτ᾿ οὖν ἐξεργαζόμενος | 133 | |
ἀκριβῶς καὶ πρόδηλα θεὶς ἔδειξεν ὅτι, κἂν ἐννοηθῇ τις κακίαν | ||
ἐπιτελεῖν, οὐκ ἂν λάθοι, μὴ ὅτι καὶ πράξας, διὰ πάσης τῆς νομο- | ||
θεσίας τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ δυνατὸν ἐνδεικνύμενος. ποιησάμενος οὖν τὴν | 134 | |
20 | καταρχὴν ταύτην, καὶ δείξας ὅτι πάντες οἱ λοιποὶ παῤ ἡμᾶς | |
ἄνθρωποι πολλοὺς θεοὺς εἶναι νομίζουσιν, αὐτοὶ δυναμικώτεροι | ||
πολλῷ καθεστῶτες ὧν σέβονται ματαίως—ἀγάλματα γὰρ ποιήσαντες | 135 | |
ἐκ λίθων καὶ ξύλων, εἰκόνας φασὶν εἶναι τῶν ἐξευρόντων τι πρὸς τὸ | ||
ζῇν αὐτοῖς χρήσιμον, οἷς προσκυνοῦσι, παρὰ πόδας ἔχοντες τὴν ἀναι- | ||
25 | σθησίαν. εἴ τι γὰρ κατ᾿ ἐκεῖνό τις θεὸς εἴη κατὰ τὴν ἐξεύπεσιν, | 136 |
3 της νομοθεσιας B | πανυ] πασι B παλιν πανυ HKA παλιν cett Eus |
HKAGIBP | |
5 εργαζονται AIBP Euscodd det 6 δια του ζην Eusi δι ολου την ζωην Eusº | TZ Eus | |
8 ενετυχον BT | ουν Eus] δε εστι B om cett 9 πρωτον ο νομ. Eus.] ο | ||
πρωτονομοθετης Ar codd 10 ενδικως Ar codd txt Eus 11 προδηλως I | ||
? προδηλωσας | υπο] επι P Euscodd | om του P Eus | γενομ. P Euscodd (γιγν. | ||
Eusi) 12 πρωτον παντων Eus P | om ο BPTZ | η δυν. αυτ. δια παντ. | ||
Eusº 13 δυναμις] + εστιν GIZ | παντος] pr του B 14 ουδεν B | των | ||
επιγινομενων (-νωμ. Z) PT*Z (γης suprascr T1) 15 υπ] υπο των B | | ||
κρυφεως GI κρυφαιως Eusi 16 εργαζομενος B εξεργασαμενος Eusº | ||
17 προδηλωθεις HKA 18 λανθανοι B λαθη P | δια πασης] δι ολης | ||
Eusi εξ ολης Eusº 22 πολλω Eus P] πολλων Ar codd cett 23 και] η Eus | ||
25 ει τι HKAGvid I] ειτε Eus | θεος ειη ex conj] θειη codd Eus θεωθειη | ||
conj Wend. | ||
παντελῶς ἀνόητον· τῶν γὰρ ἐν τῇ κτίσει λαβόντες τινὰ συνέθηκαν | ||
καὶ προσυπέδειξαν εὔχρηστα, τὴν κατασκευὴν αὐτῶν οὐ ποιήσαντες | ||
αὐτοί· διὸ κενὸν καὶ μάταιον τοὺς ὁμοίους ἀποθεοῦν. καὶ γὰρ ἔτι | 137 | |
καὶ νῦν εὑρεματικώτεροι καὶ πολυμαθέστεροι τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῶν πρίν | ||
5 | εἰσι πολλοί, καὶ οὐκ ἂν φθάνοιεν αὐτοὺς προσκυνοῦτες. καὶ νομί- | |
ζουσιν οὑ ταῦτα διαπλάσαντες καὶ μυθοποιήσαντες τῶν Ἑλλήνων | ||
οἱ σοφώτατοι καθεστάναι. τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων πολυματαίων τί δεῖ καὶ | 138 | |
λέγειν, Αἰγυπτίων τε καὶ τῶν παραπλησίων, οἵτινες ἐπὶ θηρία καὶ | ||
τῶν ἑρπετῶν τὰ πλεῖστα καὶ κνωδάλων τὴν ἀπέρεισιν πεποίηνται, | ||
10 | καὶ ταῦτα προσκυνοῦσι, καὶ θύουσι τούτοις καὶ ζῶσι καὶ τελευ- | |
τήσασι;— συνθεωρήσας οὖν ἕκαστα σοφὸς ὢν ὁ νομοθέτης, | 139 | |
ὑπὸ θεοῦ κατεσκευασμένος εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τῶν ἁπάντων, περιέφραξεν | ||
ἡμᾶς ἀδιακόποις χάραξι καὶ σιδηροῖς τείχεσιν, ὅπως μηθενὶ τῶν | ||
ἄλλων ἐθνῶν ἐπιμισγώμεθα κατὰ μηδέν, ἁγνοὶ καθεστῶτες κατὰ σῶμα | ||
15 | καὶ κατὰ ψυχήν, ἀπολελυμένοι ματαίων δοξῶν, τὸν μόνον θεὸν καὶ | |
δυνατὸν σεβόμενοι παῤ ὅλην τὴν πᾶσαν κτίσιν. ὅθεν οἱ Αἰγυπτίων | 140 | |
καθηγεμόνες ἱερεῖς, ἐγκεκυφότες εἰς πολλὰ καὶ μετεσχηκότες | ||
πραγμάτων, ἀνθρώπους θεοῦ προσονομάζουσιν ἡμᾶς· ὃ τοῖς λοιποῖς | ||
οὐ πρόσεστιν, εἰ μή τις σέβεται τὸν κατὰ ἀλήθειαν θεόν, ἀλλ᾿ εἰσὶν | ||
20 | ἄνθρωποι βρωτῶν καὶ ποτῶν καὶ σκέπης· ἡ γὰρ πᾶσα διάθεσις | 141 |
αὐτῶν ἐπὶ ταῦτα καταφεύγει. τοῖς δὲ παῤ ἡμῶν ἐν οὐδενὶ ταῦτα λε- | ||
λόγισται, περὶ δὲ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυναστείας δἰ ὅλου τοῦ ζῇν ἡ σκέψις | ||
αὐτοῖς ἐστιν. ὅπως οὖν μηθενὶ συναλισγούμενοι μηδ᾿ ὁμιλοῦν- | 142 | |
τες φαύλοις διαστροφὰς λαμβάνωμεν, πάντοθεν ἡμᾶς περιέφραξεν | ||
25 | ἁγνείαις καὶ διὰ βρωτῶν· καὶ ποτῶν καὶ ἁφῶν καὶ ἀκοῆς καὶ ὁράσεως | |
1 ανοητον Eus] ανοητοι codd 2 ευχρηστοτατην (+ την Eusº) κατ. Eus |
HKAGIBP | |
3 om αυτοι P 4 ευρημ. AB ευρετικωτεροι Eus 5 φθανοιεν Eus] | TZ Eus | |
φθασειαν B (-σοιαν T) φθανοισαν cett 7 των] + μεν Eus | δει] δη HAGI | ||
9 κνωδ.] pr επι Eusi | απερ εισι PT*Z 11 ουν] τοιγαρουν Eusi | om | ||
εκαστα P | ο νομ. υπο θ. σοφ. ων P 12 κατεσκευασμενα H (α 3º sup lin) | ||
Euscodd det 13 μηδενι Eus Z μηθεν HKAGI 14 και σωμα και ψυχην | ||
Eusº 15 απολελυμενοι Eus P] -μενων cett 16 πασαν την κτ. P | | ||
Αιγυπτιων οι Eus 18 εις πραγματα I 19 τις] τι HA (ς postea suprascr | ||
H*vidA*vid) KGI 21 ημιν BTZ Eusº 22 om δε HAGI | om της του | ||
Eusi 23 αυτων B* | ουν Eus] τε εν B εν cett | μηδενι BP Eus | | ||
συναλισγομ. T Eus ex quo συμμισγομ. Wend. 24 φαυλω Eusº γαμοις P | | ||
λαμβανοιμεν Eus | περιεφραξαν Eusº 25 αφης Eusº | ||
νομικῶς. τὸ γὰρ καθόλου πάντα πρὸς τὸν φυσικὸν λόγον ὅμοια | 143 | |
καθέστηκεν, ὑπὸ μιᾶς δυνάμεως οἰκονομούμενα, καὶ καθ᾿ ἓν ἕκαστον | ||
ἔχει λόγον βαθύν, ἀφ᾿ ὧν ἀπεχόμεθα κατὰ τὴν χρῆσιν, καὶ οἷς | ||
συγχρώμεθα. χάριν δὲ ὑποδείγματος ἓν ἢ δεύτερον ἐπιδραμών σοι | ||
5 | σημανῶ. Μὴ γὰρ εἰς τὸν καταπεπτωκότα λόγον ἔλθῃς, ὅτι | 144 |
καὶ ἢ τῶν τοιούτων χάριν περιεργίαν ποιούμενος ἐνομοθέτει | ||
ταῦτα Μωϋσῆς· ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἁγνὴν ἐπίσκεψιν καὶ τρόπων ἐξαρτισμὸν | ||
δικαιοσύνης ἕνεκεν σεμνῶς πάντα ἀνατέτακται. τῶν γὰρ πτηνῶν, | 145 | |
οἷς χρώμεθα, πάντα ἥμερα καθέστηκε καὶ διαφέρει καθαριότητι, | ||
10 | πυροῖς καὶ ὀσπρίοις χρώμενα πρὸς τὴν τροφήν, οἷον περιστεραὶ | |
τρυγόνες πέρδικες ἔτι δὲ χῆνες καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα τοιαῦτα. | ||
περὶ ὧν δὲ ἀπηγόρευται πτηνῶν, εὑρήσεις ἄγριά τε καὶ σαρκοφάγα | 146 | |
καὶ καταδυναστεύοντα τῇ περὶ ἑαυτὰ δυνάμει τὰ λοιπά, καὶ τὴν | ||
τροφὴν ἔχοντα δαπάνησιν τῶν προειρημένων ἡμέρων μετὰ ἀδικίας· | ||
15 | οὐ μόνον δὲ ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἄρνας καὶ ἐρίφους ἀναρπάζουσι, | |
καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δὲ ἀδικοῦσι νεκρούς τε καὶ ζῶντας. παράσημον | 147 | |
οὖν ἔθετο διὰ τούτων, προσονομάσας, ὅτι δέον ἐστὶ κατὰ | ||
ψυχήν, οἷς ἡ νομοθεσία διατέτακται, δικαιοσύνῃ συγχρῆσθαι καὶ | ||
μηδένα καταδυναστεύειν, πεποιθότας ἰσχύι τῇ καθ᾿ ἑαυτούς, μηδὲ | ||
20 | ἀφαιρεῖσθαι μηδέν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ δικαίου τὰ τοῦ βίου κυβερνᾷν, ὡς τὰ | |
τῶν προειρημένων πτηνῶν ἥμερα ζῷα τὰ φυόμενα τῶω ὀσπρίων ἐπὶ | ||
γῆς δαπανᾷ, καὶ οὐ καταδυναστεύει πρὸς τὴν ἐπαναίρεσιν τῶν συγ- | ||
γενικῶν. διὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὖν παραδέδωκεν ὁ νομοθέτης σημειοῦ- | 148 | |
5 f |
||
1 νομικης G Eusº -κοις P | το] τω T Eusi 2 δυναμεως] + οικονομικως |
HKAGIBP | |
P | εκαστα Eusº 3 λογον εχει BT | απεσχομεθα KAI 5 εισελθης | TZ Eus | |
Eusi (ελθηςº) 6 περιεργιας Eus περιεργασιαν Z 7 Μωσης AP Eus | | ||
τροπων] + εξαιρετον Eusº 8 παντα] ταυτα BPTZ | πετεινων Eus | ||
9 καθεστηκε και Eus] καθεστηκεν α B καθεστηκε cett | καθαροτητι | ||
HKBPTZ 10 χρωμεθα K ] om την K Eusº 11 ατταγοι Eusi | om ετι K | ||
12 πετεινων Eus 13 περι] παρ K | αυτα Eus εαυτων GI | τα πολλα Z* | ||
(τα λ. Zcorr) των λοιπων B 14 δαπανησιν] pr την Eus 15 αρπαζουσι Eus | ||
17 δεον] δε Eusi 19 μηδενι IB μηδενος T | πεποιθοτας Eus] -θοσιν B | ||
-θοτες (-θωτ. P) cett | τη εαυτων Eusº 20 μηθεν Eusº | εκ δικαιοτατου | ||
βιου Eus | διακυβερναν Eusº 21 ζωα ημερα B 22 επαναιρεσιν] + ουτε | ||
των υποβεβηκοτων ουτε Eusi (om 20 ως τα—22 συγγεν. Eusº) 23 των | ||
τοιουτ.] τουτων Eusº | παρεδωκεν Eus P | ομοιουσθαι BT | ||
σθαι τοῖς συνετοῖς, εἶναι δικαίους τε καὶ μηδὲν ἐπιτελεῖν βίᾳ, μηδὲ | ||
τῇ περὶ ἑαυτοὺς ἰσχύι πεποιθότας ἑτέρους καταδυναστεύειν. ὅπου | 149 | |
γὰρ οὐδ᾿ ἅψασθαι καθῆκε τῶν προειρημένων διὰ τὴν περὶ ἕκαστα διά- | ||
θεσιν, πῶς οὐ φυλακτέον παντάπασι τοὺς τρόπους εἰς τοῦτο κατακλα- | ||
5 | σθῆναι; πάντα οὖν τὰ τῆς συγχωρήσεως ἡμῖν ἐπὶ τούτων καὶ τῶν | 150 |
κτηνῶν τροπολογῶν ἐκτέθειται. τὸ γὰρ καὶ διαστέλλειν | ||
σημεῖόν ἐστι τοῦ διαστέλλειν ἕκαστα τῶν πράξεων | ||
ἐπὶ τὸ καλῶς ἔχον· ἡ γὰρ ἰσχὺς τῶν ὅλων σωμάτων μετ᾿ ἐνεργείας | 151 | |
ἀπέρεισιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὤμους ἔχει καὶ τὰ σκέλη. μετὰ διαστολῆς οὖν | ||
10 | ἅπαντα ἐπιτελεῖν πρὸς δικαιοσύνην ἀναγκάζει † τὸ σημειοῦσθαι † διὰ | |
τούτων· ἔτι δὲ καὶ διότι παρὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους διεστάλμεθα. οἱ | 152 | |
γὰρ πλείονες τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων ἑαυτοὺς μολύνουσιν ἐπιμισγό- | ||
μενοι, συντελοῦντες μεγάλην ἀδικίαν, καὶ χῶραι καὶ πόλεις ὅλαι | ||
σεμνύνονται ἐπὶ τούτοις. οὐ μόνον γὰρ προάγουσι τοὺς ἄρσενας, | ||
15 | ἀλλὰ καὶ τεκούσας ἔτι δὲ θυγατέρας μολύνουσιν. ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀπὸ | |
τούτων διεστάλμεθα. περὶ ὃν δὲ ἐστὶν ὁ προειρημένος τῆς δια- | 153 | |
στολῆς τρόπος, περὶ τοῦτον εἶναι καὶ τὸν τῆς μνήμης κεχαρακτή- | ||
ρ ικεν. γὰρ καὶ σαφῶς | ||
τοῖς νοοῦσιν ἐκτίθεται τὸ τῆς μνήμης. ἡ γὰρ ἀναμηρύκησις οὐθὲν | 154 | |
20 | ἕτερον, ἀλλὰ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ συστάσεως ἐπίμνησις. τὸ γὰρ ζῇν διὰ | |
6 |
||
1 om τε P Eusºvid 2 αυτους Eus | ετερων BT 4 ου] ουν KAIGtxt |
HKAGIBP | |
(corr Gmg) 5 παντα ουν Eus] παντων (+ δε B) Ar codd | τα Eus] om Ar | TZ Eus | |
codd | της συγχ. Eusi Ar codd] τα συγχωρηθεντα Eusº | ημιν] om Eusº | ||
ημων ενεκα B txt Eusi Ar cett 6 εκτεθειται Eusi] εξεθετο B εκθεοιται (-τε | ||
GI) Ar codd cett εκτεθεικε Eusº | διχηλιζειν K 7 οπλας B | σημεια B | | ||
εκαστην P 10 το σημειουσθαι HKAGIZ (το σημ. και Eusi) το ομοιουσθαι | ||
T (τω ομ. B) τω σημ. Eusº, pro απαντα 10—μολυνουσιν 12 exhibens | ||
βιωσκομεν· τω σημειουσθαι οτι παρα παντας ανθρωπους | ||
διαστελλομεθα· οι γαρ αλλοι μολυνουσιν εαυτους. Fortasse legendum | ||
ο σημειουται 12 ανθρωπων] om Eus 13 ολαι] οσαι B 14 επι τουτ. σεμν. | ||
Eusº | προαγουσι conj Schmidt} προσαγουσι codd et Eus qui legit προς | ||
αρσενας (αρρ.º) προσαγουσιν 15 δε] + και HKA Eusº 16 εσταλμεθα | ||
BPTZ | ον] ων BPT 17 τροπος BPT Eus] τοπος cett | τουτων BPT | και τ. τ. μν. | ||
ειναι Eusº | το την μνημην P | κεχαρακτηρικεναι (-τηκεναι Z) codd Ar txt | ||
Eus 18 παντα] ειπας Eusi 19 εκτιθεται Eus] εκτιθεμαι (εκτιθημι P) | ||
Ar codd | ουδεν B 20 αλλ η Eusº | συστασεως] pr της B | υπομνησις εστι | ||
Eus | ||
τῆς τροφῆς συνεστάναι νομίζει. διὸ παρακελεύεται καὶ διὰ τῆς | 155 | |
γραφῆς ὁ λέγων οὕτως· | ||
. κατανοούμενα γὰρ καὶ | ||
φαίνεται· πρῶτον μὲν ἡ σύμπηθις τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἡ | ||
5 | τῆς τροφῆς διοίκησις καὶ ἡ περὶ ἕκαστον μέλος διαστολή· πολλῷ | 156 |
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 | 157 | |
μνείαν ἔχειν, ὡς συντηρεῖται τὰ προειρημένα θείᾳ δυνάμει σὺν | ||
10 | κατασκευῇ. πάντα γὰρ χρόνον καὶ τόπον ὥρικε πρὸς τὸ διὰ | |
παντὸς μνημονεύειν τοῦ κρατοῦντος θεοῦ καὶ συντηροῦντος. καὶ | 158 | |
γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν βρωτῶν καὶ ποτῶν ἀπαρξαμένους εὐθέως τότε † συγ- | ||
χρῆσθαι † κελεύει. καὶ μὴν καὶ ἐκ τῶν περιβολαίων παράσημον | ||
ἡμῖν μνείας δέδωκεν, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ καὶ θυρῶν | ||
15 | προστέταχε μὲν ἡμῖν τιθέναι τὰ λόγια, πρὸς τὸ μνείαν εἶναι θεοῦ· | |
καὶ δὲ διαρρήδην τὸ σημεῖον κελεύει , | 159 | |
σαφῶς ἀποδεικνὺς ὅτι πᾶσαν ἐνέργειαν μετὰ δικαιοσύνης ἐπιτελεῖν | ||
δεῖ, μνήμην ἔχοντας τῆς ἑαυτῶν κατασκευῆς, ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τὸν περὶ | ||
θεοῦ φόβον. κελύει δὲ | 160 | |
20 | μελετᾷν τὰς τοῦ θεοῦ κατασκευάς, οὐ νόνον λόγῳ, ἀλλὰ διαλήψει | |
2 ff |
||
1 om και Eus 2 om ο Eus | κθριου] + του θεου Eus 3 και μεγ. |
HKAGIBP | |
(+ και θαυμαστα P) και ενδ.] και ενδοξα και μεγαλα Eusi ενδοξα Eusº | TZ Eus | |
4 πρωτα Eusº | η συμπ. η του σ. Eusi ν του σ. συμπ. Eusº | και 2º] om | ||
BPTZ 5 μερος Eusº 6 η των BP] η της των cett Eusi 8 επεραστον | ||
περιεχει K Eus απεραντον παρεχει BPTZ txt HAGI 9 τα προειρ.] om BT + | ||
συνεχομενα Eusi | θειας δυναμεως P | συν κατασκευη K] συγκατασκευη | ||
(και συγκ. BT1Acorr) codd cett Eusi (om Eusº) 10 ποπον και χρονον Eusi | ||
χρονων και τροπον P 11 και συντηρουντος] συντηρουντας και τας | ||
αρχας και μεσοτητας και τελευτας Eusi (om και συντηρ.—κελευει | ||
13 Eusº) 12 ποτων] pr των GI | απαρξ.] αρξαμενους I αρπαζομενους | ||
K om BT | συγχρησθαι Eus] συγχωρησαι Ar codd 14 επι] pr επι των | ||
πολεων και οικησεων δια το σκεπαζεσθαι και Eus 15 προστεταχε | ||
μεν] προστεταχεν Eus 16 το σημ. διαρρ. P | περιειληφθαι | ||
PZ περι . . . ηφθαι (ras 3 litt) T 18 της εαυτων κατασκευης | ||
Eus] αυτης B τοις P και τοις Z της codd cett (cum seqq conj) της ημων | ||
συστασεως edd pr | om δε Z | περι] του P Eusº 19 διανισταμενους] | ||
20 + και πορευομενους Eus λογω μονον Eus | αλλα] + και KP Eus | ||
θεωροῦντας τὴν κίνησιν καὶ ὑπόληψιν ἑαυτῶν, ὅταν εἰς ὕπνον | ||
ἔρχωνται, καὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν, ὡς θεία τίς ἐστι καὶ ἀκατάληπτος τούτων | ||
ἡ μετάθεσις. Δέδεικται δέ σοι καὶ τὸ περισσὸν τῆς λογίας τῆς | 161 | |
κατὰ τὴν διαστολὴν καὶ μνείαν, ὡς ἐξεθέμεθα τὴν διχηλίαν καὶ τὸν | ||
5 | μηρυκισμόν. οὐ γὰρ εἰκῆ καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἐμπεσὸν εἰς ψυχὴν νενομο- | |
θέτηται, πρὸς δ᾿ ἀλὴθειαν καὶ σημείωσιν ὀρθοῦ λόγου. διατάξας | 162 | |
γὰρ ἐπὶ βρωτῶν καὶ ποτῶν καὶ τῶν κατὰ τὰς ἁφὰς ἕκαστα, κελεύει | ||
μηθὲν εἰκῆ μήτε πράσσειν μήτε ἀκούειν, μήτε τῇ τοῦ λόγου | ||
δυναστείᾳ συγχρωμένους ἐπὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν τρέπεσθαι. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν | 163 | |
10 | κνωδάλων δὲ ταὐτὸν ἔστιν εὑρεῖν. κακοποιητικὸς γὰρ ὁ τρόπος | |
ἐστὶ καὶ καὶ καὶ τῶν τούτοις ὁμοίων, ὅσα διηγόρευται. | ||
πάντα γὰρ λυμαίνονται καὶ κακοποιοῦσι μύεσ, οὐ μόνον πρὸς τὴν | 164 | |
ἑαυτῶν τροφήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς τὸ παντελῶς ἄχρηστον γίνεσθαι ἀν- | ||
θρώπῳ, ὅ τι ἂν δή ποτ᾿ οὖν ἐπιβάληται κακοποιεῖν. τό τε τῆς γαλῆς | 165 | |
15 | γένος ἰδιάζον ἐστί· χωρὶς γὰρ τοῦ προειρημένου ἔχει λυμαντικὸν κατά- | |
στημα· διὰ γὰρ τῶν ὤτων συλλαμβάνει, τεκνοποιεῖ δὲ τῷ στόματι. | ||
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ τοιοῦτος τρόπος τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀκάθαρτός ἐστιν· | ||
ὅσα γὰρ δἰ ἀκοῆς λαβόντες, ταῦτα τῷ λόγῳ σωματοποιήσαντες, | ||
κακοῖς ἑτέρους ἐνεκύλισαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν ἐπετέλεσαν, | ||
20 | μιανθέντες αὐτοὶ παντάπασι τῷ τῆς ἀσεβείας μολυσμῷ. καλῶς δὲ | |
ποιῶν ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν τοὺς τοιούτους ἀναιρεῖ, καθὼς μεταλαμβά- | ||
νομεν.—Ἐγὼ δ᾿ εἶπα Τοὺς ἐμφανιστὰς οἴομαί σε λέγειν· καὶ γὰρ | 167 | |
αἰκίαις καὶ θανάτοις ἐπαλγέσιν αὐτοὺς περιβάλλει συνεχῶς.—Ὁ δέ | ||
Τούτους γὰρ καὶ λέγω· ἡ γὰρ ἐπαγρύπνησις ἀνθρώπων ἀπωλείᾳ | ||
11 |
||
1 τα κινηματα Eusº | υποληψιν] pr την Eus 2 ερχονται GIZ 2 f. η |
HKAGIBP | |
τουτων μεταθεσις Eus 3 ευλογιας fort recte A αλογιας P 4 εξεθεσθαι | TZ Eus | |
Eusi | om τον Eusi 5 και Eus] om Ar codd 7 και ποτων GIPZ Eusi] | ||
om Ar codd cett Eusº 8 τη Eus] om Ar codd 9 χρωμενους I 10 ff. εστιν | ||
ο τροπος Eusº 12 λυμαινεται B | και κακοπ.—τροφην αλλα (13) | ||
om BPTZ 13 εις το Eusi] om Ar Euscodd cett | γινεται BPZ 14 επιβαλληται | ||
Eusº 17 τουτο] τουτ ουν Eusio | τοις ανθρωποις Eusi 19 ετεροις T | | ||
ακαθαρσιαν] + τε Eus | απετελεσαν B* Eusi 21 ημων T Eusio | | ||
αναιρειν GI 23 επαλγεσι (om αυτους) K | καραβαλλει Eusi (περιβ. Eusº) | ||
24 τουτους—επαγρυπνησις] τουτοις γαρ επαγρ. Eusi επαγρυπ. γαρ Eusº | | ||
εις ανθρωπων απωλειαν Eus txt (cf Diod 14. 68 επηγρυπνηκως τη τουτων | ||
απωλεια) ex Ar codd (ἀπώλειᾳ) | ||
ἀνόσιος. ὁ δὲ νόμος ἡμῶν κελεύει μήτε λόγῳ μήτε ἔργῳ μηδένα | 168 | |
κακοποιεῖν. καὶ περὶ τούτων οὖν, ὅσον ἐπὶ βραχὺ διεξῆλθον, | ||
προσυποδείξας σοι διότι πάντα κεκανόνισται πρὸς δικαιοσύνην, | ||
καὶ οὐδὲν εἰκῆ κατατέτακται διὰ τῆς γραφῆς οὐδὲ μυθωδῶς, ἀλλ᾿ | ||
5 | ἵνα δἰ ὅλου τοῦ ζῇν καὶ ἐν ταῖς πράξεσιν ἀσκῶμεν δικαιοσύνην | |
πρὸς πὰντας ἀνθρώπους, μεμνημένοι τοῦ δυναστεύοντος θεοῦ. περὶ | 169 | |
βρωτῶν οὖν καὶ τῶν ἀκαθάρτων ἑρπετῶν καὶ κνωδάλων καὶ πᾶς | ||
λόγος ἀνατείνει πρὸς δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων συνανα- | ||
στροφὴν δικαίαν. Ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν καλῶς ἐνόμιζε περὶ | 170 | |
10 | ἑκάστων ἀπολογεῖσθαι· καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν προσφερομένων ἔλεγε | |
μόσχων τε καὶ κριῶν καὶ χιμάρων, ὅτι δεῖ ταῦτα ἐκ βουκολίων καὶ | ||
ποιμνίων λαμβάνοντας ἥμερα θυσιάζειν, καὶ μηθὲν ἄγριον, ὅπως οἱ | ||
προσφέροντες τὰς θυσίας μηθὲν ὑπερήφανον ἑαυτοῖς συνιστορῶσι, | ||
σημειώσει κεχρημένοι τοῦ διατάξαντος. τῆς γὰρ ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῆς | ||
15 | τοῦ παντὸς τρόπου τὴν προσφορὰν ποιεῖται ὁ τὴν θυσίαν προσάγων. | |
καὶ περὶ τούτων οὖν νομίζω τὰ τῆς ὁμιλίας ἄξια λόγου καθεστάναι· | 171 | |
διὸ τὴν σεμνότητα καὶ φυσικὴν διάνοιαν τοῦ νόμου προῆγμαι δια- | ||
σαφῆσαί σοι, Φιλόκρατες, δἰ ἣν ἔχεις φιλομάθειαν.¶ | ¶ Eus | |
§ Ὁ δὲ Ἐλεάζαρος ποιησάμενος θυσίαν καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐπιλέξας |
172 § Jos | |
20 | καὶ πολλὰ δῶρα τῷ βασιλεῖ κατασκευάσας προέπεμψεν ἡμᾶς μετὰ | |
ἀσφαλείας πολλῆς. ὡς δὲ παρεγενήθημεν εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν, προσ- | 173 | |
1 ανοσιον Eusº | λογω] νομω BTZ 1 f. κακοποιειν μηδενα Eus |
HKAGIBP | |
2 ουν] δε P | οσον—διεξηλθον] διεξηλθον βραχυ Eusº | διεξελθειν Ar codd | TZ Eus Jos | |
(-ελθη P) Eusi 3 προσυποδειξαντα Ar codd Eusi δεικνυων Eusº | διοτι] | ||
οτι Eusº 4 μυθωδως B Eus] θυμωδως codd cett | αλλ ινα] αλλα H | ||
6 μεμνημενους BPTZ 7 ουν] ον P | και 3º] ο Eus 8 αναστροφην P | ||
9 ? ενομιζετο 10 υπολογεισθαι G απολελογησθαι Eus | επι Ar codd Eusi] | ||
και περι Eusº 11 om τε Eusi | δει Eus] αει Ar codd 12 λαμβανοντες | ||
omissis ημερα—προσφεροντες (13) BPTZ | θυσιαζειν] κατασκευαζειν Eus | ||
13 συνιστορουσι P 14 κεχρημενοι Eus] κεχρημενου Ar codd 16 και | ||
περι—σεμνοτητα (17)] om K | αξιολογου καθ. HAGTZ αζιολογως καθ. | ||
P αξια καθεσταναι λογου Eusº 17 διο] δια Eus | και φυσ. διαν. | ||
om Eus. | νομου] + ην Eus 18 om σοι BPTZ Eusº | Φιλοκρατες BT Eus] | ||
Φιλοκρατη codd cett 20 παρασκευασας P 21 Αλεξανδ.] + και P | | ||
προσαγγελλει G (-ελει I -ηγγελει ATZ) txt HKP (B προσηγγελλη) | ||
ηγγέλη τῷ βασιλεῖ περὶ τῆς ἀφίξεως ἡμῶν. παρειμένοι δ᾿ εἰς | ||
τὴν αὐλὴν Ἀνδρέας τε καὶ ἐγώ, φιλοφρόνως ἡσπασάμεθα τὸν βα- | ||
σιλέα καὶ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς ἀποδεδώκαμεν τὰς παρὰ τοῦ Ἐλεαζάρου. | ||
περὶ πολλοῦ δὲ ποιούμενος τοῖς ἀπεσταλμένοις ἀνδράσιν ἐντυχεῖν, | 174 | |
5 | ἐκέλευσε τοὺς λοιποὺς πάντας ἀπολῦσαι τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν χρειῶν, | |
καλεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἀνθρώποθς. οὗ πᾶσι παραδόξου φανέντος—διὰ τὸ | 175 | |
κατὰ ἔθος εἶναι, πεμπταίους εἰς πρόσωπον ἔρχεσθαι βασιλεῖ τοὺς | ||
περὶ χρήσιμον ἀφικνουμένους, τοὺς δὲ παρὰ βασιλέων ἢ πόλεων ἐν | ||
ὑπεροχαῖς μόλις ἐν τριάκοντα εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν παρίεσθαι—τοὺς δὲ | ||
10 | ἥκοντας τιμῆς καταξιῶν μείζονος, καὶ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν κρίνων τοῦ | |
πέμψαντος, ἀπολύσας οὓς ἐνόμιζε περισσούς, ὑπέμενε περιπατῶν, | ||
ἕως ἂν παραγινομένους ἀσπάσηται. παρελθόντων δὲ σὺν τοῖς | 176 | |
ἀπεσταλμένοις δώροις καὶ ταῖς διαφόροις διφθέραις, ἐν αἷς ἡ | ||
νομοθεσία γεγραμμένη χρυσογραφίᾳ τοῖς Ἰουδαϊκοῖς γράμμασι, θαυ- | ||
15 | μασίως εἰργασμένου τοῦ ὑμένος , καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα συμβολῆς | |
ἀνεπαισθήτου κατεσκευασμένης, ὡς εἶδεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τοὺς ἄνδρας, | ||
ἐπηρώτα περὶ τῶν βιβλίων. ὡς δὲ ἀπεκάλυψαν τὰ τῶν ἐνειλημάτων | 177 | |
καὶ τοὺς ὑμένας ἀνείλιζαν, πολὺν ἐπιστὰς χρόνον καὶ προσκυνήσας | ||
σχεδὸν ἑπτάκις εἶπεν Εὐχαριστῶ μέν, ἄνδρες, ὑμῖν, τῷ δ᾿ ἀποστεί- | ||
20 | λαντι μᾶλλον, μέγιστον δὲ τῷ θεῷ, οὗτινός ἐστι τὰ λόγια | |
ταῦτα. ὁμοθυμαδὸν δὲ πάντων εἰπόντων ὑπὸ μίαν φωνήν, τῶν | 178 | |
τε παραγεγονότων καὶ τῶν συμπαρόντων, Εὖ βασιλεῦ, προήχθη | ||
δακρῦσαι τῇ χαρᾷ πεπληρωμένος. ἡ γὰρ τῆς ψυχῆς ἔντασις καὶ τὸ | ||
1 παρειμεν δ HGIZ παρημεν δ KAPT ως δε παρημεν B txt ex conj |
HKAGIBP | |
Schmidt 3 επιδεδωκαμεν BZ Fort leg απεδωκ. (απεδοσαν Jos) | τας 2º | TZ Jos | |
GIP] om cett 4 περι] pr και PTZ | ποιουμενος] + ο βασιλευς BP 5 απαντας | ||
P 7 κατα εθνος HKAGIPT κατα εθνους Z απο εθνους B txt ex Jos | ||
(παρα το εθος) 8 περι] + τι B | χρησιμον] fort χρηματισμον | om εν HP | ||
9 υπεροχης P | τριακοντα] λ ημεραις B 10 του] τους K 11 υπεμεινε B | ||
txt cett cum Josvid (περιεμενεν) 12 παραγενομενους BT 14 om τοις Z | ||
15 εργασαμενου K (ειργ. I) ειργασμενης BTcorr (-ου T*) εργασμενης P | της | ||
υμενου HKcorrGIBPTcorr του υμενου A | της] τοις P | συμπλοκης Z | ||
16 ανεπαισθητως BTcorr | κατεσκευασμενη HKAGI 17 επερωτα GIB*P | | ||
ενειληματων Jos] ανειληματων (-λημμ. GIPTZ) Ar codd 20 ουτινος BT] | ||
τινος cett (οט Jos) 21 ειποντων δε παντ. ομ. K 23 της χαρας BT | | ||
εντασις PZ] εκστασις B ενστασις cett | ||
τῆς τιμῆς ὑπερτεῖνον δακρύειν ἀναγκάζει κατὰ τὰς ἐπιτυχίας. | ||
κελεύσας δὲ εἰς τάξιν ἀποδοῦναι τὰ τεύχη, τὸ τηνικαῦτα ἀσπασά- | 179 | |
μενος τοὺς ἄνδρας εἶπε Δίκαιον ἦν, θεοσεβεῖς ἄνδρες, ὧν χάριν ὑμᾶς | ||
μετεπεμψάμην, ἐκείνοις πρῶτον σεβασμὸν ἀποδοῦναι, μετὰ ταῦτα | ||
5 | τὴν δεξιὰν ὑμῖν προτεῖναι· διὸ πεποίηκα τοῦτο πρῶτον. μεγάλην | 180 |
δὲ τέθειμαι τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην, ἐν ᾗ παραγεγόνατε, καὶ κατ᾿ ἐνιαυτὸν | ||
ἐπίσημος ἔσται πάντα τὸν τῆς ζωῆς ἡμῶν χρόνον· συντέτυχε γὰρ | ||
καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὴν νίκην ἡμῖν προσπεπτωκέναι τῆς πρὸς Ἀντίγονον | ||
ναυμαχίας. διὸ καὶ δειπνῆσαι σήμερον μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν βουλήσομαι. | ||
10 | πάντα δ᾿ ὑμῖν εἶπε, παρέσται καθηκόντως, οἷς συγχρήσησθε, | 181 |
κἀμοὶ μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν. τῶν δὲ ἀσμενισάντων ἐκέλευσε καταλύ- | ||
ματα δοθῆναι τὰ κάλλιστα πλησίον τῆς ἄκρας αὐτοῖς, καὶ τὰ κατὰ | ||
τὸ συμπόσιον ἑτοιμάζειν. | ||
Ὁ δὲ ἀρχεδέατρος Νικάνωρ Δωρόθεον προσκαλεσάμενος, ὃς |
182 | |
15 | ἦν ἐπὶ τούτων ἀποτεταγμένος, ἐκέλευσε τὴν ἑτοιμασίαν εἰς ἕκαστον | |
ἐπιτελεῖν. ἦν γὰρ οὕτω διατεταγμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως, ἃ μὲν ἔτι | ||
καὶ νῦν ὁρᾷς· ὅσαι γὰρ πόλεις εἰσίν, αἳ τοῖς αὐτοῖς συγχρῶνται | ||
πρὸς τὰ ποτὰ καὶ βρωτὰ καὶ στρωμνάς, τοσοῦτοι καὶ προεστῶτες | ||
ἦσαν· καὶ κατὰ τοὺς ἐθισμοὺς οὕτως ἐσκευάζετο, ὅταν παραγένοιντο | ||
20 | πρὸς τοὺς βασιλεῖς, ἵνα κατὰ μηθὲν δυσχεραίνοντες ἱλαρῶς διεξά- | |
γωσιν· ὃ καὶ περὶ τούτους ἐγεγόνει. προσεχέστατος γὰρ ὢν | 183 | |
ἄνθρωπος ὁ Δωρόθεος εἶχε τὴν τῶν τοιούτων προστασίαν. συνέ- | ||
στρωσε δὲ πάντα τὰ δἰ αὐτοῦ χειριζόμενα, πρὸς τὰς τοιαύτας ὑποδοχὰς | ||
διαμεμερισμένα. διμερῆ τε ἐποίησε τὰ τῶν κλισιῶν, καθὼς προσέ- | ||
1 τιμης] ψυχης AZ | υπερ τινων P 4 σεβασμον—πρωτον (5)] om Ptxt |
HKAGIBP | |
ins Pmg | μεταδουναι Z | μετα pr και B 5 προτειναι] προδουναι B | TZ Jos | |
6 τιθεμαι B 8 τα] om PZ hab BvidT*sup lin cett 9 om και B | ημων | ||
BZ | βουλησωμαι P 10 παντα δ υμιν ex conj Mend.] παντα δυναμιν | ||
HKAGI παντα δυναιμην P πασαν δυναμιν BTZ | παρεσταναι BT | | ||
συγχρησησθε HKGI] συγχρησεσθε (-σεσθαι Z) cett 11 καμε BT 12 τα 2º | ||
om TZ 14 αρχεδεατρος (cf C. I. G. 4678) conj Letronne (ο επι της των | ||
ξενων αποδοχης τεταγμενος Jos)] αρχιητρος codd | οσ ην] οσ (ως P) ων | ||
codd 16 αποτελειν BT επιτελη P txt cett 17 αι τοις αυτοις] αις BT οις | ||
cett txt ex Jos (οσαι τοις αυτοις χρωνται) correxi (οσ. γαρ πολ. εθεσιν | ||
ιδιοις Wend.) 18 βρωτα και ποτα K | βρωματα BPTZ | στρωμνας BT] | ||
στρωμναις cett | τοσουταις P τοσουτο Z 19 παραγενωνται BT | ||
20 μηδεν B 21 προσεχεστατα et om γαρ ων—παντα (23) A 21 f. | ||
ων ανθρωπος] ανθρ. ων B ων P 23 αποδοχας P 24 διαμεμετρημενα | ||
BPTZ | διμερη BZT (sed ras I litt int ε et ρ in T) Jos] διμετρη P διαμερη cett | ||
ταξεν ὁ βασιλεύς· γοὺς γὰρ ἡμίσεις ἐκέλευσεν ἀνὰ χεῖρα κατα- | ||
κλῖναι, τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς μετὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ κλισίαν, οὐδὲν ἐλλιπὼν εἰς | ||
τὸ τιμᾷν τοὺς ἄνδρας. Ὡς δὲ κατεκλίθησαν, ἐκέλευσε τῷ | 184 | |
Δωροθέῳ τοῖς ἐθισμοῖς οἷς χρῶνται πάντες οἱ παραγινόμενοι πρὸς | ||
5 | αὐτὸν ἀπό τῆς Ἰουδαίας, οὕτως ἐπιτελεῖν. διὸ τοὺς ἱεροκήρυκας | |
καὶ θύτας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους, οἷς ἔθος ἦν τὰς κατευχὰς ποιεῖσθαι, | ||
παρῃτήσατο· τῶν δὲ παραγεγονότων σὺν ἡμῖν Ἐλισσαῖον ὄντα | ||
τῶν ἱερέων πρεσβύτερον παρεκάλεσε ποιήσασθαι κατευχήν, ὃς | ||
ἀξιολόγως στὰς εἶπε Πκγρώσαι σε, βασιλεῦ, πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν | 185 | |
10 | ὧν ἔκτισεν ὁ παντοκράτωρ θεός· καὶ δῴη σοι ταῦτ᾿ ἔχειν καὶ γυναικὶ | |
καὶ τέκνοις καὶ τοῖς ὁμονοοῦσι πάντα ἀνέκλειπτα τὸν τῆς ζωῆς | ||
χρόνον. Εἰπόντος δὲ ταῦτα τούτου κατερράγη κρότος μετὰ κραυγῆς | 186 | |
καὶ χαρᾶς εὐφροσύνου πλείονα χρόνον· καὶ τὸ τηνικαῦτα πρὸς τὸ | ||
τέρπεσθαι διὰ τῶν ἡτοιμασμένων ἐτράπησαν, τῶν λειτουργιῶν | ||
15 | ἁπασῶν διὰ τῆς τοῦ Δωροθέου συντάξεως ἐπιτελουμένων· ἐν οἷς καὶ | |
βασιλικοὶ παῖδες ἦσαν, καὶ τῶν τιμωμένων ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως.¶ | ¶ Jos | |
Ὅτε δέ καιρόν ἔλαβεν ἐκ διαστήματος, ἠρώτησε τόν ἔχοντα τὴν |
187 | |
πρώτην ἀνάκλισιν (ἦσαν γὰρ καθ᾿ ἡλικίαν τὴν ἀνάπτωσιν πεποιη- | ||
μένοι) Πῶς ἂν τὴν βασιλείαν μέχρι τέλους ἄπταιστον ἔχων | ||
20 | διατελοῖ; βραχὺ δὲ ἐπισχὼν εἶπεν Οὕτως ἂν μάλιστα διευθύνοις, | 188 |
μιμούμενος τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ παντὸς ἐπιεικές. μακροθυμίᾳ γὰρ | ||
χρώμενος, καὶ βλιμάζων τοὺς ἀξίους ἐπιεικέστρον, καθώς εἰσιν | ||
1 εκελευσεν] προσεταξεν P | ανα χειρα Jos] αναρχα Ar codd 3 f. τον |
HKAGIBP | |
Δωροθεον Jos 4 τους εθισμους BT | παραγενομενοι BPTZ 6 οις] ους H | TZ Jos | |
7 Ελισσαιον Jos] Ελεαζαρον codd 8 παρεκαλεσε A Jos (-σεν)] | ||
παρεκαλεσαν cett | ποιησεσθαι P 9 ειπε] ad hoc add † † Gtxt | ||
Img ευχη Bmg | βασιλευς I 10 και 2º] om A 11 ζωης] + σου BPTZ | ||
12 om τουτου BTZ 18 γαρ] δε K | αναπτω A* (σιν sup lin in H) | ||
19 απταιστον μ. τελους I 19 f εχω διατελοι H*AGI εχων διατελοιη Hcorr | ||
εχω διατελειν K διατελοιη εχων BT txt Z 20 μαλιστα] καλλιστα | ||
P | διευθυνεις HK*A -νης P 22 βλημαζων codd (βληζων | ||
suprascripto μα P). A* βλημαζων habuisse videtur, sed βλημ in ετοιμvid | ||
mutatum est. Hinc δοκιμαζων F ετοιμαζων L κριματαζων D¹ (αζων | ||
cum lacuna D*) 22 καθως] η καθως conj Schmidt | ||
189 | ἄξιοι, μετατιθεὶς ἐκ τῆς κακίας καὶ εἰς μετάνοιαν ἄξεις. Ἐπαι- | 189 |
νέσας δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς τὸν ἐχόμενον ἠρώτα Πῶς ἂν ἕκαστα πράττοι; | ||
ὁ δὲ ἀπεκρίθη Τὸ δίκαιον εἰ πρὸς ἅπαντας διατηροῖ, ἑαυτῷ καλῶς | ||
τὰ ἕκαστα πράξει, διαλαμβάνων ὅτι πᾶν ἐννόημα σαφές ἐστι θεῷ· | ||
5 | καταρχὴν δὲ θείου φόβου λαμβάνων ἐν οὐδενὶ διαπίπτοις. Καὶ | 190 |
τοῦτον δὲ εὖ μάλα παραδεξάμενος ἕτερον ἐπηρώτα Πῶς ἂν ὁμοίους | ||
ἑαυτῷ ἔχοι τοὺς φίλους; κἀκεῖνος εἶπεν Εἰ θεωροίησαν πολλήν σε | ||
πρόνοιαν ποιούμενον ὧν ἄρχεις ὄχλων· σὺ δὲ τοῦτο πράξεις ἐπι- | ||
βλέπων ὡς ὁ θεὸς εὐεργετεῖ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος, ὁ ὑγείαν | ||
10 | αὐτοῖς καὶ τροφὴν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ κατὰ καιρὸν παρασκευάζων | |
ἅπαντα. Σθνεπιμαρτυρήσας δὲ τούτῳ τὸν ἐχόμενον ἡρώτα | 191 | |
Πῶς ἂν ἐν τοῖς χρηματισμοῖς καὶ διακρίσεσιν εὐφημίας τυγχάνοι | ||
καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποτυγχανόντων; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Εἰ πᾶσιν ἴσος γένοιο τῷ | ||
λόγῳ καὶ μηδὲν ὑπερηφάνως μηδὲ τῇ περὶ σεαυτὸν ἰσχύι πράσσοις | ||
15 | κατὰ τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων. τοῦτο δὲ ποιήσεις τὴν διάταξιν βλέπων | 192 |
τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ· τὰ γὰρ ἱκετευόμενα συντελεῖσθαι τοῖς ἀξίοις, | ||
τοῖς δὲ ἀποτυγχάνουσιν ἢ δἰ ὀνείρων ἢ πράξεων σημαίνεσθαι τὸ | ||
βλαβερὸν αὐτοῖς, οὐ κατὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας οὐδὲ κατὰ τὴν μεγαλω- | ||
σύνην τῆς ἰσχύος τύπτοντος αὐτούς, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπιεικείᾳ χρωμένου τοῦ | ||
20 | θεοῦ. Εὖ δὲ καὶ τοῦτον κατεπαινέσας ἠρώτα τὸν ἑξῆς Πῶς | 193 |
ἂν ἐν ταῖς πολεμικαῖς χρείαις ἀὴττητος εἴη ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Εἰ μὴ | ||
πεποιθὼς ὑπάρχοι τοῖς ὄχλοις μηδὲ ταῖς δυνάμεσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν | ||
ἐπικαλοῖτο διὰ πάντων, ἵνα τὰς ἐπιβολὰς αὐτῷ κατευθύνῃ δικαίως | ||
διεξάγοντι πάντα. Ἀποδεξάμενος δὲ καὶ τοῦτον τὸν ἕτερον | 194 | |
25 | ἠρώτα Πῶς ἂν φοβερὸς εἴη τοῖ ἐχθροῖς; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Εἰ τῇ τῶν | |
ὅπλων καὶ δυνάμεων παρασκευῇ πολλῇ χρώμενος εἰδείη ταῦτα | ||
1 μετατιθεις] + τε B μετατιθης A* 2 εκαστα καλλιστα Wend. |
HKAGIB | |
3 παντας P | διατηρει BPTZ -ροιη Acorr | εαυτω BPTZ (-το)] εαυτον cett | PTZ | |
4 πραξοι K 6 τουτο A | επηρωτα BT] επερωτα cett | ομοιως B 7 εαυτω] | ||
εαυτου H om Z 10 κατασκευαζων P 12 διαρισεσιν Ztxt διαιρεσιν Zmg | | ||
τυγχανω codd corr Schmidt 13 ισως BPT | γενοιο—σεαυτον (14) om | ||
BPTZ 14 πραττεις P πρασοις H* (σ altera suprascr) K 18 κατα 2º] | ||
om codd 19 αυτοις GI 21 ταις BPTZ | ειην Z | ο BPTZKcorr τω | ||
cett 22 υπαρχοι K] υπαρχοις HAGI υπαρχεις BPTZ | οχλοις] οπλοις P | ||
23 επικαλη B | επιβουλας I 25 τη] τω T 26 οπλιων P | και δυναμεων] | ||
om Z και δυναμενων G | ειδειη ex conj] ειη ει δε ειη (οιει B) codd | ||
ὄντα κενὰ ἐπὶ πλείονα χρόνον πρὸς τὸ συμπέρασμα δρᾷν τι· καὶ | ||
γὰρ ὁ θεὸς διδοὺς ἀνοχὰς καὶ ἐνδεικνύμενος τὸν τῆς δυναστείας | ||
φόβον ἐγκατασκευάζει πάσῃ διανοίᾳ. Καὶ τοῦτον δὲ ἐπαι- | 195 | |
νέσας εἶπε πρὸς τὸν ἐχόμενον Τί κάλλιστον αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸ ζῇν ἂν | ||
5 | εἴη κἀκεῖνος ἔφη Τὸ γινώσκειν ὅτι θεὸς δυναστεύει τῶν ἁπάντων, | |
καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν καλλίστων πράξεων οὐκ αὐτοὶ κατευθύνομεν τὰ βουλευ- | ||
θέντα· θεὸς δὲ τελειοῖ τὰ πάντων καὶ καθηγεῖται δυναστεύων. Ἐπι- | 196 | |
φωνήσας δὲ καὶ τούτῳ καλῶς λέγειν τὸν ἕτερον ἡρώτα Πῶς ἂν | ||
ἀκέραια συντηρήσας ἅπαντα τοῖς ἐγγόνοις τὴν αὐτὴν παραδιδοῖ | ||
10 | διάθεσιν ἐπὶ τέλει; § ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Εὐχόμενος ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν | § C |
ἀγαθὰς ἐπινοίας λαμβάνειν πρὸς τὰ μέλλοντα πράσσεσθαι, καὶ τοῖς | ||
ἐγγόνοις παρακελευόμενος μὴ ἐκπλήττεσθαι τῇ δόξῃ μηδὲ τῷ | ||
πλούτῳ· θεὸν γὰρ εἶναι τὸν χαριζόμενον ταῦτα, καὶ οὐ δἰ ἑαυτοὺς | ||
ἔχειν τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ἁπάντων. Ἐπιμαρτυρήσας δὲ τούτοις | 197 | |
15 | τοῦ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπυνθάνετο Πῶς ἂν τὰ συμβαίνοντα μετρίως | |
φέροι; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφησεν Εἰ πρόληψιν λαμβάνοις, ὅτι γέοναν | ||
ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πάντες ἄνθρωποι μετασχεῖν τῶν μεγίστων κακῶν, | ||
ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἀγαθῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπον ὄντα τούτων ἀμιγῆ | ||
γενέσθαι· ὁ θεὸς δὲ τὴν εὐψυχίαν δίδωσιν, ὃν ἱκετεύειν ἀναγ- | ||
20 | καῖον. Φιλοφρονηθεὶς δὲ καὶ τοῦτον καλῶς εἶπεν ἅπαντας | 198 |
ἀποφαίνεσθαι· ἐπερωτήσας δὲ ἔτι ἕνα καταλήξω τὸ νῦν ἔχον, ἵνα | ||
καὶ πρὸς τὸ τέρπεσθαι τραπέντες ἡδέως διεξάγωμεν. ἐν δὲ ταῖς | ||
μετὰ ταῦτα ἓξ ἑξῆς ἡμέραις καὶ παρὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ἑξῆς μαθήσομαί | ||
τι πλέον. εἶτ᾿ ἐπηρώτα τὸν ἄνδρα Τί πέρας ἀνδρείας ἐστίν; ὁ | 199 | |
25 | δὲ εἶπεν Εἰ τὸ βουλευθὲν ὀρθῶς ἐν ταῖς τῶν κινδύνων πράξεσιν | |
ἐπιτελοῖτο κατὰ πρόθεσιν. τελειοῦται δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πάντα σοι | ||
καλῶς βουλευομένῳ, βασιλεῦ, συμφερόντως. § Ἐπιφωνησάντων | 200 § Jos | |
δὲ πάντων καὶ κρότῳ σημηναμένων πρὸς τοὺς φιλοσόφους εἶπεν ὁ | ||
βασιλεὺς (οὐκ ὀλίγοι γὰρ παρῆσαν τούτοις) Οἴομαι διαφέρειν τοὺς | ||
2 τον] τα recte ut vid Wend. 8 om και BPTZ | τουτο Z 9 εκγοωοις |
HKAGIB | |
ABT 10 επι τελει P] επιτελειν BZcorr επιτελη T επιτελοι cett | CPTZ Jos | |
12 εκγονοις AB*T 13 om ου B 14 απαντων] pr των H | τουτους I | ||
16 φερει P | λαμβανεις BT | γεγονασιν BPT 18 αγαθων] pr των BT | ||
19 om δε C 20 τουτω P 21 αποκρινεσθαι B | om δε C 23 ημερας | ||
GI | εξης 2º] om BPTZ 24 ειτ επηρωτα BCTZ (ειτα BC)] ειτ επερωτα | ||
cett 27 βουλευομενω BT] βουλομενω cett 28 σημαναμενων CTZ | ||
29 ολιγοις Z | ||
ἄνδρας ἀρετῇ καὶ συνιέναι πλεῖον, οἵτινες ἐκ τοῦ καιροῦ τοιαύτας | ||
ἐρωτήσεις λαμβάνοντες, ὡς δέον ἐστὶν ἀποκέκρινται; πάντες ἀπὸ | ||
θεοῦ τοῦ λόγου τὴν καταρχὴν ποιούμενοι. Μενέδημος δὲ ὁ | 201 | |
Ἐρετριεὺς φιλόσοφος εἶπε Ναί, βασιλεῦ· προνοίᾳ γὰρ τῶ ὅλων | ||
5 | διοικουμένων, καὶ ὑπειληφότων ὀρθῶς τοῦτο, ὅτι θεόκτιστόν ἐστιν | |
ἄνθρωπος, ἀκολουθεῖ πᾶσαν δυναστείαν καὶ λόγου καλλονὴν ἀπὸ | ||
θεοῦ κατάρχεσθαι. τοῦ δὲ βασιλέως ἐπινεύσαντος τὰ περὶ τούτων | 202 | |
ἔληξεν,§ ἐτράπησαν δὲ πρὸς εὐφροσύνην. ἐπιλαβούσης δὲ τῆς | § Jos | |
ἑσπέρας τὸ συμπόσιον ἐλύθη. | ||
10 | Τῇ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν διάταξιν τὰ τῆς |
203 |
ἀναπτώσεως καὶ συμποσίας ἐπετελεῖτο. καθὸ δὲ ἐνόμιζεν ὁ | ||
βασιλεὺς εὔκαιρον εἶναι πρὸς τὸ πυνθάνεσθαί τι τῶν ἀνδρῶν, | ||
ἐπηρώτα τοὺς ἑξῆς τῶν ἀποκεκριμένων τῇ προτέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ. πρὸς | 204 | |
τὸν ἑνδέκατον δὲ ἤρξατο τὴν κοινολογίαν ποιεῖσθαι· δέκα γὰρ ἦσαν | ||
15 | οἱ ἠρωτημένοι τῇ προτέρᾳ. σιγῆς δὲ γενομένης ἐπυνθάνετο Πῶς | |
ἂν πλούσιος διαμένοι; βραχὺ δὲ ἐπισχὼν ὁ τὴν ἐρώτησιν ἐκδεχό- | 205 | |
μενος εἶπεν Εἰ μηδὲν ἀνάξιον τῆς ἀρχῆς μηδὲ ἀσελγὲς πράσσοι, | ||
μηδὲ δαπάνῃ εἰς τὰ κενὰ καὶ μάταια συντελοῖ, τοὺς δὲ ὑποτεταγμέ- | ||
νους εὐεργεσίᾳ πρὸς εὔνοιαν ἄγοι γὴν ἑαυτοῦ· καὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς πᾶσιν | ||
20 | αἴτιος ἀγαθῶν ἐστιν, ᾧ κατακολουθεῖν ἀναγκαῖον. Ἐπαι- | 206 |
νέσας δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦτον ἕτερον ἐπηρώτα Πῶς ἂν τὴν ἀλήθειαν | ||
διατηροῖ; ὁ δὲ πρὸς τοῦτο ἀπεκρίθη Γινώσκων ὅτι μεγάλην | ||
αἰσχύνην ἐπιφέρει τὸ ψεῦδος πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον | ||
τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν· ἐξουσίαν γὰρ ἔχοντες ὃ βούλονται πράσσειν, τίνος | ||
25 | ἕνεκεν ἂν ψεύσαιντο; προσλαμβάνειν δὲ δεῖ τοῦτό σε, βασιλεῦ, διότι | |
φιλαλήθης ὁ θεός ἐστιν. Ἀποδεξάμενος δὲ εὖ μάλα καὶ | 207 | |
τοῦτον ἐπιβλέψας εἶπεν Τί ἐστι σοφίας διδαχή; ὁ δὲ ἕτερος | ||
3 om του B | Μενεδιμος BT Βενεδημος Z | om δε BT 8 δε 1º B] δε |
HKAGIB | |
τα cett | προς ευφροσ.—τη δε (10)] om A 13 πρωτη K | προς τον ενδεκ.— | CPTZ Jos | |
προτερα (15) om Btxt ins Bmg 15 om οι KB | προτερα] προτερεα A* | ||
(-ραια Acorr) + ημερα Bmg 16 διαμελλοι P 18 δαπανην Mend. | | ||
συντελει BCT συντελη Z ασυντελει P | δε Mend. (et sic L)] om codd cett | ||
19 ευεργεσια] + δε B | αγει BT 21 επηρωτα BT] επερωτα cett | ||
22 διατηροιη BAcorr 23 επιφερει KB επιφεροι cett | ||
24 εξουσιαν—πρασσειν] om C | ο] ων B 25 αν ενεκεν Z | προσλαμβανειν | ||
BT] προλαμβανειν cett σε] σοι A 26 om ο θεος P 27 post τουτον | ||
fort επι τον μετ αυτον vel aliquid simile excidit | ||
ἀπεφήνατο Καθὼς οὐ βούλει σεαυτῷ τὰ κακὰ παρεῖναι, μέτοχος δὲ | ||
τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὑπάρχειν ἁπάντων, εἰ πράσσοις τοῦτο πρὸς τοὺς ὑποτε- | ||
ταγμένους καὶ τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας, εἰ τοὺς καλοὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς τῶν | ||
ἀνθρώπων ἐπιεικέστερον νουθετοῖς· καὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους | ||
5 | ἅπαντας ἐπιεικείᾳ ἄγει. Ἐπαινέσας αὐτὸν τῷ μετ᾿ αὐτὸν | 208 |
εἶπε Πῶς ἂν φιλάνθρωπος εἴη; κἀκεῖνος ἔφη Θεωρῶν ὡς ἐν | ||
παλλῷ χρόνῳ καὶ κακοπαθείαις μεγίσταις αὔξει τε καὶ γεννᾶται τὸ | ||
τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος· ὅθεν οὔτε εὐκόπως δεῖ κολάζειν, οὔτε αἰκίαις | ||
περιβάλλειν· γινώσκων ὅτι τὸ τῶν ἀνθρὼπων ζῇν ἐν ὀδύναις τε καὶ | ||
10 | τιμωρίαις καθέστηκεν. ἐπινοῶν οὖν ἕκαστα πρὸς τὸν ἔλεον τραπήσῃ· | |
καὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἐλεήμων ἐστίν. Ἀποδεξάμενος δὲ τοῦτον | 209 | |
ἐπυνθάνετο τοῦ κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς Τίς ἀναγκαιότατος τρόπος βασιλείας; | ||
Τὸ συντηρεῖν, εἶπεν, αὑτὸν ἀδωροδόκητον, καὶ νήφειν τὸ πλεῖον μέρος | ||
τοῦ βίου, καὶ δικαιοσύνην προτιμᾷν, καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους φιλοποιεῖ- | ||
15 | σθαι· καὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς φιλοδίκαιός ἐστιν. Ἐπισημήνας καὶ | 210 |
τοῦτον πρὸσ τὸν ἕτερον εἶπε Τί τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐστὶ κατάστημα; | ||
ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Τὸ διαλαμβάνειν ὅτι πάντα διὰ παντὸς ὁ θεὸς ἐνεργεῖ | ||
καὶ γινώσκει, καὶ οὐθὲν ἂν λάθοι ἄδικον ποιήσας ἢ κακὸν ἐργασά- | ||
μενος ἄνθρωπος· ὡς γὰρ θεὸς εὐεργετεῖ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον, οὕτως καὶ | ||
20 | σὺ μιμούμενος ἀπρόσκοπος ἂν εἴης. Ἐπιφωνήσας δὲ τούτῳ | 211 |
πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον εἶπε Τίς ὅρος τοῦ βασιλεύειν ἐστίν; ὁ δὲ ἔφη Τὸ | ||
καλῶς ἄρχειν ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ μὴ τῷ πλούτῳ καὶ τῇ δόξῃ φερόμενον | ||
ὑπερήφανον καὶ ἄσχημόν τι ἐπιθυμῆσαι, εἰ καλῶς λογίζοιο. πάντα | ||
γὰρ σοι πάρεστιν ὡς οὐδέν. ὁθεὸς δὲ ἀπροσδεής ἐστι καὶ ἐπιεικής. | ||
1 απεφηνατο] ειπε B απεκρινατο P | βουλη HGCZ | om τα BCTZ |
HKAGIB | |
2 πρασσεις KBCP 2 f αμαρτ. και τους υποτεταγ. P 3 om τους 1º B | CPTZ | |
4 νουθετεις KBPT 6 om αν Z* in Zcorr 7 om τε I 8 ουτε 1º] | ||
ουδε Z |
αικιαις (cf |
||
9 τον ανον HKB | om τε KB 11 δε] + και GI 12 om επυνθανετο | ||
Ktxt ins post εξης Kmg | το] τον K | βασιλειας] pr της P 13 εαυτον P | ||
14 φιλοπονεισθαι H 16 om τον BT | om της B | καταστημα εστιν Z | ||
17 om δε K | διαπαντος] + οτι K | ενεργει και γινωσκει ο θσ P 19 θεος] | ||
pr ο P | om ολον P 20 τουτον CPZ 22 εαυτου] + και βασιλευειν εστι K | ||
23 υπερηφανον] + τι BT*? (ras 2 litt) | om τι B | επιθυμησαι P] εννοησασθαι | ||
B επινοησαιο Z επιθυμησαιο cett 24 ως ουδεν] οσα δεον conj Wend. | ||
καὶ σὺ καθόσον ἄνθρωπος ἐννόει, καὶ μὴ πολλῶν ὀρέγου, τῶν δὲ | ||
ἱκανῶν πρὸς τὸ βασιλεύειν. Κατεπαινέσας δὲ αὐτόν, ἐπηρώτα | 212 | |
τὸν ἕτερον Πῶς ἂν τὰ κάλλιστα διαλογίζοιτο; ἀπεκρίθη δὲ ἐκεῖνος | ||
Εἰ τὸ δίκαιον ἐπὶ παντὸς προβάλλοι συνεχῶς, καὶ νομίζοι τὴν | ||
5 | ἀδολίαν τοῦ ζῇν στέρησιν εἶναι· καὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς διὰ παντὸς τοῖς | |
δικαίοις ἀγαθὰ προσημαίνει μέγιστα. Τοῦτον δὲ ἐπαινέσας | 213 | |
εἶπε πρὸς τὸν ἑξῆς Πῶς ἂν ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις ἀτάραχος εἴη; ὁ δὲ ἔφη | ||
Δυσαπολόγητον ἡρώτηκας πρᾶγμα. συναναφέρειν γὰρ οὐ δυνάμεθα | ||
ἐν τούτοις τοῖς κατὰ τὸν ὕπνον ἑαυτούς. ἀλλὰ περιεχόμεθα ἀλογίστῳ | ||
10 | κατὰ τάδε αἰσθήσει. πάσχομεν γὰρ κατὰ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς | 214 |
ὑποπίπτουσιν ὡς θεωρουμένοις· ἀλογιστοῦμεν δέ, καθόσον ὑπολαμ- | ||
βάνομεν καὶ ἐπὶ πέλαγος καὶ ἐν πλοίοις ἢ πολεῖν, ἢ πέτασθαι φερο- | ||
μένους καὶ διαίρειν εἰς ἑτέρους τόπους, καὶ τοιαῦτα ἕτερα, † καὶ ὁ ταῦθ᾿ | ||
ὑπολαμβάνων μὴ καθεστάναι.† πλὴν ὅσον ἔμοιγε ἐφικτόν, οὕτω | 215 | |
15 | διείληφα· κατὰ πὰντα τρόπον σέ, βασιλεῦ, καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα καὶ τὰ | |
πραττόμενα πρὸς εὐσέβειαν ἐπανάγειν, ὅπως ἑαυτῷ συμοστορῇς. ὅτι | ||
τὸ κατ᾿ ἀρετὴν συντηρῶν οὔτε χαρίζεσθαι προαιρῇ παρὰ λόγον, οὐδὲ | ||
ἐξουσίᾳ χρώμενος τὸ δίκαιον αἴρεις. ἐπὶ πλεῖον γάρ, ἐν οἷς ἕκαςτος | 216 | |
πράγμασιν ἐγρηγορὼς τὴν διαγωγὴν ποιεῖται, καὶ καθ᾿ ὕπνον ἐν τοῖς | ||
20 | αὐτοῖς ἡ διάνοια τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ἔχει, † ὡς δὲ † πάντα διαλογισμὸν | |
καὶ πρᾶξιν ἐπὶ τὰ κάλλιστα τρεπομένην κατευθύνει καὶ ἐγρηγορὼς | ||
καὶ ἐν ὕπνῳ. διὸ καὶ περὶ σὲ διὰ παντός ἐστιν εὐστάθεια. Κατ- | 217 | |
ευφημήσας δὲ καὶ τοῦτον εἶπε πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον Ἐπεὶ σὺ δέκατος | ||
τὴν ἀπόκρισιν ἔχεις, ὡς ἂν ἀποφήνῃ, πρὸς τὸ δεῖπνον τραπησόμεθα. | ||
3 om τα B 4 ει] εις G ] προβαλοι P προβαλλει C προβαλοις G |
HKAGIB | |
προβαλλοις I | νομιζει P 5 om του ζην Z 9 τους υπνους P 10 ταδε] | CPTZ | |
τηδε HKAPT τι δε GICZ τα τηδε B (τα excurrit in mg sed prima manu) | | ||
πασχωμεν GIP | om την I 11 υπολαμβανομεν BCPT] υπολαμβανομενοι | ||
cett 12 και 1º] om B | πολειν KGIBT] πωλειν HCPZ πλειν A (ν πολ.] | ||
περιπολειν Wend.) | πετασθαι] + ημας B 13 και ο ταυθ—βασιλευ | ||
(15) om Btxt ins in mg Brubr | ο] om K το P 14 υπολαμβανειν KGICPZ | | ||
καθισταναι I Locus perobscurus ? κατα ταυθ υπολαμβανομεν | ||
καθεσταναι 15 τροπον παντα Z | σε] σοι KBT 16 εαυτω] εαυτου codd | ||
17 om το B 18 αιρεις] αναιρεις P αιρης Z ερεις A 19 ποιηται P | | ||
η διανοια εν τοις αθτοις BT 20 ως δε codd] Fortasse ως δ εχει | ||
vel οσ δ εχει 21 κατευθυνεις Zcorr 24 τραπησωμεθα GICPZ | ||
ἠρώτα δὲ Πῶς ἂν μηδὲν ἀνάξιον ἑαυτῶν πράσσοιμεν; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν | 218 | |
Ἐπίβλεπε διὰ παντὸς εἰς τὴν σεαυτοῦ δόξαν καὶ τὴν ὑπεροχήν, ἴνα | ||
τούτοις ἀκόλουθα καὶ λέγῃς καὶ διανοῇ, γινώσκων ὅτι πάντες ὧν | ||
ἄρχεος [ερὶ σοῦ καὶ διανοοῦνται καὶ λαλοῦσιν. οὐ γὰρ ἐλάχιστόν | 219 | |
5 | σε δεῖ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν φαίνεσθαι· τὸ γὰρ πρόσωπον, ὃ δέον αὐτοῖς | |
ἐστιν ὑποκρίνεσθαι, τοῦτο συνθεωροῦντες ἀκόλουθα πάντα πράσ- | ||
σουσι· σὺ δὲ οὐχ ὑπόκρισιν ἔχεις, ἀλλ᾿ ἀληθῶς βασιλεύεις, θεοῦ | ||
δόντος σοι καταξίως τῶν τρόπων τὴν ἡγεμονίαν. Τοῦ δὲ | 220 | |
βασιλέως εὖ μάλα συγκροτήσαντος μετὰ φιλοφροσύνης ἐπὶ πλείονα | ||
10 | χρόνον, τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καθυπνοῦν παρεκάλουν. καὶ τὰ μὲν πρὸς | |
τούτους ὡς ἔληξεν, ἐπὶ τὴν ἑξῆς ἐτράπησαν τῆς συμποσίας | ||
διάταξιν. | ||
Τῇ δὲ ἐχομένῃ, τῆς αὐτῆς διατάξεως γενηθείσης, ὅτε καιρὸν ὑπε- |
221 | |
λάμβανεν ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶναι τοῦ πυνθάνεσθαί τι τῶν ἀνδρῶν, ἠρώτα | ||
15 | τὸν πρῶτον τῶν ἀπολιπόντων πὸς τὴν ἑξῆς ἐρώτησιν Τίς ἐστιν | |
ἀρχὴ κρατίστη; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Τὸ κρατεῖν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ μὴ συγκατα- | 222 | |
φέρεσθαι ταῖς ὁρμαῖς. πᾶσι γὰρ ἀνθρώποις φυσικὸν εἶναι τὸ πρός | ||
τι τὴν διάνοιαν ῥέπειν· τοῖς μὲν οἶν πολλοῖς ἐπὶ τὰ βρωτὰ καὶ | 223 | |
ποτὰ καὶ τὰς ἡδονὰς εἰκός ἐστι κεκλίσθαι, τοῖς δὲ βασιλεῦσιν ἐπὶ | ||
20 | χώρας κατάκτησιν, κατὰ τὸ τῆς δόξης μέγεθος· πλὴν ἐν πᾶσι | |
μετριότης καλόν. ἃ δὲ ὁ θεὸς δίδωσι, ταῦτα λαμβάνων σύνεχε· | ||
τῶν δ᾿ ἀνεφίκτων μὴ ἐπιθύμει. Τοῖς δὲ ῥηθεῖσιν ἀρεσθεὶς | 224 | |
πρὸς τὸν ἐχόμενον εἶπε Πῶς ἂν ἐκτὸς εἴη φθόνου; διαλιπὼν δὲ | ||
ἐκεῖνος ἔφη Πρῶτον εἰ νοήσαι, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς πᾶσι μερίζει δόξαν τε | ||
25 | καὶ πλούτου μέγεθος τοῖς βασιλεῦσι, καὶ οὐδεὶς περὶ ἑαυτόν ἐστι | |
1 αυτων CZ 3 λεγεις PZ 5 δει B] δια cett | ο δεον αυτοις conj |
HKAGIB | |
Schmidt] ουδε αυτο (αυτος B) codd 6 τουτο] + γαρ GI | συν (in | CPTZ | |
συνθεωρουντες sup lin T¹ 8 τον τροπον Ztxt | ηγεμονειαν H | ||
10 καθυπνουντας C υπνουν GI | παρεκ. καθ. Z | ||
11 τουτοις Z | εληξεν Schard] ελεξεν codd | επι] + τουτοις (post ras) Z | | ||
ως εληξεν—εχομενη (13)] om H 13 υπελαβεν | ||
CTZ 14 ηρωτα ex conj] πρωτα codd (επηρωτα Zcorr) 15 των απολιποντων | ||
(-λειπ. P)] τον απολιποντα BCTZ + ηγε B | ερωτησιν] + εφη P | ||
18 om την διαν. Z | βρωματα P 19 κεκλεισθαι PB*vid 20 κατα] και | ||
Wend. | om το C 21 om ταυτα P | β συνεχε α λαμβανων B* (corr B¹) | ||
23 τως] ως Z | διαλειπων I 24 ει νοησαις Zcorr P (-ησσ.) εννοησας B | ||
25 πλουτον HGI | παρ εαυτον Wend. | ||
βασιλεύς· πάντες γὰρ θέλουσι μετασχεῖν ταότης τῆ δόξης, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ | ||
δύνανται· θεοῦ γάρ ἐστι δόμα. Ἐπαινέσας δὲ τὸν ἄνδρα | 225 | |
διὰ πλειόνων ἐπηρώτα τὸν ἕτερον Πῶς ἂν καταφρονοίη τῶν ἐχθρῶν; | ||
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Ἠσκηκὼς πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εὔνοιαν καὶ κατεργα- | ||
5 | σάμενος φιλίας, λόγον οὐθενὸς ἂν ἔχπος· τὸ δὲ κεχαριτῶσθαι πρὸς | |
πάντας ἀνθρώπους καὶ καλὸν δῶρον εἰληφέναι παρὰ θεοῦ τοῦτ᾿ ἔστι | ||
κράτιστον. Συναινέσας δὲ τούτοις τὸν ἑξῆς ἐκέλευσεν | 226 | |
ἀποκριθῆναι, πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰπών Πῶς ἂν δοξαζόμενος διαμένοι; εἶπε | ||
δέ Τῇ προθυμίᾳ καὶ ταῖς χάρισι πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους μεταοτικὸς ὢν | ||
10 | καὶ μεγαλομερὴς οὐδέποτ᾿ ἂν ἀπολίποι δόξης· ἵνα δὲ τὰ προειρη- | |
μένα σοι διαμένῃ, τὸν θεὸν ἐπικαλοῦ διὰ παντός. Εὐφη- | 227 | |
μήσας δὲ τοῦτον ἕτερον ἡρώτα Πῶς τινα δεῖ φιλότιμον εἶναι; | ||
ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Πρὸς τοὺς φιλικῶς ἔχοντας ἡμῖν οἴονται πάντες ὅτι | ||
πρὸς τούτους δέον· ἐγὼ δ᾿ ὑπολαμβάνω, πρὸς τοὺς ἀντιδοξοῦντας | ||
15 | φιλοτιμίαν δεῖν χαριστικὴν ἔχειν, ἵνα τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ μετάγωμεν | |
αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὸ καθῆκον καὶ συμφέρον ἑαυτοῖς. δεῖ δὲ τὸν θεὸν | ||
λιτανεύειν, ἵνα ταῦτ᾿ ἐπιτελῆται· τὰς γὰρ ἀπάντων διανοίας | ||
κρατεῖ. Ζθνομολογέσας δὲ τούτοις τὸν ἕκτον ἐκέλευσεν | 228 | |
ἀποφήνασθαι πυνθανόμενος Τίσι δεῖ χαρίζεσθαι; ἐκεῖνος δ᾿ | ||
20 | ἀπεκρίθη Γονεῦσι διὰ παντός, καὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς πεποίηται ἐντολὴν | |
μεγίστην περὶ τῆς τῶν γονέων τιμῆς. ἑπομένως δὲ τὴν τῶν φίλων | ||
ἐγκρίνει διάθεσιν, προσονομάσας . σὺ | ||
δὲ καλῶς ποιεῖς ἅπαντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς φιλίαν πρὸς ἑαυτὸν καθ- | ||
ιστῶν. Παρακαλέσας δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἐπυνθάνετο καὶ τοῦ | 229 | |
25 | μετέπειτα Τί καλλονῆς ἄξιόν ἐστιν; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Εὐσέβεια. καὶ | |
γὰρ αὕτη καλλονή τίς ἐστι πρωτεύουσα. τὸ δὲ δυνατὸν αὐτῆς | ||
2 δυναντ αν Z 5 φιλιαν Z 6 om και GI 8 ειπων] ειπεν GIC |
HKAGIB | |
ειπας Z | πως] ως Z 9 προμηθεια K | μεταδοτ. ων προς τους αλλους B | CPTZ | |
10 απολειποι P 11 διαμενοι A 12 πως] προς Wend. | δει sup lin scr | ||
Z*vid 13 οιονται] οιον και K 15 δει BP | εχειν] ειναι B | τροπω] | ||
προσωπω CZ 17 επιτελειται C 18 συνομολογησασθαι P et (δε omisso) | ||
Z* 19 om δ Z 20 απεκριθη] ειπε Z 21 επομενος P 22 εγκρινειν Z | ||
23 προς εαυτον] εαυτω P 24 και 1º] om B 26 om τις PZ προτερευουσα | ||
H προτευουσα GI | βεστιν ααυτης B* (corr B¹) | ||
ἐστιν ἀγάπη· αὕτη γὰρ θεοῦ δόσις ἐστίν· ἣν καὶ σὺ κέκτησαι πάντα | ||
περιέχωμ ἐν αὐτῇ τὰ ἀγαθά. Λίαν δὲ φιλοφρόνως ἐπικρο- | 230 | |
τήσας εἶπε πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον Πῶς ἂν πταίσας πάλιν τῆς αὐτῆς | ||
κρατήσαι δόξης; ὁ δὲ ἔφη Σὲ μὲν οὐ δυνατόν ἐστι πταῖσαι, πᾶσι | ||
5 | γὰρ χάριτας ἔσπαρκας, αἳ βλαστάνουσιν εὔνοιαν, ἣ τὰ μέγιστα τῶν | |
ὅπλων κατισχύουσα περιλαμβάνει τὴν μεγίστην ἀσφάλειαν· εἰ δὲ | 231 | |
τινες πταίουσιν, ἐφ᾿ οἷς πταίουσιν, οὐκέτι χρὴ ταῦτα πρύσσειν, ἀλλὰ | ||
φιλίαν κατακτησαμένους δικαιοπραγεῖν. θεοῦ δὲ δῶρον ἀγαθῶν | ||
ἐργάτην εἶναι καὶ μὴ τῶν ἐναντίων. Συναρεσθεὶς δὲ τούτοις | 232 | |
10 | πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον εἶπε Πῶς ἂν ἐκτὸς γένοιτο λύπης ὁ δὲ ἔφησεν Εἰ | |
μηδένα βλάπτοι, πάντας δὲ ὡφελοῖ, τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ κατακολουθῶν· | ||
τοὺς γὰρ ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς καρποὺς ἀλυπίαν κατσκευάζειν. ἱκετεύειν δὲ | 233 | |
τὸν θεόν, ἵνα μὴ τὰ παρὰ τὴν προαίρεσιν ἡμῶν ἀνακύπτοντα | ||
βλάπτῃ, λέγω δὴ οἷον θάνατοί τε καὶ νόσοι καὶ λῦπαι καὶ τὰ | ||
15 | τοιαῦτα. αὐτῷ δὲ σοὶ εὐσεβεῖ καθεστῶτο τούτων οὐδὲν ἂν | |
προσέλθοι. Καλῶς δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἐπαινέσας τὸν δέκατον ἡρώτα | 234 | |
Τί μέγιστόν ἐστι δόξης; ὁ δὲ εἶπε Τὸ τιμᾷν τὸν θεόν· τοῦτο δ᾿ | ||
ἐστὶν οὐ δώροις οὐδὲ θυσίαις, ἀλλὰ ψυχῆς καθαρότητι καὶ διαλήψεως | ||
ὁσίας, καθὼς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πάντα κατασκευάζεται καὶ διοικεῖται | ||
20 | κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν· ἣν καὶ σὺ διατελεῖς ἔχων γνώμην, ᾗ | |
πάρεστι σημειοῦσθαι πᾶσιν ἐκ τῶν ὑπὸ σοῦ συντετλεσμένων καὶ | ||
συντελουμένων. Μετὰ μείζονος δὲ φωνῆς πάντας αὐτοὺς ὁ | 235 | |
βασιλεὺς ἡσπάζετο καὶ παρεκάλει, συνεπιφωνούντων τῶν παρόντων, | ||
μάλιστα δὲ τῶν φιλοσόφων. καὶ γὰρ ταῖς ἀγωγαῖς καὶ τῷ λόγῳ | ||
25 | πολὺ προέχοντες αὐτῶν ἦσαν, ὃς ἂν ἀπὸ θεοῦ τὴν καταρχὴν ποιού- | |
μενοι. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὁ βασιλεύς εἰς τὸ φιλοφρονεῖσθαι προῆλθε | ||
διὰ τῶν προπόσεων. | ||
1 γαρ] δε B | θῡ δοσις BCPT] θεοδοσιος cett 2 αυτη] εαυτη K αυτω |
HKAGIB | |
B* εαυτω B¹ txt cett 3 της αυτης παλιν P 5 εσπερκας HA | ευνοιαν] | CPTZ | |
(+ ει δε τινες πταιουσιν· εφ οις πταιουσι K* (del rubricator) 8 | ||
κτησαμενους BT | αγαθον CT*Z 9 συναρκεσθεις B 10 εφησεν] | ||
εφη AP 11 βλαπτοι] λυπειται Zvid (fin ex corr) | ωφελει KT οφελοιη P | ||
12 αυτους K 13 om τα KBCTZ 14 βλαπτοι CPZ | λεγω δη (δε Z)] om P | | ||
om αυτω—καθεστωτι] ευσεβει δε σοι οντι P 19 καθως—κατα (20)] | ||
om HKAGI 22 δε μειζονος Z 25 προσεχοντες BZ | αυτω B* | ησαν P] | ||
om cett 27 προποσεων BTHcorr] πραιποσιτων PKcorr προποσετων cett | ||
Τῇ δὲ ἐπιούσῃ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ τῆς διατάξεως τοῦ συμποσίου |
236 | |
γενομένης, καθὼς εὔκαιρον ἐγένετο τῷ βασιλεῖ, τοὺς ἑξῆς ἡρώτα τῶν | ||
προαποκεκριμένων, εἶπε δὲ τῷ πρώτῳ Τὸ φρονεῖν εἰ διδακτόν ἐστιν; | ||
ὃς δ᾿ εἶπε Ψυχῆς ἐστι κατασκευὴ διὰ θείας δυνάμεως ἐπιδέχεσθαι | ||
5 | πᾶν τὸ καλόν, ἀποστρέφεσθαι δὲ τἀναντία. Συνομολογήσας | 237 |
δὲ τὸν ἐχόμενον ἡρώτα Τί πρὸς ὑγείαν μάλιστα συντείνει; ἐκεῖνος | ||
δὲ ἔφη Σωφροσύνη· ταύτης δὲ οὐκ ἔστι τυχεῖν, ἐὰν μὴ θεὸς κατα- | ||
σκευάσῃ τὴν διάνοιαν εἰς τοῦτο. Παρακαλέσας δὲ τοῦτον πρὸς | 238 | |
τὸν ἕτερον ἔφη Πῶς ἂν γονεῦσι τὰς ἀξίας ἀποδῴη χάριτας; ὃς δὲ | ||
10 | εἶπε Μηδὲν αὐτοὺς λυπήσας· τοῦτο δ᾿ οὐκ ἔστιν, εἰ μὴ θεὸς τῆς δια- | |
νοίας ἡγεμὼν γένοιτο πρὸς τὰ κάλλιστα. Προσεπινεύσας δὲ | 239 | |
τούτῳ τὸν ἑξῆς ἠρώτα Πῶς ἂν φιλήκοος εἴη; ἐκεῖνος δὲ εἶπε Δια- | ||
λαμβ̩άνων ὅτι πάντα συμφέρει γινώσκειν, ὅπως ἂν πρὸς τὰ συμ- | ||
βαίνοντα ἐκλεγόμενός τι τῶν ἡκροαμένων ἀμιθυπτοιθεὶς πρὸς τὰ τῶν | ||
15 | καιρῶν † ἂν ἀντιπράσσηται †, σὺν χειραγωγίᾳ θεοῦ· τοῦτο δ᾿ ἐστίν, | |
αἱ τῶν πράξεων τελειώσεις ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ. Τοῦτον δὲ ἐπαινέσας | 240 | |
πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον εἶπε Πῶς ἂν μηθὲν παρά̩νομον πράσσοι; πρὸς τοῦτο | ||
ἔφησε Γινώσκων ὅτι τὰς ἐπινοίας ὁ θεὸς ἔδωκε τοῖς νομοθετὴσασι | ||
πρὸς τὸ σώζεσθαι τοὺς βίους τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀκόλουθος εἴης | ||
20 | ἂν αὐτοῖς. Ἀποδεξάμενος δὲ αὐτὸν πρὸς ἕτερον εἶπε Τίς | 241 |
ὠφέλεια συγγενείας ἐστίν; ὁ δὲ ἀπεφήνατο Ἐὰν τοῖς συμβαίνουσι | ||
νομίζωμεν ἀτυχοῦσι μὲν ἐλαττοῦσθαι, καὶ κακοπαθῶμεν ὡς αὐτοί, | ||
φαίνεται τὸ συγγενὲς ὅσον ἰσχῦόν ἐστι—τελουμένων δὲ τούτων καὶ | 242 | |
δόξα καὶ προκοπὴ παρὰ τοῖς τοιούτοις ὑπάρξει· τὸ γάρ συνεργὲς | ||
2 γενομενου BT | τους] τοις I 3 αποκεκριμενων T 4 δια] και P |
HKAGIB | |
6 εκεινο B* εκεινος B¹ 7 εαν] ει A | κατασκευασει HAGCZ* 8 om δε | CPTZ | |
BCPTZ 9 ειπε Z | αποδων G αποδωση Z | γονευσιν αποδωη τας αξ. χαρ. | ||
B 10 λυπησας P] λυπησαι cett | της διανοιας ηγεμων bis scripsit K | ||
12 om αν C | ειη] pr αν Z | διαλαμβανειν B 13 συμφερειν T | ||
14 ανθυποτιθης T (Wend.) txt (αντ. GICA) cett | ||
15 αν αντιπρασσηται] αντιπρασσηται | ||
G (αν τι πρασσ.) IB txt (fort recte) cett (ἃν ἀντ. Wend.) | συγχειραγωγια | ||
A*GITZ | εστιν αι] εστι και P 16 η των πρ. τελειωσις T* | ? εισιν | ||
υπ αυτου 17 πρασσοι παρα τον νομον BCPTZ 18 δεδωκε P 19 ειης] | ||
pr αν BTZ* (post ras) 20 om αν BT | αυτον] τουτον P | ετερον] pr τον | ||
HPZ 22 νομιζωμεν KAcorr Bcorr T] νομιζομεν cett | ατυχουσι KAcorr BPT | ||
ατυχωσι cett | ως αυτοι BCcorr Tcorr] ως αυτον PC*T*vid ως αυτων cett | ||
(? ωσαυτως) 23 οσον—συνεργες (24)] om Btxt ins Bmg | om και P | ||
24 υπαρχει GI | συγγενες BcorrT | ||
εὐνόως γινόμενον ὡς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ ἀδιάλυτον πρὸς ἅπαντα—μετὰ δὲ εὐη- | ||
μερίας, μηδὲν προσδεῖσθαι τῶν ἐκείνων· ἀλλὰ δέον θεὸν ἱκετεύειν, | ||
πάντα ἀγαθοποιεῖν. Ὡσαύτως δὲ ἐκείνοις ἀποδεξάμενος | 243 | |
αὐτὸν ἄλλον ἠρώτα Πῶς ἀφοβία γίνεται; εἶπε δέ Συνιστορούσης | ||
5 | τῆς διανοίας μηδὲν κακὸν πεπραχέναι, θεοῦ κατευθύνοντος εἰς τὸ | |
καλῶς ἅπαντα βουλεύεσθαι. Τούτῳ δὲ ἐπιφωνήσας πρὸς | 244 | |
ἄλλον εἶπε Πῶσ ἂν προχείρως ἔχοι τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν | ||
Εἰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώτων ἀτυχήματα διὰ παντὸς ἐπιβλέποι· γινώσκων | ||
ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀφαιρεῖται τὰς εὐημερίας, ἑτέρους δὲ δοξάζων εἰς τὸ | ||
10 | τιμᾶσθαι προάγει. Καλῶς δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἀποδεξάμενος τὸν | 245 |
ἑξῆς ἀποκριθῆναι παρεκάλει Πῶς ἂν μὴ εἰς ῥᾳθυμίαν, μηδὲ ἐπὶ τὰς | ||
ἡδονὰς τρέποιτο; ὁ δέ Προχείρως ἔχων, εἶπεν, ὅτι μεγάλης | ||
βασιλείας κατάρχει καὶ πολλῶν ὄχλων ἀφηγεῖται, καὶ οὐ δεῖ περὶ | ||
ἕτερόν τι τὴν διάνοιαν εἶναι, τῆς δὲ τούτων ἐπιμελείας φροντίζειν· | ||
15 | θεὸν δὲ ἀξιοῦν, ὅπως μηθὲν ἐλλίπῃ τῶν καθηκόντων. Ἐπαι- | 246 |
νέσας δὲ καὶ τοῦτον τὸν δέκατον ἠρώτα Πῶς ἂν ἐπιγινώσκοι τοὺς | ||
δόλῳ τινὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν πράσσοντας; ὁ δὲ ἀπεφήνατο πρὸς τοῦτο Εἰ | ||
παρατηροῖτο τὴν ἀγωγὴν ἐλευθέριον οὖσαν, καὶ τὴν εὐταξίαν διαμέ- | ||
νουσαν ἐν τοῖς ἀσπασμοῖς καὶ συμβουλίαις καὶ τῇ λοιπῇ συνανα- | ||
20 | στροφῇ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ, καὶ μηθὲν ὑπερτείνοντας τοῦ δέοντος ἐν ταῖς | |
φιλοφρονήσεσι καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ἀγωγήν. θεὸς δὲ | 247 | |
τὴν διάνοιαν ἄξει σοι, βασιλεῦ, πρὸς τὰ κάλλιστα. Συγ- | ||
κροτήσας πάντας τ᾿ ἐπαινέσας κατ᾿ ὄνομα, καὶ τῶν παρόντων ταὐτὰ | ||
ποιούντων, ἐπὶ τὸ μέλπειν ἐτράπησαν. | ||
1 διαλυτον Z 2 θεον ins. Mend. 3 ις in εκεινοις sup |
HKAGIB | |
ras T 4 πως ex οπως Tvid | om ειπε δε K 6 απαντας G | τουτο | CPTZ | |
P 7 εχη τον βορθον λογον απροχειρως B | εχει CZ 8 επιβλεπει BP | ||
13 καταρχη Z | om οχλων B 15 ελλειπει B* ελλειπη Bcorr PT | ||
16 ερωτα codd | αν επιγινωσκοι] επιγινωσκοι B επιγινωσκει (-εις Z) cett | ||
17 δολον τινα Acorr | πρασσοντας προς αυτον BT | προς τουτο (τουτον B* | ||
Tcorr vid απεφηνατο P 18 αυταξιαν KI (ευ sup ras H) 19 συμβουλιαις | ||
(-ειαις GICZ)] συμβουλιας HK (-ειας) A* 20 μηδεν HKBP | | ||
υπερτεινειν P υπερτεινοντ B* (ας add Bcorr) υπερτεινωνται Zcorr 22 | ||
διανοιαν] δι ανοι C | εξει codd | συγκροτησας} + δε B ουν και P | ||
cum praecedd conj cett ο δε βασιλευς συγκροτησας edd pr (cod Mon) | ||
23 τ (τε C) om P | τα αυτα Bvid T | ||
Τῇ δὲ ἐχομένῃ τὸν καιρὸν λαβὼν ἐπηρώτα τὸν ἑξῆς Τίς ἐστιν |
248 | |
ἀμέλεια μεγίστη; πρὸς τοῦτ᾿ ἔφη Εἰ τέκνων ἄφροντίς τις εἴη, καὶ μὴ | ||
κατὰ πάντα τρόπον ἀγαγεῖν σπεύδοι · εὐχόμεθα γὰρ ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸν | ||
θεόν, οὐχ οὕτως περὶ ἑαυτῶν ὡς περὶ τῶν ἐγγόνων, ἵνα παρῇ πάντα | ||
5 | αὐτοῖς τὰ ἀγαθά. τὸ δὲ ἐπιδεῖσθαι παιδία σωφροσύνης μετασχεῖν, | |
θεοῦ δυνάμει τοῦτο γίνεται. Φήσας δὲ εὐλογεῖν ἄλλον | 249 | |
ἠρώτα Πῶς ἂν φιλόπατρις εἴη; Προτιθέμενος, εἶπεν, ὅτι καλὸν ἐν | ||
ἰδίᾳ καὶ ζῇν καὶ τελευτᾷν. ἡ δὲ ξενία τοῖς μὲν πένησι καταφρόνησιν | ||
ἐργάζεται, τοῖς δὲ πλουσίοις ὄνειδος, ὡς διὰ κακίαν ἐκπεπτωκόσιν. | ||
10 | εὐεργετῶν οὖν ἅπαντας, καθὼς συνεχῶς τοῦτ᾿ ἐπιτελεῖς, θεοῦ διδόντος | |
σοὶ πρὸς πάντας χάριν, φιλόπατρις φανήσῃ. Τούτου δὲ | 250 | |
ἀκούσας τοῦ κατὰ τὸ ἐξῆς ἐπυνθάνετο Πῶς ἂν ἁρμόσαι γυναικί; | ||
Γινώσκων ὅτι μὲν θρασύ ἐστιν, ἔφη, τὸ θῆλυ γένος, καὶ δραστικὸν | ||
ἐφ᾿ ὃ βούλεται πρᾶγμα, καὶ μεταπῖπτον εὐκόπως διὰ παραλογισμοῦ, | ||
15 | καὶ τῇ φύσει κατεσκεύασται ἀσθενές· δέον δ᾿ ἐστὶ κατὰ τὸ ὑγιὲς | |
χρῆσθαι, καὶ μὴ πρὸς ἔριν ἀντιπράσσειν. κατορθοῦται γὰρ βίος, | 251 | |
ὅταν ὁ κυβερνῶν εἰδῇ, πρὸς τίνα σκοπὸν δεῖ τὴν διέξοδον ποιεῖ- | ||
σθαι. θεοῦ δ᾿ ἐπικλήσει καὶ βίος κυβερνᾶται κατὰ πάντα. Συν- | 252 | |
ανθομολογησάμενος δὲ τούτῳ τὸν ἑξῆς ἠρώτα Πῶς ἂν ἀναμάρ- | ||
20 | τητος εἴη; ὁ δὲ ἔφησεν Ὡς ἅπαντα πράσσων καὶ μετὰ διαλογισμοῦ | |
καὶ μὴ πειθόμενος διαβολαῖς, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτὸς ὢν δοκιμαστὴς τῶν λεγο- | ||
μένων καὶ κρίσει κατευθύνων τὰ τῶν ἐντεύξεων καὶ διὰ κρίσεως | ||
ἐπιτελῶν ταῦτα ἀναμάρτητος, ἔφησεν, ἂν εἴης, ὦ βασιλεῦ. τὸ δ᾿ | ||
ἐπινοεῖν ταῦτα καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἀναστρ͓φεσθαι θείας δυνάμεώς ἐστιν | ||
2 αφροντις τισ ειη P] αφροντις (αφροστις G) τισ ει GIK αφροντις τις η |
HKAGIB | |
cett 3 σπευδοι] σπευδη B om cett (spat 5 vel 6 litt hab T) 4 εκγονων | CPTZ | |
A | om παρη P 5 επιδεσθαι conj Wend. | παιδια P teste Wend. | | ||
παιδειαν cett 7 προστιθεμενος B 8 ξενιτεια Wend. (ξενητια cod Mon) | ||
9 εκπεπτωκασιν C 11 φανησει P | om δε P 12 κατα το (κατα τον H)] | ||
om P | om αν codd | αρμωσει P 13 γινωσκων] om codd ex conj supplevi | | ||
θρασυ—γενος] φησι θρασυ το θηλυ γενος εστι P | εστιν εφη TBrubricator | ||
(εστι B*)] εστι cett 14 om και P | μεταπιπτων GI | ευκολως P | ||
15 και] καν K | κατεσκευασθη P -σθαι CZ 16 εριν] αιρειν GI | ερριν PZ | ||
17 ο κυβερνων K] om P κυβερνων cett | ηδη H ιδη KA | διεξοδον BCTZ] | ||
εξοδον cett 18 κατα] και τα I | παν C | συναντομ. AGICZ 19 τουτω] | ||
τουτον PCZ | om αν codd 20 εφησεν Ως] εφη Σεμνως conj Mend. | | ||
απαν H*A (απαντ Hcorr) | om και P | μετα partim sup ras I 23 om | ||
εφησεν P | ||
ἔργον. Διαχυθεὶς δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις τὸν ἕτερον ἠρώτα | 253 | |
Πῶς ἂν ἐκτὸς θυμοῦ γένοιτο; πρὸς τοῦτ᾿ εἶπε Γινώσκων ὅτι πάντων | ||
ἐξουσίαν ἔχει, καὶ, εἰ χρήσαιτο θυμῷ, θάνατον ἐπιφέρει· ὅπερ ἀνω- | ||
φελὲς καὶ ἀλγεινόν ἐστιν, εἰ τὸ ζῇν ἀφελεῖται πολλῶν, διὰ τὸ κύριον | ||
5 | εἶναι. πάντων δ᾿ ὑπηκόων ὄντων καὶ μηδενὸς ἐναντιουμένου, τίνος | 254 |
χάριν θυμωθήσεται; γινώσκειν δὲ δεῖ, διότι θεὸς τὸν πάντα κόσμον | ||
διοικεῖ μετ᾿ εὐμενείας καὶ χωρὶς ὀργῆς ἁπάσης· τούτῳ δὲ κατακο- | ||
λουθεῖν ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστί σε, ἔφησεν, ὦ βασιλεῦ. Καλῶς | 255 | |
δὲ ἀποκεκρίσθαι φήσας τοῦτον ἐπυνθάνετο τοῦ μετέπειτα Τί ἐστιν | ||
10 | εὐβουλία; Τὸ καλῶς ἅπαντα πράσσειν, ἀπεφήνατο, μετὰ διαλογι- | |
σμοῦ, κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν παρατιθέντα καὶ τὰ βλαβερὰ τῶν κατὰ | ||
τὸ ἐναντίον τοῦ λόγου διάστημα, ἵνα πρὸς ἕκαστον ἐπινοήσαντες | ||
ὦμεν εὖ βεβουλευμένοι, καὶ τὸ προτεθὲν ἡμῖν ἐπιτελῆται. τὸ δ᾿ αὖ | ||
κράτιστον, θεοῦ δυνατείᾳ πᾶν βούλευμα τελείωσιν ἕξει σοι | ||
15 | τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἀσκοῦντι. Κατωρθωκέναι δὲ καὶ τοῦτον εἰπὼν | 256 |
ἄλλον ἠρώτα¶ Τί ἐστι φιλοσοφία; Τὸ καλῶς διαλογίζεσθαι πρὸς | ¶ C | |
ἕκαστον τῶν συμβαινόντων, ἀπεφήνατο, καὶ μὴ ἐκφέρεσθαι ταῖς | ||
ὁρμαῖς, ἀλλὰ τὰς βλάβας καταμελετᾷν τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ἐκβαι- | ||
νούσας, καὶ τὰ πρὸς τὸν καιρὸν πράσσειν δεόντως μετριοπαθῆ καθε- | ||
20 | στῶτα. ἵνα δ᾿ ἐπίστασιν τούτων λαμβάνωμεν, θεραπεύειν δεῖ τὸν | |
θεόν. Ἐπισημήνας δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἕτερον ἠρώτα Πῶς ἂν | 257 | |
ἀποδοχῆς ἐν ξενιτείᾳ τυγχάνοι; Πᾶσιν ἴσος γινόμενος, ἔφη, καὶ | ||
μᾶλλον ἥττων ἢ καθυπερέχων φαινόμενος πρὸς οὓς ξενιτεύει. | ||
κοινῶς γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τὸ ταπεινούμενον προσδέχεται κατὰ φύσιν, καὶ τὸ | ||
25 | τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος τοὺς ὑποτασσομένους φιλανθρωπεῖ. Ἐπι- | 258 |
μαρτυρήσας δὲ τούτοις ἄλλον ἡρώτα Πῶς ἃ ἂν κατασκευάσῃ καὶ | ||
2 γινωσκειν I 3 εχεις A | χρησαι τω P | θυμου HKAGICZ | επιφερειν |
HKAGIB | |
B 6 δε P] om cett | διοτι] οτι KBT 7 τουτο PZ | κατακολουθειν] | CPTZ | |
+ σε P 8 σε] om P σοι Hcorr | om εφησεν ω K 10 πραττειν B | | ||
μετα] + δε Z 11 τα κατα την ιδιαν βουλην παρατιθεντας B | om τα | ||
codd | om των B 13 επιτελειται CPZ 14 τελειωσιν εξει σοι conj | ||
Mend.] τεως συνεξει σοι BT ιν εξισοι Z τεως ιν (ινα C) εξισοι cett | ||
15 κατορθωκεναι HKGICZ | ειπας HGICZ 17 εκαστα BPTZ 19 τα] τας B* | ||
20 δειν B* δὲ (pro δεον ?) K txt cett 21 επισημανας P (-μειν. Z*) | ||
22 εν ξενιτ. Mend.] η ξενιτεια codd | τυγχανη PT -νει Z | γινομενος P] | ||
γενομ. cett 23 ηττον GIZ* | ξενιτευη BT 24 om και B | ||
25 γενος] + και B | φιλοφρονει B 26 α αν] ἂν codd ἅν Wend. | ||
μετὰ τοῦτο διαμένῃ; πρὸς τοῦτ᾿ εἶπεν Εἰ μεγάλα καὶ σεμνὰ ταῖς | ||
ποιήσεσιν ἐπιτελοῖ, πρὸς τὸ φείσασθαι τοὺς θεωροῦντας διὰ τὴν | ||
καλλονήν, καὶ μηθένα τῶν κατεργαζομένων τὰ τοιαῦτα παραπέμποι, | ||
μηδὲ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀμισθὶ συντελεῖν ἀναγκάζοι τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν. | ||
5 | διανοούμενος γὰρ ὡς θεὸς πολυωρεῖ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος, χορη- | 259 |
γῶν αὐτοῖς καὶ ὑγείαν καὶ εὐαισθησίαν καὶ τὰ λοιπά καὶ αὐτὸς | ||
ἀκόλουθόν τι πράξει τῶν κακοπαθειῶν ἀποδιδοὺς τὴν ἀντάμειψιν. | ||
τὰ γὰρ ἐκ δικαιοσύνης τελούμενα, ταῦτα καὶ διαμένει. Εὖ | 260 | |
δὲ καὶ τοῦτον εἰρηκέναι φήσας τὸν δέκατον ἡρώτα Τί ἐστι σοφίας | ||
10 | καρπός; ὁ δὲ εἶπε Τὸ μὴ συνιστορεῖν ἑαυτῷ κακὸν πεπραχότι, τὸν | |
δὲ βίον ἐν ἀληθείᾳ διεξάγειν. ἐκ τούτων γὰρ κρατίστη χαρὰ καὶ | 261 | |
ψυχῆς εὐστάθειά σοι γίνεται, μέγιστε βασιλεῦ, καὶ ἐλπίδες ἐπὶ θεῷ | ||
καλαὶ κρατοῦντί σοι τῆς ἀρχῆς εὐσεβῶς. Ὡς δὲ συνήκουσαν | ||
πάντες ἐπεφώνησαν σὺν κρότῳ πλείονι. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα πρὸς τὸ | ||
15 | προπιεῖν ὁ βασιλεὺς [λαμβάνειν] ἐτράπη, χαρᾷ πεπληρωμένος. | |
Τῇ δ᾿ ἑξῆς καθὼς πρότερον ἡ διάταξις ἦν τῶν κατὰ τὸν πότον |
262 | |
ἐπιτελουμένων, καιροῦ δὲ γενομένου τοὺς ἀπολιπόντας ὁ βασιλεὺς | ||
ἐπηρώτα. πρὸς τὸν πρῶτον δὲ ἔφη Πῶς ἂν μὴ τραπείη τις εἰς | ||
ὑπερηφανίαν; ἀπεκρίθη δέ Εἰ τὴν ἰσότητα τηροῖ, καὶ παῤ ἕκαστον | 263 | |
20 | ἑαυτὸν ὑπομιμνήσκοι, καθὼς ἄνθρωπος ὢν ἀνθρώπων ἡγεῖται. καὶ | |
ὁ θεὸς τοὺς ὑπερηφάνους καθαιρεῖ, τοὺς δὲ ἐπιεικεῖς καὶ ταπεινοὺς | ||
ὑψοῖ. Παρακαλέσας δὲ αὐτὸν τὸν ἑξῆς ἐπηρώτα Τίσι δεῖ | 264 | |
συμβούλοις χρῆσθαι; τοῖς διὰ πολλῶν, ἔφη, πεπειραμένοις πραγ- | ||
μάτων καὶ τὴν εὔνοιαν συντηροῦσιν ἀκέραιον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ τῶν | ||
25 | τρόπων ὅσοι μετέχουσιν αὐτῷ. θεοῦ δὲ ἐπιφάνεια γίνεται πρὸς τὰ | |
1 διαμενει Wend. | προς τουτ—επιτελοι (2)] om HKA 2 επιτελοιη P | |
HKAGIB | |
τας θ. Z 3 μηδενα GI | παραπεμπει P 4 αμισθοι Z | αναγκαζει P | CPTZ | |
6 αυτος] αυτοις A 8 διαμενοι B 11 διεξαγειν P] διαγειν B διεξαγαγειν | ||
cett | χαρα κρατιστη B 13 κρατουν Z* 15 πιειν AB | λαμβανειν | ||
(-νην P)} hab codd omn Fort cf πιειν δουναι etc vel προποσιν pro | ||
προπιειν legendum | χαρας KBP χαρα τι Z 16 το δ εξης B | καθως] + | ||
και B | κατα των τοπων Z 17 γινομενου KAGI 18 επηρωτα BPT] επερτα | ||
cett | τραπειη BT] τραποιη PZ τραπη K τραποι cett | om εις P 19 τηρει | ||
BPT 20 υπομιμνησκει BPT 21 ο] ως B 22 ηρωτα B επερωτα Z txt cett | | ||
δει ex δε vel δη fact in B 23 εφη P] om cett post πραγματων ins | ||
Zcorr 24 f τον τροπον H 25 θεου—αξιοις (1, pag 565)] om BPTZ | ||
τοιαῦτα τοῖς ἀξίοις. Ἐπαινέσας δὲ αὐτὸν ἄλλον ᾐρώτα Τίς | 265 | |
ἐστι βασιλεῖ κτῆσις ἀναγκαιοτάτη; Τῶν ὑπροτεταγμένων φιλαν- | ||
θρωπία καὶ ἀγάπησις, ἀπεκρίνατο. διὰ γὰρ τούτων ἄλυτος εὐνοίας | ||
δεσμὸς γίνεται. τὸ δὲ γένεσθαι κατὰ προαίρεσιν ταῦτα ὁ θεὸς | ||
5 | ἐπιτελεῖ. Κατεπαινέσας δὲ αὐτὸν ἑτέρου διεπυνθάνετο | 266 |
Τί πέρας ἐστὶ λόγου; κἀκεῖνος δὲ ἔφησε Τὸ πεῖσαι τὸν ἀντιλέγοντα, | ||
διὰ τῆς ὑποτεταγμένης τάξεως τὰς βλάβας ἐπιδεικνύντα· οὕτω γὰρ | ||
λήψῃ τὸν ἀκροατὴν οὐκ ἀντικείμενος, συγχρώμενος δὲ ἐπαίνῳ πρὸς | ||
τὸ πεῖσαι. θεοῦ δὲ ἐνεργείᾳ κατευθύνεται πειθώ. Εὖ δὲ | 267 | |
10 | λέγειν φήσας αὐτὸν ἕτερον ἡρώτα Πῶς ἄν, παμμιγῶν ὄχλων ὄωτων | |
ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ, τούτοις ἁρ μόσαι; Τὸ πρέπον ἑκάστῳ συνυποκρινό- | ||
μενος, εἶπε, καθηγεμόνα λαμβάνων δικαιοσύνην· ὡς καὶ ποιεῖς θεοῦ | ||
σοι διδόντος εὖ λογίζεσθαι. Φιλοφρονηθε̥ς δὲ τούτῳ πρὸς | 268 | |
τὸν ἕτερον εἶπεν Ἐπὶ τίσι δεῖ λυπεῖσθαι; πρὸς ταῦτα ἀπεκρίθη Τὰ | ||
15 | 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 | ||
πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς συμφέρον λυποῦνται πάντες ἄνθρωποι. τὸ δ᾿ ἐκφυγεῖν | ||
πᾶν κακὸν θεοῦ δυνάμει γίνεται. Ὡς ἔδει δὲ φήσας αὐτὸν | 269 | |
20 | ἀποκρίνεσθαι πρὸς ἕτερον εἶπε Πῶς ἀδοξία γίνεται; ἐκεῖνος δὲ | |
ἔφησεν Ὅταν ὑπερηφανία καθηγῆται καὶ θράσος ἄληκτον, ἀτιμα- | ||
σμὸς ἐπιφύεται καὶ δόξης ἀναίρεσις. θεὸς δὲ δόξης πάσης κυριεύει, | ||
ῥέπων οὗ βούλεται. Καὶ τούτῳ δ᾿ ἐπικυρώσας τὰ τῆς ἀπο- | 270 | |
κρίσεως τὸν ἑξῆς ἡρώτα Τίσι δεῖ πιστεύειν ἑαυτόν; Τοῖς διὰ τὴν | ||
25 | εὔνοιαν, εἶπε, συνοῦσί σοι, καὶ μή διὰ τὸν φόβον μηδὲ διὰ πολυ- | |
1 τις] τι I 2 βασιλει] βασιλικη A | κτισις GI 4 ταυτα κατα |
HKAGIB | |
προαιρεσιν B 5 επιτελοι Z | ετερου] τον ετερον BTZ | επυνθανετο BZ | PTZ | |
7 επιδεικνυντας HGIPZ υποδεικνυντας K 8 ληψει AP ληψ Ztxt (ληψαι | ||
Zmg) | αντικειμενον BPTZ 10 φησας] πεισας Ztxt ειπας Zmg | ετερον] pr | ||
τον K 11 αρμοσει B* (-ση Bcorr) αρμοση cett 13 τουτο PZtxt (τουτον | ||
Zmg fort recte cf 198) text cett 14 λυπησθαι P 15 ανευφευκτα HGI | ||
ανεκφευτα T ανεφευκτα Z ανεκφυκτα B txt KAP 17 f το προς εαυτους] | ||
προς το εαυτοις P 19 δυναμεως BT 20 αποκρινασθαι | ||
GIBvid Tfort ex corr 21 καθηγειται GIA 22 αναιρεσις BPT] αιρεσις | ||
cett | απασης P 23 τουτο Z | τα] τας GI 25 ειπε] εφη BT | ||
ωρίαν, ἐπανάγουσι πάντα πρὸς τὸ κεφδαίνειν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀγα- | ||
πήσεως σημεῖον, τὸ δὲ δυσνοίας καὶ καιροτηρησίας· ὃς γὰρ ἐπὶ | ||
τὸ πλεονεκτεῖν ὁρμᾶται προδότης πέφυκε. σὺ δὲ πάντας εὐνόους | ||
ἔχεις θεοῦ σοι καλὴν βουλὴν διδόντος. Σοφῶς δὲ αὐτὸν | 271 | |
5 | εἰπὼν ἀποκεκρίσθαι, ἑτέρῳ εἶπε Τί βασιλείαν διατηρεῖ; πρὸς τοῦτ᾿ | |
ἔφη Μέριμνα καὶ φροντίς, ὡς οὐδὲν κακουργηθήσεται διὰ τῶν ἀπο- | ||
τεταγμέων εἰς τοὺς ὄχλους ταῖς χρείαις· καθὼς σὺ τοῦτο πράσσεις | ||
θεοῦ σοι τὴν σεμνὴν ἐπίνοιαν διδόντος. Θαρσύνας δὲ τοῦτον | 272 | |
ἕτερον ἐπηρώτα Τί διαφυλάσσει χάριτα καὶ τιμήν; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν | ||
10 | Ἀρετή. καλῶν γὰρ ἔργων ἐστὶν ἐπιτέλεια, τὸ δὲ κακὸν ἀποτρίβε- | |
ται· καθὼς σὺ διατηρεῖς τὴν πρὸς ἅπαντας καλοκἀγθίαν παρὰ | ||
θεοῦ δῶρον τοῦτ᾿ ἔχων. Κεχαρισμένως δὲ δαὶ τοῦτον ἀπο- | 273 | |
δεξάμενος τὸν ἑνδέκατον ἐπηρώτα (διὰ τὸ δύο πλεονάζειν τῶν ἑβδο- | ||
μήκοντα) Πῶς ἂν κατὰ ψυχὴν καὶ ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις εἰρηνικῶς ἔχοι; | ||
15 | ὁ δὲ ἀπεφήνατο Διαλαμβάνων ὅτι κακὸν οὐδὲν εἴργασται τῶν ὑπο- | |
τεταγμένων οὐθενί, πάντες δὲ ἀγωνιοῦνται περὶ τῶν εὐεργετημά- | ||
των, εἰδότες, κἂν ἐκ τοῦ ζῇν ἀποτρέχωσιν, ἐπιμελητήν σε τῶν | ||
βίων. οὐ γὰρ διαλείπεις ἐπανορθῶν ἅπαντας τοῦ θεοῦ σοι καλο- | 274 | |
φροσύνην δεδωκότος. Ἐπισημήνας δὲ κρότῳ πάντας αὐτοὺς | ||
20 | ἀπεδέξατο φιλοφρονούμενος, καὶ προπίνων ἑκάστῳ πλεῖόν τι πρὸς | |
τὸ τερφθῆναι ἐτράπη , μετ᾿ εὐφροσύνης τοῖς ἀνδράσι συνὼν καὶ | ||
χαρᾶς πλείονος. | ||
Τῇ ἑβδόμῃ δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν, πλείονος παρασκευῆς γενομένης, |
275 | |
προσπαραγινομένων πλειόνων ἑτέρων ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων (ἦσαν γὰρ | ||
1 επαναγουσι B] επαναγαγουσι Zcorr επαναγων P επαναγοντας cett | |
HKAGIB | |
παντας P 3 το] τω B* (το Bcorr) T (ex το fact vid) | ορμαται bene Mend.] | PTZ | |
ορα BTcorr οραται cett 4 διδουντος Z* | σοφως BT] σαφως cett 5 ειπας | ||
GIZ | διατηροι G 8 θρασυνας KB 9 διαφυλασση I (-λαττει B) | ||
10 καλον γαρ εργον K | εστιν—διατηρεις την (11) om HKA | ||
12 κεχαρισμενος AZ* κεχαριτωμενως I 13 των B] τους cett | | ||
εβδομηκοντα] ō KGIBT. Scholium hab τον ενδεκατον δε ερωτα | ||
δια το δυο πλεοναζειν των εβδομηκοντα οπισθεν γαρ | ||
ανα δεκα ηρωτα Bmg (rubicator) 16 ουθενι KPT] ουδενι B ουθεν | ||
IIAGI | δε] γαρ B* 17 αποτρεχουσιν GIH (-σι) Z*vid 20 προπινων | ||
B] προσπινων cett 21 ετραπη ins Mend. | τ. ανδ. συν. μετ ευφ. Z 23 δε | ||
BPT] om cett 24 προσπαραγενομενων ετ. πλειονων K | om ησαν—πρεσβεις (1, pag 567) BPTZ | ||
ἰκανοὶ πρέσβεις), ἐπηρώτησεν ὁ βασιλεὺς καιροῦ γενομένου τὸν | ||
πρωτεύοντα τῶν ἀπολιπόντων τῆς ἐρωτήσεως Πῶς ἂν ἀπαραλό- | ||
γιστος εἴη ; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Δοκιμάζων καὶ τὸν λέγοντα καὶ τὸ | 276 | |
λεγόμενον καὶ περὶ τίνος λέγει, καὶ ἐν πλείονι χρόνῳ τὰ αὐτὰ δἰ | ||
5 | ἑτέρων τρόπων ἐπερωτῶν. τὸ δὲ νοῦν ἔχειν ὀξὺν καὶ δύνασθαι | |
κρίνειν ἕκαστα θεοῦ δώρημα καλόν ἐστιν· ὡς σὺ τοῦτο κέκτησαι, | ||
βα§σιλεῦ. Κρότῳ δὲ ἐπισημηνάμενος ὁ βασιλεὺς ἕτερον | 277 § C | |
ἐπηρώτα Διὰ τί τὴν ἀρετὴν οὐ παραδέχοντα τῶν ἀνθρώπων | ||
οἱ πλείονες; Ὅτι φυσικῶς ἅπαντες, εἶπεν, ἀκρατεῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς | ||
10 | ἡδονὰς τρεπόμενοι γεγόνασιν· ὧν χάριν ἀδικία πέφυκε καὶ τὸ τῆς | |
πλεονεξίας χύμα. τὸ δὲ τῆ ἀρετῆς κατάστημα κωλύει τοὺς ἐπιφε- | 278 | |
ρομένους ἐπὶ τὴν ἡδονοκρασίαν, ἐγκράτειαν δὲ κελεύει καὶ δικαιο- | ||
σύνην προτιμᾷν. ὁ δὲ θεὸς πάντων ἡγεῖται τούτων. Εὖ δὲ | 279 | |
ἀποκεκρίσθαι τοῦτον εἰπὼν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἡρώτα Τίσι δεῖ κατακολου- | ||
15 | θεῖν τοὺς βασιλεῖς; ὁ δὲ ἔφη Τοῖς νόμοις, ἵνα δικαιοπραγοῦντες | |
ἀνακτῶνται τοὺς βίους τῶν ἀνθρώπων· καθὼς σὺ τοῦτο πράσσων | ||
ἀένναον μνήμην καταβέβλησαι σεαυτοῦ, θείῳ προστάγματι κατα- | ||
κολουθῶν· Εἰπὼν δὲ καὶ τοῦτον καλῶς λέγειν τὸν ἐχόμενον | 280 | |
ἠρώτα Τίνας δεῖ καθιστάνειν στρατηγούς; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν Ὅσοι | ||
20 | μισοπονηρίαν ἔχουσι, καὶ τὴν ἀγωγὴν αὐτοῦ μιμούμενοι, πρὸς τὸ | |
διὰ παντὸς εὐδοξίαν ἔχειν αὐτούς, τὰ δίκαια πάσσουσι· καθὼς σὺ | ||
τοῦτο ἐπιτελεῖ, εἶπε, μέγιστε βασιλεῦ, θεοῦ σοι στέφανον δικαιο- | ||
σύνης δεδωκότος. Ἀποδεξάμενος δὲ αὐτὸν μετὰ φωνῆς ἐπὶ τὸν | 281 | |
ἐχόμενον ἐπιβλέψας εἶπε Τίνας δεῖ καθιστάνειν ἐπὶ τῶν δυνάμεων | ||
25 | ἄρχοντας; ὁ δὲ ἀπεφήνατο Τοὺς ἀνδρείᾳ διαφέροντας καὶ δικαιο- | |
σύνῃ, καὶ περὶ πολλοῦ ποιουμένους τὸ σώζειν τοὺς ἄνδρας ἢ τὸ | ||
1 επερωτησεν Z | γινομενου HAIPZ | τον] των Z* 2 απολειποντων P |
HKAGI | |
3 ειη ex corr] η codd omn | δοκιμαζοντα Z | το] τον codd omn 4 χρονων | BCPTZ | |
G 5 επερωτων τροπων A 6 ως] ο HKA | τουτο bis scr T 8 επερωτα | ||
Z | om ου C | των ανθρωπων BPT] τινες των ανθρωπων cett 9 ειπεν] | ||
ωσπερ BT ειπερ CZ* 11 διαστημα CPZ (κατα- sup ras T) 12 και | ||
δικ. κελευει B 14 αποκρινασθαι BPT -εσθαι Z | ειπας GICZ | ηρωτα] | ||
αλλον ηρ. H ηρ. ετερον BT ηρ. τον εξης P txt KAGIC τον μετ αυτον ηρ. | ||
edd pr 18 ειπας GIC ειπε Z 21 αυτοις H 22 ειπε μεγιστε BT] | ||
om P ειπεν ο (sic) C ειπε (-πεν Z) cett | δικαιοσυνην C 26 το 2º] τω | ||
ABCT (fort ex το T) | ||
νικᾷν, τῷ θράσει παραβάλλοντας τὸ ζῇν. ὡς¶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς εὖ | ¶ P | |
ἐργάζεται πᾶσι, καὶ σὺ τοῦτον μιμούμμενος εὐεργετεῖς τοὺ ὐπὸ | ||
σεαθτόν. Ὁ δὲ ἀποκεκρίσθαι φήσας αὐτὸν εὖ, ἄλλον ἠρὼτα | 282 | |
Τίνα θαυμάζειν ἄξιόν ἐστιν ἄνθρωπον; ὁ δὲ ἔφη Τὸν κεχορηγημένον | ||
5 | δόξῃ καὶ πλούτῳ καὶ δυνάμει, καὶ ψυχὴν ἴσον πᾶσιν ὄντα· καθὼς | |
σὺ τοῦτο ποιῶν ἀξιοθαύμαστος εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ σοι διδόντος εἰς ταῦτα | ||
τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν. Ἐπιφωνήσας δὲ καὶ τούτῳ πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον | 283 | |
εἶπεν Ἐν τίσι δεῖ πράγμασι τοὺς βασιλεῖς τὸν πλείω χρόνον διά- | ||
γειν; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Ἐν ταῖς ἀναγνώσεσι καὶ ἐν ταῖς τῶν πορειῶν | ||
10 | ἀπογραφαῖς διατρίβειν, ὅσαι πρὸς τὰς βασιλείας ἀναγεγραμμέναι | |
τυγχάνουσι πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν καὶ διαμονὴν ἀνθρώπων. ὃ σὺ | ||
πράσσων ἀνέφικτον ἄλλοις δόξαν κέκτησαι θεοῦ σοι τὰ βουλή- | ||
ματα συντελοῦντος. Ἐνεργῶς δὲ καὶ τοῦτον προσειπὼν | 284 | |
ἕτερον ἠρώτα Τίνας δεῖ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς διαγωγὰς ἐν ταῖς ἀνέσεσι | ||
15 | καὶ ῥᾳθυμίαις; ὁ δὲ ἔφη Θεωρεῖν ὅσα παίζεται μετὰ περι- | |
στολῆς καὶ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν τιθέναι τὰ τοῦ βίου μετ᾿ εὐσχημο- | ||
σύνης καὶ καταστολῆς γινόμενα βίῳ συμφέρον καὶ καθῆκον · | ||
ἔνεστι γὰρ καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἐπισκευή τις. πολλάκις γὰρ καὶ ἐκ τῶν | 285 | |
ἐλαχίστων αἱρετόν τι δείκνυται. σὺ δὲ πᾶσαν ἠσκηκὼς καταστολὴν | ||
20 | διὰ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν φιλοσοφεῖς διὰ καλοκἀγαθίαν ὑπὸ υειῦ τιμώ- | |
μενος. Εὐαρεστήσας δὲ τοῖς προειρημένοις πρὸς τὸν ἔνατον | 286 | |
εἶπε Πῶς δεῖ διὰ τῶν συμποσίων διεξάγειν; ὁ δὲ ἔφησε Παραλαμ- | ||
βάνοντα τοὺς φιλομαθεῖς καὶ δυναμένους ὑπομιμνήσκειν τὰ χρήσιμα | ||
τῇ βασιλείᾳ καὶ τοῖς τῶν ἀρχομένων βίοις—ἐμμελέστερον ἢ μου- | ||
25 | σικώτερον οὐκ ἂν εὕροις τι τούτων· οὗτοι γὰρ θεοφιλεῖς εἰσι πρὸς τὰ | 287 |
κάλλιστα πεπαιδευκότες τὰς διανοίας—καθὼς καὶ σὺ τοῦτο πράσσεις, | ||
ὡς ἂν ὑπὸ θεοῦ σοι κατευθυνομένων ἁπάντων. Διαχυθεὶς | 288 | |
1 τω] τα P | παραβαλλοντας conj Schmidt] περιβαλλοντας codd |
HKAGI | |
2 πασι] παλιν B 5 ψυχηι πασιν ισον H 7 τουτο Z 8 δει] δε Z | | BCPTZ | |
πλειονα A (πλειωι GI) 9 om εν 2º BT 12 πρασσων] πρασσων (-σως | ||
K*) ως K | ανεφικτον Zmg] ουκ εφικτον K εφικτον cett 13 τελουντος H | ||
συντελουμενος CZ | εναργως B | τουτω AB | προσειπας GICZ 14 ποιεν | ||
K 15 om ο δε εφη K | οσα παιζεται (corr Schmidt)] οσα πλιζεται | ||
HGICTZ* οσα οπλιζεται KAZmg οσ οπλ. B 16 τιθεμενος B 17 βιω— | ||
καθηκον bene Wend.] βιοι (βιοις K) σωφρονων και κατεχων codd | ||
21 ενατον HB*] εννατον cett 22 om δει C | ||
23 d χρησιμα τη βασιλεια Mend.] χρηματα της βασιλειας codd | ||
24 τους των αρχ. βιους Β 27 σου Ztxt | ||
δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς εἰρημένοις, ἐπυνθάνετο τοῦ μετέπειτα Τί κάλλιστόν ἐστι | ||
τοῖς ὄχλοις, ἐξ ἰδιώτου βασιλέα κατασταθῆναι ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν, ἢ ἐκ | ||
βασιλέως βασιλέα; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Τὸ ἄριστον τῇ φύσει. καὶ γὰρ | 289 | |
ἐκ βασιλέων βασιλεῖς γινόμενοι πρὸς τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους ἀνήμε- | ||
5 | ροί τε καὶ σκληροὶ καθίστανται· πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον καί τινες τῶν | |
ἰδιωτῶν καὶ κακῶν πεπειραμένοι καὶ πενίας μετεσχηκότες ἄρξαντες | ||
ὄχλων χαλεπώτεροι τῶν ἀνοσίων τυράννων ἐξέβησαν. ἀλλὰ ὡς | 290 | |
προεῖπον, ἦθος χρηστὸν καὶ παιδείας κεκοινωνηκὸς δυνατὸν ἄρχειν | ||
ἐστί· καθὼς σὺ βασιλεὺς μέγας ὑπάρχεις, οὐ τοσοῦτον τῇ δόξῃ τῆς | ||
10 | ἀρχῆς καὶ πλούτῳ προσχών, ὅσον ἐπιεικείᾳ καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ πάντας | |
ἀνθρώπους ὑπερῆρκας τοῦ θεοῦ σοι δεδωρημένου ταῦτα. Ἐπὶ | 291 | |
πλείονα χρόνον καὶ τοῦτον ἐπαινέσας τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἠρώτα Τί | ||
μέγιστόν ἐστι βασιλείας; πρὸς τοῦτο εἶπε Τὸ διὰ παντὸς ἐν εἰρήνῃ | ||
καθεστάναι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους, καὶ κομίζεσθαι τὸ δίκαιον ταχέως | ||
15 | ἐν ταῖς διακρίσεσι. ταῦτα δὲ γίνεται διὰ τὸν ἡγούμενον, ὅταν | 292 |
μισοπόνηρος ᾖ καὶ φιλάγαθος καὶ περὶ πολλοῦ ποιούμενος ψυχὴν | ||
ἀνθρώπου σώζειν· καθὼς καὶ σὺ μέγιστον κακὸν ἥγησαι τὴν | ||
ἀδικίαν, δικαὶως δὲ πάντα κυβερνῶν ἀένναον τὴν περὶ σεαυτὸν δόξαν | ||
κατεσκευάσας, τοῦ θεοῦ σοι διδόντος ἔχειν ἁγνὴν καὶ ἀμιγῆ παντὸς | ||
20 | κακοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν. Καταλήξαντος δὲ τούτου κατερράγη | 293 |
κρότος μετὰ φωνῆς καὶ χαρᾶς ἐπὶ πλείονα χρόνον. ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο, | ||
ὁ βασιλεὺς λαβὼν ποτήριον ἐπεχέατο καὶ τῶν παρόντων ἁπάντων | ||
καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων λόγων. § ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ εἶπε Τὰ μέγιστά μοι | § Jos | |
γέγονεν ἀγαθὰ παραγενηθέντων ὑμῶν· πολλὰ γὰρ ὠφέλημαι, κατα- | 294 | |
25 | βεβλημένων ὑμῶν διδαχὴν ἐμοὶ πρὸ τὸ βασιλεύειν. ἑκάστῳ | |
δὲ τρία τάλαντα προσέταξεν ἀργυρίου δοθῆναι καὶ τὸν ἀποκαταστή- | ||
1 om δε K 2 επ Mend.] υπ codd 3 τον Schmidt | αρεστον HKAGI |
HKAGIB | |
4 εκ] pr οι K | βασιλεων] βασιλεως B | om βασιλεις HA | γενομενοι | CTZ Jos | |
K 5 om δε Z | κων ιδιωτων τινες BT 6 ιδιωτικων Z 8 παιδειας | ||
KB (πεδιας B*) TZ (ex -ειαν)] παιδεια (-δια C) cett 9 βασιλευ T*vid | ||
11 υπερηρας KB* | επι πλειονα χρονον] cum praecedd conj Schmidt Wend. | ||
(sic HKA). Cf autem §§ 220, 293 13 τουτο GICT*] τουτον HKABTcorr | ||
14 νομιζεσθαι C 17 κακον B] om cett 18 σεαυτου CBvid | ||
19 κατασκευασας HI | om εχειν Z | αμιγην C | ||
22 λαβων cum cod M restitui] λαλων codd cett | ||
23 τον ειρημενον λογον K | λογον Zmg | μεγιστα] παμμεγιστα | ||
A 24 παραγεγενημενων B | ωφελημα GI | καταβεβληκοτων B | ||
σοντα παῖδα.¶ συνεπιφωνησάντων δὲ πάντων, χαρᾶς ἐπληρώθη τὸ | ¶ Jos | |
συμπόσιον, ἀδιαλείπτως τοῦ βασιλέως εἰς εὐφροσύνην τραπέντος. | ||
Ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ πεπλεόνακα, τούτοις, ὦ Φιλόκρατες, συγγνώμην |
295 | |
ἔχειν. τεθαυμακὼς γὰρ τοὺς ἄνδρας ὑπὲρ τὸ δέον, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ καιροῦ τὰς | ||
5 | ἀποκρίσεις ἐποιοῦντο πολλοῦ χρόνου δεομένας, καὶ τοῦ μὲν ἐρωτῶντος | 296 |
μεμεριμνηκότος ἕκαστα, τῶν δὲ ἀποκρινομένων καταλλήλως ἐχόντων | ||
τὰ πρὸς τὰς ἐρωτήσεις, ἄξιοι θαυμασμοῦ κατεφαίνοντό μοι καὶ τοῖς | ||
παροῦσι, μάλιστα δὲ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις. οἴομαι δὲ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς | ||
παραληψομένοις τὴν ἀναγραφὴν ἄπιστον φανεῖται. ψεύσασθαι μὲν | 297 | |
10 | οὖν οὐ καθῆκόν ἐστι περὶ τῶν ἀναγραφομένων· εἰ δὲ καὶ τι παρα- | |
βαίην, οὐχ ὅσιον ἐν τούτοις· ἀλλ᾿, ὡς γέγονεν, οὕτως διασαφοῦμεν | ||
ἀφοσιούμενοι πᾶν ἁμάρτημα. διόπερ ἐπειράθην ἀποδεξάμενος αὐτῶν | ||
τὴν τοῦ λόγου δύναμιν παρὰ τῶν ἀναγραφομένων ἕκαστα τῶν | ||
γινομένων ἔν τε τοῖς χρηματισμοῖς τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ταῖς συμ- | ||
15 | ποσίαις μεταλαβεῖν. ἔθος γὰρ ἐστι, καθὼς καὶ σὺ γινώσκεις, ἀφ᾿ | 298 |
ἧς ἂν [ἡμέρας] ὁ βασιλεὺς ἄρξηται χρηματίζειν, μέχρις οὗ κατα- | ||
κοιμηθῇ, πάντα ἀναγάφεσθαι τὰ λεγόμενα καὶ πρασσόμενα, καλῶς | ||
γινομένου καὶ συμφερόντως. τῇ γὰρ ἐπιούσῃ τὰ τῆ πρότερον | 299 | |
πεπραγμένα καὶ λελαλημένα πρὸ τοῦ χρηματισμοῦ παραναγινώ- | ||
20 | σκεται, καί, εἴ τι μὴ δεόντως γέγονε, διορθώσεως τυγχάνει τὸ | |
πεπραγμένον. πάντ᾿ οὖν ἀκριβῶς παρὰ τῶν ἀναγεγραμμένων, ὡς | 300 | |
ἐλέχθη, μεταλαβόντες κατακεχωρίκαμεν, εἰδότες ἣν ἔχεις φιλομά- | ||
θειαν εἰς τὰ χρήσιμα. | ||
§ Μετὰ δὲ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ὁ Δημήτριος παραλαβὼν αὐτούς, καὶ |
301 § Jos | |
25 | διελθὼν τὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ σταδίων ἀνάχωμα τῆς θαλάσσης πρὸς τὴν | |
νῆσον, καὶ διαβὰς τὴν γέφυραν, καὶ προσελθὼν ὡς ἐπὶ τὰ βόρεια | ||
3 ει πεπλεονακα (cf Diod I. 90. 4) bene Mend.] ειπα πλειονα και codd |
HKAGIB | |
6 καταλληλως BT] αλληλως cett 7 τα] τας C 8 δε 2º] + ως B | CTZ Jos | |
9 απιστα K 12 αφοσιωμενοι HGICZ (αφωσιωμενοι A) 15 om και I | ||
16 om αν B | ημερας codd] omittendum vid ημερας ωρας Wend. ωρας Mend. | | ||
αρξεται B 18 γενομενου I | τη 2º] om H 19 λαλημενα Z | παραναγιν. | ||
BT] παραγινωσκεται cett 20 δεοντος CZ | γεγονε BT | γεγονος (-νως GI) | ||
cett | om το πεπραγμενον BT 21 παντ] παντες C | παρα των Wend.] | ||
παντων codd | παντ—μεταλαβοντες (22)] παντων ουν ακριβως των | ||
αναγεγραμμενων μεταλαβοντες παντες BT 22 ελεγχθη Z | | ||
κεχωρηκαμεν CZ κατακεχωρηκαμεν codd cett | ||
26 διαβας προς την γεφυραν Jos | προελθων Jos | om ως Z | ||
μέρη, συνέδριον ποιησάμενος εἰς κατεσκευασμένον οἶκον παρὰ τὴν | ||
ἠϊόνα,διαπρεπῶς ἔχοντα καὶ πολλῆς ἡσυχίας ἔφεδρον, παρεκάλει | ||
τοὺς ἄνδρας τὰ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἐπιτελεῖν, παρόντων ὅσα πρὸς τὴν | ||
χρείαν ἔδει καλῶς. οἱ δὲ ἐπετέλουν ἕκαστα σύμφωνα ποιοῦντες | 302 | |
5 | πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς ταῖς ἀντιβολαῖς· τὸ δὲ ἐκ τῆς συμφωνίας γινόμενον | |
πρεπόντως ἀναγραφῆς οὕτως ἐτύγχανε παρὰ τοῦ Δημητρίου. καὶ | 303 | |
μέχρι μὲν ὥρας ἐνάτης τὰ τῆς συνεδρείας ἐγίνετο· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα | ||
περὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος θεραπείαν ἀπελύοντο γίνεσθαι, χορηγουμένων | ||
αὐτοῖς δαψιλῶς ὧν προῃροῦντο πάντων. ἐκτὸς δὲ καὶ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν, | 304 | |
10 | ὅσα βασιλεῖ παρεσκευάζετο, καὶ τούτοις ὁ Δωρόθεος ἐπετέλει· | |
προστεταγμένον γὰρ ἦν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βασιλέως. ἅμα δὲ τῇ πρωΐᾳ | ||
παρεγίνοντο εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν καθ᾿ ἡμέραν, καὶ ποιησάμενοι τὸν | ||
ἀσπασμὸν τοῦ βασιλέως, ἀπελύοντο πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτῶν τόπον. ὡς δὲ | 305 | |
ἔθος ἐστὶ πᾶσι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις, ἀπονιψάμενοι τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὰς | ||
15 | χεῖρας, ὡς ἂν εὔξωνται πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἐτρέποντο πρὸς τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν | |
καὶ τὴν ἑκάστου διασάφησιν.¶ Ἐπηρώτησα δὲ καὶ τοῦτο | 306 ¶ Jos | |
Τίνος χάριν ἀπονιζόμενοι τὰς χεῖρας τὸ τηνικαῦτα εὔχονται; διεσά- | ||
φουν δέ, ὅτι μαρτύριόν ἐστι τοῦ μηδὲν εἰργάσθαι κακόν· πᾶσα γὰρ | ||
ἐνέργεια διὰ τῶν χειρῶν γίνεται· καλῶς καὶ ὁσίως μεταφέροντες ἐπὶ | ||
20 | τὴν δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν πάντα. καθὼς δὲ προειρήκαμεν, | 307 |
οὕτως καθ᾿ ἑκάστην εἰς τὸν τόπον, ἔχοντα τερπνότητα διὰ τὴν | ||
ἡσυχίαν καὶ καταύγειαν, συναγόμενοι τὸ προκείμενον ἐπετέλουν. | ||
συνέτυχε δὲ οὕτως, ὥστε ἐν ἡμέραις ἐβδομήκοντα δυσὶ τελειωθῆναι | ||
τὰ τῆς μεταγραφῆς, οἱονεὶ κατὰ πρόθεσίν τινα τοῦ τοιούτου γεγενη- | ||
25 | μένου. § Τελείωσιν δὲ ὅτε ἔλαβε, συναγαγὼν ὁ Δημήτριος | 308 § Jos |
1 κατασκευασμενον CZ 2 ηιον (ηιων Z) αδιαπρεπως H*GICZ ηιον |
HKAGIB | |
διαπρεπως A 3 τα της] τας BTZ 5 ταις αντιβολαις part sup ras B | | CTZ Jos | |
γενομενον BCTZ 7 ενατης HC] θ K εννατης cett | συνεδριας BCTZ | ||
9 αυτοις KBT Jos] αυτων cett 10 Δοροθεος C 13 προς] εις BT (sed B | ||
primum aliud scripsit quod postea erasit) | τον εαυτων KBT] εαυτων codd | ||
cett τον αυτον Jos 14 απονιψαμενους AICvidZ απονιψαμενη B* -μενοις | ||
cett 15 ευξωνται K] ηυξαντο (ευξ- GI) cett 16 επηρωτησα CT] | ||
επηρωτα B επερωτησα cett | τουτον G 18 μηθεν K 20 ειρηκαμεν I | ||
21 τερπνοτητα BTZ (-νωτ.)] τερπω τινα HKA*GIC (τερπωλην τινα M | ||
τερποτητα Acorr vid) 23 εβδομηκοντα συν δυσιν K εβδ. και δυσιν Jos | ||
εβδομηκοντα δυο T οβ BZ 24 γραφης I 25 οτε δε ελαβε τελειωσιν B | ||
τὸ πλῆθος τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰς τὸν τόπον, οὗ καὶ τὰ τῆ ἑρμηνείας | ||
ἐτελέσθη, παρανέγνω πᾶσι, παρόντων καὶ τῶν διερμηνευσάντων, οἵ- | ||
τινες μεγάλης ἀποδοχῆς καὶ παρὰ τοῦ πλήθους ἔτυχον, ὡς ἂν | ||
μεγάλων ἀγαθῶν παραίτιοι γεγονότες. ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὸν | 309 | |
5 | Δημήτριον ἀποδεξάμενοι παρεκάλεσαν μεταδοῦναι τοῖς ἡγουμένοις | |
αὐτῶν, μεταγράψαντα τὸν πάντα νόμον. § καθὼς δὲ ἀνεγνώσθη τὰ | 310 § Eus | |
τεύχη, στάντες οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ τῶν ἑρμηνέων οἱ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ | ||
τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ πολιτεύματος οἵ τε ἡγούμενοι τοῦ πλήθους εἶπον | ||
Ἐπεὶ καλῶς καὶ ὁσίως διηρμήνευται καὶ κατὰ πᾶν ἠκριβωμένως, | ||
10 | καλῶς ἔχον ἐστίν, ἵνα διαμείνῃ ταῦθ᾿ οὕτως ἔχοντα, καὶ μὴ γένηται | |
μηδεμία διασκευή. πάντων δ᾿ ἐπιφωνησάντων τοῖς εἰρημέ- | 311 | |
νοις, ἐκέλευσαν διαράσασθαι, καθὼς ἔθος αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, εἴ τις | ||
διακευάσει προστιθεὶς ἢ μεταφέρων τι τὸ σύνολον τῶν γεγραμ- | ||
μένων ἢ ποιούμενος ἀφαίρεσιν, καλῶς τοῦτο πράσσοντες, ἵνα διὰ | ||
15 | παντὸς ἀένναα καὶ μένοντα φυλάσσηται. | |
Προσφωνηθέντων δὲ καὶ τούτων τῷ βασιλεῖ μεγάλως ἐχάρη· |
312 | |
τὴν γὰρ πρόθεσιν, ἣν εἶχεν, ἀσφαλῶς ἔδοξε τετελειῶσθαι. παραν- | ||
εγνώσθη δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ πάντα, καὶ λίαν ἐξεθαύμασε τὴν τοῦ | ||
νομοθέτου διάνοιαν. καὶ πρὸς τὸν Δημήτριον εἶπε Πῶς τηλικούτων | ||
20 | συντετελεσμένων οὐδεὶς, ἐπεβάλετο τῶν ἱστορικῶν ἢ ποιητῶν ἐπι- | |
μνησθῆναι; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Διὰ τὸ σεμνὴν εἶναι τὴν νομοθεσίαν | 313 | |
καὶ διὰ θεοῦ γεγονέναι· καὶ τῶν ἐπιβαλλομένων τινὲς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ | ||
πληγέντες τῆς ἐπιβολῆς ἀπέστησαν. καὶ γὰρ ἔφησεν ἀκηκοέναι | 314 | |
Θεοπόμπου, διότι μέλλων τινὰ τῶν προηρμηνευμένων ἐπισφα- | ||
1 και τα] κατα Z* 6 om δε Eusº | τα] pr ταυτα Eusº 9 om καλως |
HKAGIB | |
Eusi | και 2º] om I | ακριβως Eus 10 διαμενη Eusi (διαμενει Eusº vid) txt | CTZ Jos | |
ex Jos confirmatur (διαμειναι) | om μη Eusi | γινηται Eusi 12 εκελευσαν | Eus | |
Jos Eusedd] εκελευσε (-σεν Eus) Ar codd Eusio | επαρασθαι Eus | καθω I | ||
καθο A | εστιν αυτοις Eusº 13 μεταφερον GI | om τι Eusº 14 πρασσοντος | ||
HKA txt codd cett Jos (πραττ.) Eus 15 και μενοντα] μενοντα | ||
Eusº μενοντες Eusi vid 17 παρανεγνωσθη KBCT Eus] παρεγνωσθη HAGI | ||
19 τηλικουτων] + πραγματων fort recte Eus 20 επεβαλετο HKBCT Eus] | ||
επελαβετο AGI | η] ουδε Eus | ποιητων B Eus Jos] ποιητικως HK ποιητικων | ||
cett 22 επιβαλομενων Eusi | om του Eusº 23 επιβουλης H*vid KAGI | | ||
εφησαν Eusº 24 Θεοπεμπτου Ar codd txt Jos Eus | προεπμηνευμενων | ||
HKGIC | ||
λέστερον ἐκ τοῦ νόμου προσιστορεῖν ταραχὴν λάβοι τῆς διανοίας | ||
πλεῖον ἡμερῶν τριάκοντα· κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἄνεσιν ἐξιλάσκεσθαι τὸν | ||
θεόν, σαφὲς αὐτῷ γενέσθαι, τίνος χάριν τὸ σθμβαῖνόν ἐστι. δἰ | 315 | |
ὀνείρου δὲ σημανθέντος, ὅτι τὰ θεῖα βούλεται περιεργασάμενος εἰς | ||
5 | κοινοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐκφέρειν, ἀποσχόμενον δὲ οὕτως ἀποκαταστῆναι. | |
καὶ παρὰ Θεοδέκτου δὲ τοῦ τῶν τραγῳδιῶν ποιητοῦ μετέλαβον ἐγώ, | 316 | |
διότι παραφέρειν μέλλοντός τι τῶν ἀναγεγραμμένων ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ | ||
πρός τι δρᾶμα τὰς ὄψεις ἀπεγλαυκώθη· καὶ λαβὼν ὑπόνοιαν, ὅτι | ||
διὰ τοῦτ᾿ αὐτῷ τὸ σύμπτωμα γέγονεν, ἐξιλασάμενος τὸν θεὸν ἐν | ||
10 | πολλαῖς ἡμέραις ἀποκατέστη. Μεταλαβὼν δὲ ὁ βασιλεύς, | 317 |
καθὼς προεῖπον, περὶ τούτων τὰ παρὰ τοῦ Δημητρίου, προσκυνήσας | ||
ἐκέλευσε μεγάλην ἐπιμέλειαν ποιεῖσθαι τῶν βιβλίων καὶ συντηρεῖν | ||
ἁγνῶς.¶ παρακαλέσας δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἑρμηνεῖς, ἵνα παραγίνωνται | 318 ¶ Eus | |
πθκνότερον πρὸς αὐτόν, ἐὰν ἀποκατασταθῶσιν εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν,— | ||
15 | δίκαιον γὰρ εἶπε τὴν ἐκπομπὴν αὐτῶν γενέσθαι· παραγενηθέντας δέ, | |
ὡς θέμις, ἕξειν αὐτοὺς φίλους, καὶ πολυωρίας τῆς μεγίστης τεύξε- | ||
σθαι παῤ αὐτοῦ. τὰ δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἐκπομπὴν αὐτῶν ἐκέλευσεν ἑτοι- | 319 | |
μάζειν, μεγαλομερῶς τοῖς ἀνδράσι χρησάμενος. ἑκάστῳ γὰρ στολὰς | ||
ἔδωκε τῶν κρατίστων τρεῖς καὶ χρυσίου τάλαντα δύο καὶ κυλίκιον | ||
20 | ταλάντου καὶ τρικλίνου πᾶσαν κατάστρωσιν. ἔπεμψε δὲ καὶ τῷ | 320 |
Ἐλεαζάρῳ μετὰ τῆς ἐκπομπῆς αὐτῶν ἀργυρόποδας κλίνας δέκα καὶ | ||
τὰ ἀκόλουθα πάντα καὶ κθλίκιον ταλάντων τριάκοντα καὶ στολὰς | ||
δέκα καὶ πορφύραν καὶ στέφανον διαπρεπῆ καὶ βυσσίνων ὀθονίων | ||
1 προιστορειν HKAGI txt BCT Eus | λαβοι Eus] λαβειν Ar codd |
HKAGIB | |
2 τριακοντα] λ KA | ανεσιν Ar codd Jos] αιτησιν Eus 3 om το Eusº | CTZ Jos | |
4 σημανθεντος] μαθοντος Eus 5 δε ουτως] ωσαυτως BT δε αυτως CZ | Eus | |
8 οψις C | απεγλαυκωθη Eus Acorr] απεγλυκωθη HKA*GI επεγλυκωθη | ||
B*CTZ* (-γλαυκ. Bcorr Zmg γλαυκωθειη Jos) 9 ταυτ Eusi | αυτω BAcorr | ||
Eus] αυτο cett | om το συμπτωμα Eus 11 προειπε Eusio | περι—Δημητριου | ||
em Cobet] περι τουτων τα περι του Δ. Eus περι των (om των C) του Δ. Ar | ||
codd (ταυτα παρα του Δ. Jos) 12 συντηρεισθαι Eusº 13 αγνων CTZ* | ||
αγνα B | τοις I | παραγινονται GIC 14 αποκαταστωσιν K | Ιουδαιαν] | ||
ιδιαν A 15 om γαρ B (hab Jos) 16 ως θεμις] ωσαυθις Acorr | εξειν | ||
Acorr (cod Mon ap Wend.)] εξεις H εξει cett | πολυωριας (cf 270) Mahaffy] | ||
πολυδωριας codd et Jos | τευξασθαι BCTZ txt cett Jos 18 μεγαλοπρεπως | ||
K | χαρισαμενος Wend. 19 κυλικιον ABT Jos] κυλιδιον cett κυλικειον hic | ||
et 22 Wend. 22 τριακοντα] λ KA 23 στεφον T | ||
ἱστοὺς ἑκατὸν καὶ φιάλας καὶ τρυβλία καὶ κρατῆρας χρυσοῦς δύο | ||
πρὸς ἀνάθεσιν. ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ παρακαλῶν, ἵνα, ἐάν τινες τῶν | 321 | |
ἀνδρῶν προαιρῶνται πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀνακομισθῆναι, μὴ κωλύσῃ, περὶ | ||
πολλοῦ ποιούμενος τοῖς πεπαιδευμένοις συνεῖναι, καὶ εἰς τοιούτους | ||
5 | τὸν πλοῦτον κατατίθεσθαι δαψιλῶς, καὶ οὐκ εἰς μάταια.¶ | ¶ Jos |
Σὺ δέ, καθὼς ἐπηγγειλάμην, ἀπέχεις τὴν διήγησιν, ὦ Φιλόκρατες. |
322 | |
τέρπειν γὰρ οἴομαί σε ταῦτα ἢ τὰ τῶν μυθολόγων βιβλία. νένευκας | ||
γὰρ πρὸς περιεργίαν τῶν δυναμένων ὠφελεῖν διάνοιαν, καὶ ἐν τούτοις | ||
τὸν πλείονα χρόνον διατελεῖς. πειράσμαι δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν | ||
10 | ἀξιολόγων ἀναγράφειν, ἵνα διαπορευόμενος αὐτὰ κομίζῃ τοῦ βουλή- | |
ματος τὸ κάλλιστον ἔπαθλον. | ||
1 ιστους Jos] εις τους Ar codd | τρυβλια] + κα σπονδεια Jos | HKAGIB | |
3 προαιρουνται Z 4 om και HKGICZ | τοιουτοις I 7 σε] om B* ins | CTZ Jos | |
B1 adnotat ισως μαλλον Zmg 9 πλειον KGICZ πρειω HA | διατελειν Z | ||
| λοιπα bis scr C 10 κομιζει GI 11 om το καλλιστον Τ | ||
Indices.
607
I. INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES.
II. INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
608
[blank page]
Index I. Biblical References.
609GENESIS
i. 1 ff., 378; 2, 327, 449, 459, 465; 4 f., 395, 323; 6, 449, 459; 9, 326; 10, 459; 13 f., 134; 27, 53
ii. 2, 327, 413, 465; 4, 215; 7, 374
iii. 8, 449; 15, 449, 474; 20, 325, 377
iv. 1, 377, 445; 2, 305; 3 f., 472; 7, 446, 465; 8, 243, 442, 474; 21, 374; 24, 306
vi. 2, 57, 329, 449; 3, 446; 4, 305, 449; 5, 474; 14, 374 f.; 19, 307
vii. 19, 307
viii. 7, 306; 21, 449
ix. 25, 374 f.
x. 13—18, 22—29, 249
xi. 9, 325
xii. 1, 408; 9, 41, 326
xiv. 13, 325; 14, 465; 23, 445
xv. 1, 308; 1—6, 330 f.; 9 f., 378; 11, 322; 15, 478; 18, 374
xvi. 14, 478
xvii. 1, 376
xviii. 12, 374; 24—26, 134; 25, 52, 327
xix. 3, 475
xx. 14 f., 18
xxi. 6, 478
xxii. 2, 449
xxiii. 16, 305
xxiv. 10 f., 327; 20, 375
xxv. 6, 324; 27, 329
xxvi. 18, 329
xxvii. 30, 378; 46, 460
xxviii. 13, 307, 375
xxix. 9, 326
xxx. 1, 307; 10 ff., 236; 11, 446; 14 f., 18
xxxi. 21, 326; 29, 442; 46 ff., 234
xxxii. 23, f., 378; 25, 18
xxxiv. 10, 325; 14, 326
xxxv. 6, 324; 11, 376; 16 ff., 234; 17, 27, 307
xxxvi. 1, 307; 33 ff., 257
xxxvii. 3, 445
xxxiii. 9, 306
xxxix. 1, 378
xl. 17, 325; 43, 446
xli. 2 ff., 21: 13, 306; 34, 304; 45, 378; 56, 442
xliii. 16, 134
xliv. 2 ff., 21; 10, 442, 449; 19, 322
xlv. 16, 308; 34, 18
xlvi. 28, 378, 391
xlvii. 31, 445, 459
xlviii. 14, 445, 466; 17 f., 89
xlix. 3, 305; 3—27, 360; 6, 446; 10, 416, 442, 449, 465, 474; 19, 236, 322, 446
EXODUS
i. 11, 305; 12, 307 f.; 16, 446
ii. 5, 476; 14, 307, 307, 409; 15, 306
iii. 7, 308; 14, 327, 446
iv. 9, 305; 10, 371, 374; 16, 327; 21, 306
v. 9, 442; 13, 305, 459
vii. 2, 326, 449; 16, 69
viii. 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
610xv. 1—21, 253 f.; 3, 327; 17, 374, 472; 27, 305
xvi. 15, 377, 446; 23, 475; 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. 29, 449; 40, 416
xxvii. 21, 329
xxviii. 15, 449; 26, 326
xxix. 9, 472; 23, 475
xxx. 1, 475; 6, 442
xxxi. 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
xxxvi. 4, 307; 8—34, 243
xxxvii. 19, 472; 26—28, 243
xxxix. 18, 449, 472
xl. 6—8, 11, 243
LEVITICUS
i. 3, 475
iv. 5, 466; 27—29, 90
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
xxiii. 3, 446; 11, 15, 17
xxiv. 7, 327, 472; 11, 475
NUMBERS
i. 2, 215; 24 ff., 236
iii. 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; 25 f., 305; 29, 308
xii. 8, 327
xv. 14, 329
xvi. 5, 322; 21, 472
xxi. 1, 305; 11, 308
xxii. 6, 305
xviii. 7—10, 332; 19, 466; 21, 459
xxiv. 7, 319 n.; 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
ii. 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
xxvi. 2, 475; 5, 322
xxviii. 35, 2; 66, 466
xxix. 18, 479
xxx. 4, 2; 20, 372
xxxi. 18, 308
xxxii. 1—43, 44, 253 f.; 4, 375; 6, 416 f.; 7, 466; 10, 305; 39, 372; 43, 243, 305
xxxiii. 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
611xiv. 12, 328
xv. 59, 442
xix. 47 f., 237, 244
xx. 4—6, 244
xxi. 36 f., 42 a—d, 244
xxiv. 30 a—33 b, 244
JUDGES
i. 19, 324; 35, 446
v. 8, 480; 15, 45; 16, 459; 28—30, 333 f.
vi. 2 f., 306; 18, 308
viii. 3, 305; 7, 324; 13, 446
ix. 26, 305; 42, 53
xii. 6, 446
xiv. 15, 443
xv. 14 ff., 446 f.; 10, 476
xvi. 13 f., 443
xviii. 30, 447
xix. 18, 443; 22, 449
RUTH
ii. 2, 306; 9, 14, 305; 22, 306
iii. 1, 306
1 KINGDOMS
i. 1, 322, 324; 1 ff., 298; 5, 326; 8, 306; 14, 327; 20, 377; 24, 26, 308, 324, 442; 28, 245
ii. 1—10, 253 f.; 6, 472; 9 f., 245 f., 409; 12, 449; 29, 321; 33, 442
iii. 6, 308; 13, 442; 14, 17, 308
iv. 1, 442; 10, 321
v. 6, 327 f., 443
vi. 11, 15, 325; 19, 443; 20, 321
vii. 4, 325
ix. 22, 377; 24, 476; 25, 443
x. 5, 447; 14, 305; 21, 443; 22, 308
xii. 2, 322; 3, 443; 8, 321, 443
xiii. 20, 459; 21, 447
xiv. 18, 41 f., 443
xv. 22, 417; 23, 41
xvii.—xviii., 245 f.
xvii. 37—43, 334 f.; 47, 475
xix. 13, 377
xx. 19, 443; 30, 447
xxi. 7, 321
xxii. 2 ff., 316; 9, 377
xxiii. 11—12, 246; 14, 325
xxvii. 10, 447
xxxi. 10, 447
2 KINGDOMS
i. 18, 449; 21, 447
ii. 2, 308
iii. 39, 305
iv. 6, 377, 443
vii. 12, 302
viii. 5, 306; 7, 378
x. 14, 305
xii. 21, 446
xvii. 3, 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
iv. 17 ff., 237
v. 13, 475
vii. 17, 475; 48, 475
viii. 17 f., 237; 39, 472; 53 a, 247, 514
x. 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; 23 a—h, 249
xvii. 1, 444
xviii. 22—28, 83 f.
xix. 14 ff., 401
xx., xxi., 239
xx. 10, 12, 39 f.
xxi. 10—13, 35
xxii. 38, 466
4 KINGDOMS
i. 2 f., 447; 18 a—d, 249
ii. 11—18, 335 f.; 14, 324, 476
v. 7, 306
vi. 5, 253
viii. 13, 447
xvi. 9, 41
xvii. 6, 3; 15, 45; 29, 307
xviii. 17—xx. 19, 316
xix. 25, 41
612xxiii. 21—24, 36, 39 f.; 22 f., 447; 24—27, 31—33, 249
xxiv. 14 ff., 3
xxv. 11, 21 f., 3; 20 ff., 275
1 CHRONICLES
i. 10—16, 17 b—23, 249; 44 f., 257
iii. 1 f., 299
xxi. 12, 321; 15, 305
2 CHRONICLES
i. 3, 308
ii. 8, 475
iii. 1, 306
iv. 11, 475
xii. 2 f., 3
xx. 37, 305
xxix. 26, 253
xxxiii. 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. 3 f., 378; 9, 48; 1—25, 266; 21, 378
iii. 1—v. 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. 21, 460
viii. 4, 449
ix.—cxlvii., 239 f.
ix. tit., 466 f.; 17, 251
xiii. 1—3, 3 a—c, 251 f.
xv. 2, 444; 9, 326, 460
xvii. 3 ff., 316 f., 326; 45, 413
xxi. 2, 306; 7, 407, 467; 9, 409; 17, 321, 413, 444; 30, 467
xxv. 6, 472
xxvi. 13, 444
xxvii. 9, 472
xxx. 6, 472
xxxi. 1, 407
xxxii. 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, 327, 417, 479
xl. 3, 305; 14, 255
xli. 6, 444
xlii. 3, 472
xliii. 5, 322; 16, 52; 24, 53
xliv. 1, 467; 17, 417
xlv. 1—3, 62 f.; 3, 33
xlviii. 12, 444; 13, 21, 305
xlix. 10, 15, 417; 21 f., 407
l., 296; 12, 471; 14, 449, 471; 17, 407
li. 3, 305
lii. 6, 308
lv. 1, 475
lviii. 6, 472
lx. 3, 460
lxvii. 12—14, 18—22, 99; 26, 475
lxviii. 3, 52; 27, 444
lxxi. 5, 444; 18—20, 255
lxxii. 3, 475; 28, 306
lxxv. 7, 460
lxxvii. 2, 397; 70, 253
lxxviii. 2, 25; 3, 372; 8, 472
lxxix. 2, 472
lxxx. 4, 475
lxxxiii. 7, 319 n.
lxxxvi. 4 f., 66, 467
lxxxvii. 6, 467
lxxxviii. 5, 255; 8, 459; 21, 399, 407
xc. 6—13, 37, 40, 460
xci. 4, 475; 5—10, 38, 40; 13, 467
xcv. 5, 10, 467; 10, 424 n.
xcvi. 7, 243
xcviii. 5, 467
c. 5, 444
ci. 27, 417
cv. 48, 255
613cvi. 20, 467 f.
cviii. 29, 475
cix. 1—4, 305, 336, 409, 413, 417, 468
cxii. 5 f., 472
cxiii. 11, 417
cxiv. 9, 472
cxv. 2, 460
cxvii. 23, 307
cxx. 8, 472
cxxxviii. tit., 2; 8, 408; 15 f., 449
cxxxix. 4, 251
cxl. 4, 319 n.
cxlvi. 2, 2
cli., 252 f.
PROVERBS
i. 28, 308
ii. 18, 449
iii. 5, 306; 11, 257; 12, 407, 409; 15, 308; 16, 255; 22a, 28 e, 255, 306
iv. 27 a—b, 255
vi. 8 a—c, 255
vii. 1 a, 255
viii. 21 a, 255; 22 ff., 57, 336 f., 468, 471; 30 f., 336 f.
ix. 12 a—c, 18 a—c, 255; 18, 460
x. 10, 444
xii. 11 a, 13 a, 255
xv. 18 a, 255, 306
xvi. 17, 255, 306
xvii. 6 a, 255
xviii. 22 a, 255
xxi. 16, 460; 25, 407
xxii. 8 a, 255; 20, 468; 28, 61
xxiv.—xxxi., 240 f.
xxiv. 22 a—c, 255
xxvi. 11, 255, 400
xxxi. 26, 255
ECCLESIASTES
i. 1, 215
ii. 17, 309
iii. 1—8, 360
iv. 9, 52
vii. 19, 460
JOB
ii. 9, 256
iv. 21, 407
v. 17 ff., 407
vi. 5, 305
ix. 9, 449
x. 4, 101
xiv. 12, 476
xviii. 20, 460
xix. 17, 101; 18, 321; 23—27, 257 f., 337 f.
xxi. 27, 460
xxvi. 5, 460; 14, 52
xxvii. 12, 329
xxix. 1, 308
xxx.13, 329; 30, 475
xxxviii. 26, 302
xl. 14, 468, 472
xlii. 7, 101; 17 a, b—e, 25, 256 f.
WISDOM
ii. 12, 372
vi. 7, 372
vii. 24, 268
viii. 7, 20, 268
ix. 15, 268
x. 6, 475
xi. 4, 372; 17, 263
xii. 8, 372
xv. 10, 372
xvi. 22, 371
xviii. 4, 305; 24, 475
SIRACH
prol., 217, 269 f.
vi. 26, 475
xx. 19, 475
xxi. 4, 475
xlix. 10, 217
l. 27, 269
ESTHER
B, C, D, 378
v. 4, 305
E, 378
F, 258
JUDITH
v. 19, 2
vii. 10, 305
viii. 6, 272
ix. 11, 472
x. 2 ff., 272; 5, 475
xi. 13, 272
xii. 7, 272
614
TOBIT
i. 14 ff., 3
v. 15, 308
xi. 14, 475
HOSEA
ii. 23, vi. 5, 319 n.
xii. 4, 468
AMOS
ii. 13, 476
v. 26, 398
ix. 6, 468; 11 f., 399
MICAH
iv., 316 f.
v. 1—4, 91, 338, 396
vii. 19, 417
JOEL
ii. 25, 471
JONAH
i. 3, 475
ii. 3—10, 253
NAHUM
iii. 8, 322
HABAKKUK
ii. 11, 468
iii. 1—19, 253; 2, 468; 3, 417, 449; 9, 515; 13, 56
ZEPHANIAH
i. 10, 449
ZECHARIAH
iii. 8, 474
vi. 12, 468
xi. 7, 322; 13, 397
xii. 10, 48, 398
xiii. 7, 413
MALACHI
ii. 3, 444; 11, 46; 13, 51
iii. 1, 395, 408
ISAIAH
i. 17, 417; 22, 468; 29, 305
ii., 316; 19, 372
iii. 9, 468 f.
iv. 2, 319 n.
v. 1—9, 253; 26, 414
vi. 9 f., 398
vii. 14, 30, 469 474
viii. 14, 401
ix. 1 f., 396 f.; 6, 469, 472; 8, 322; 14, 329
x. 23, 469
xi. 4, 417
xiii. 9, 305
xvii. 13, 460
xix. 19 f., 4
xxv. 8, 401; 9, 417
xxvi. 9—20, 253
xxviii. 11 f., 402; 16, 399
xxix. 4, 52; 10, 401; 11, 18, 91; 13, 321, 409, 417
xxx. 1 ff., 4; 4, 469
xxxiii. 24, 305
xxxvi. 1—xxxix. 8, 316
xxxviii. 8, 449; 10—20, 253; 21, 475
xxxix. 6 f., 299
xl. 2, 395; 3, 395, 398
xlii. 1, 395; 7, 415
xliii. 23, 417
xliv. 28, 399
xlv. 1, 14, 469
xlix. 6, 2
lii. 5, 414
liii. 1—12, 410; 3, 469; 4, 397; 5, 7, 413; 8, 469; 10, 319 n.
liv. 8, 476; 15, 469
lv. 3, 398
lvii. 15, 472
lviii. 6, 395
lix. 7 f., 251
lx. 17, 469
lxi. 1 ff., 395; 12, 413
lxii. 11, 395
lxiii. 1, 9, 469
lxiv. 3, 401
lxv. 1, 417; 15, 319 n.
lxvi. 2, 408
JEREMIAH
ii. 12, 413; 23, 326; 26, 307
v. 4, 305
vi. 23, 321; 29, 444
vii. 16, 301
ix. 23 f., 245, 409; 29, 479
xi. 15, 444; 19, 469
xii. 15, 399
615xiii. 14, 2
xv. 4, 2
xviii. 15, 305
xix. 13, 475
xxiii. 33, 444
xxv.—li., 241 f.
xxvi. 15, 322; 25, 321
xxxiv. 17, 2
xxxvi. 1, 275
xxxviii. 13, 319 n.; 31—37, 338 f.; 37, 305; 40, 324
xxxix. 19, 472
xl. 14—26, 44
xliii. 31, 417
xlvi. 4—13, 45
xlix. 19, 476
li. 1 ff., 4
BARUCH
i. 10, 275; 15—18, 48
ii. 3, 275; 11—19, 48
iii. 4, 275; 38, 469
iv. 36—v. 9, 283
v. 2, 417; 30, 275
LAMENTATIONS
i. 1, 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
iii. 26, 45; 52—90, 253
v. 23, 48
vi. 22, 47, 411
vii. 9 ff., 421 ff.; 9, 48; 10, 417, 497; 13, 43, 57 f.; 21, 48; 22, 319 ff.; 23, 26 f.
ix. 1, 318
x. 20, 48
xii. 1—4, 339; 2, 2; 7, 48; 9, 417
SUSANNA
54 f., 261
BEL
2, 475
1 MACCABEES
i. 4, 276
vii. 17, 23
xiii. 30, 277
xv. 23, 7
xvi. 23 f., 277
2 MACCABEES
i. 27, 2
ii. l ff., 275; 7, 13; 23, 7
vi. 19, 30, 277
vii. 6, 372
viii. 1, 475
3 MACCABEES
ii. 2, 472
vi. 18, 280
vii. 42, 280
4 MACCABEES
i. 18, 280 f.
ix. 9, 281
xiii. 15, 281
xv. 3, 281
xvii. 5, 281
xviii. 14 ff., 372; 23, 281
MATTHEW
ii. 6, 396
iv. 15 f., 396
v. 3 ff., 451; 18, 320
vi. 6, 451
viii. 17, 397
x. 21, 35, 451
xii. 18, 395
xiii. 35, 397
xv. 8, 440
xxi. 4, 395; 33, 451
xxiv. 30, 43
xxvi. 64, 48
xxvii. 9 f., 397; 33, 7
616
MARK
i. 2 f., 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
xviii. 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
vi. 9, 7, 104
vii. 43, 398
viii. 32 ff., 308
xi. 20, 7
xiii. 1, 7; 15, 356; 22, 398; 30, 215; 34, 398
xv. 16 ff., 399; 21, 356
xviii. 24, 104
JAMES
i. 1, 3
ii. 11, 234
1 PETER
i. 24, 399
ii. 6, 399; 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
xi. 2 ff., 8, 401
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
ii. 17, 451
iv. 8, 25, 400
v. 31, 400
vi. 3, 400
PHILIPPIANS
i. 19, 451
HEBREWS
i. 7, 12, 402
ii. 12, 402
iii. 9, 10, 402 f.
vi. 8, 451
viii. 8 ff., 402
x. 5 ff., 37, 402 f., 479
xi. 21, 402; 22, 215; 33, 48; 36, 217
xii. 15, 402, 479
APOCALYPSE
i. 7, 398
ix. 20, 48
x. 6, 48
xii. 7, 48
xiii. 7, 48
xix. 6, 48
xx. 4, 11, 48
Index II. Subject-Matter
617
A, cod., 125 f., 202, 219, 252, 254, 282, 352, 354, 364, 454, 480 ff.; , 364
Abbas, Mar, 115
Abbott, T. K., 144, 456
Abbreviations in MSS. of LXX., 126, 364 f.
Abrahams, I., 498
Accidence of O.T. Greek, 302 ff.
Acrostics, 360
Acts, quotations in the, 388, 398 f.
Adrianus, 341
African canons, 219, 397
African O.L., 91
Africanus, correspondence of Origen with, 60 f., 255, 260 f.
Akhmîm codex, the, 283 ff.: Akhmimic dialect, 106
Akiba ben Joseph, R., 32, 434, 440
Alcalà, 171
Aldine edition of LXX., 173, 486; editions based on, 174
Alexander, at Jerusalem, 4; his policy towards the Jews, 4 f.
Alexandria, its Church, 104, 413; dialect, 289 f.; population, 291; libraries and museums, 10 f., 16 f., 22 f., 293; writers, 293, 312, 369 ff.
Alexandrine MS., 125 f., 352, 489 f., 505, 529
Ambrosian Octateuch, 135 f., 348
Amelli, A. M., 503
Amherst papyri, 499, 508, 509
Amphilochius, 205
Andreas Asolanus, 173
Anonymi dial. Timothei et Aquilae, 18, 31 ff., 206
Anthropomorphisms, 53, 327
Antioch, school of, 80
Apocalypse, use of LXX. in, 392; Theodotionic readings in, 48
Apocrypha, 224 f., 265 ff., 281 ff.; vocabulary of the, 310 ff.; 'apocrypha,' 423; Oxford edition, 520
Apostolic canons, the, 209, 219
Aquila, 30 ff., 38 ff., 53, 458, 476, 499, 508
Arabic version, 110 f.; colloquialisms in LXX., 319
Aramaic, 3, 8, 319
Arian controversy, use of LXX. in the, 470 f.
Aristarchus, 69 ff.
Aristeas, 25, 369 ff.
'Aristeas,' letter of, 2, 10 ff., 279, 371, 478; accepted as genuine in the ancient Church, 13 f.; introduction to, 533 ff.; text of, 551 ff.
Aristobulus, 1 f., 12 f., 369 ff.
Armenian version, 118 ff.
Artapanus, 369 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, 13, 88 f., 211, 223, 464
618ἀγάπη, ἀγάπησις, 456
ἀκρίβασμα, -μύς, 45
ἀλαβάρχης, ἀραβάρχης, 6
ἀλιθεια, 21, 317
ἁλληλουιά, 250 f.
ἅλυσις χρυσῆ, 362
ἀμήν, 317
ἀνάγνωσμα, ἀναγνωστής, 168, 359
ἀντιβάλλειν, 75, 77
Ἀριττάρχεια σήματα, 69
ἀρχή, 358
ἀρχιμάγειρος, ἀρχιοινοχόος, 21
ἄχει, 21
א, cod., 75, 77, 129 ff., 201, 219, 252, 352, 496
אֵת (σύν), 39, 308, 317
עַלְמָה, 30
B, cod., 126 ff., 181, 201, 219, 348 ff., 351 f., 375, 486 ff.
Baber, H., 126
Babylonian Targum, 3
Bacon, Roger, 435
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., 329 f.
Bobbio Sacramentary, 213
Bodleian Genesis, 134 f.; Psalter, 141; fragment of Bel, 146; of Ezekiel, 148
Bohairic, 106 f.
Bomberg Bible, 343
Brooke, A. E., 135, 189, 489, 507
Budge, E. A., 504
Burkitt, F. C., 34, 41, 47, 82, 93, 488 f., 499, 503 ff., 514
Burney, C. F., 502, 526
Buxtorfs, the, 436
βιβλιογράφοι, 73
βύσσος, 21
C, cod., 128 f., 490
Caesarea, 74 f., 357
Caius Psalter, 162
Cambridge editions of LXX., 188 ff., 290, 496, 510 ff.
Canon of the Hebrew O.T., 198, 216, 219 f.; non-canonical books of the Greek O.T., 265 ff.
Canticles, the book, 216, 360
Canticles, the Ecclesiastical, 141 f., 253
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
Carr, A., 522
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 LXX. 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, 47, 406 ff.; of Alexandria, 13, 369 f., 426 ff.
Cleodemus, 370
codex, 229
Coislin Octateuch, 140, 353 f.
collatio Carthageniensis, 97
Colometry, 346
Commentaries, 361, 429 ff.
Complutensian Polyglott, the, 171 ff., 486; editions based on, 173
Concordance to the LXX., the Oxford, 290, 314, 495 n.
619Constantinople, 85
Controversial use of the LXX., 470 f.
Conybeare, F. C., 31, 118 f.
'Coptic,' 105; MSS., 504
Cornill, C. H., 242, 486 f.
Corruptions of the text of LXX., early, 478 ff.
Cotton Genesis, 132 ff.
Critical text of the LXX., method of arriving at a, 491 ff.
Criticism (textual) of the O. T., how aided by LXX., 440 ff.
Crum, W. E., 504
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 Methodius, 120; C. Lucar, 125
χῖ περιεστιγμένον, 71
D, cod., 132 ff.; Δ, 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., 360
Deissmann, G. A., 21
Demetrius of Phalerum, 2, 10 f., 18 f., 293; D. the Hellenist, 17 f., 369 f.; D. Ixion, 289
'Demotic,' 105 f.
Desiderata, 289 f , 495 f.
Deuteronomy, the book, 215
Dialect of Alexandria, 289 ff.; dialects of the Egyptian versions, 105 ff.
Dialogue between Timothy and Aquila, 31 f., 216
Dieu, L., 504, 529
Dillmann, A., 109
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
Driver, S. R., 68, 234 ff., 246, 321, 335, 341, 439, 441, 481, 489
Dublin fragments of Isaiah, 144
Δ, cod., 146
Δαήλ, 480
δεκαέξ (ἑκκαίδεκα), οἱ, 216
διασπορά, 2
δίδραχμον, 21
διορθοῦν, διορθοῦσθαι, διορθωτής, 73, 75, 77
δόξα, 359
δώδεκα (δεκαδύο), οἱ, 216
δωδεκαπρόφητον, τό, 123, 205 f., 216
E, cod., 134 f.; εʹ, 53
Ebedjesu, 208 f.
Ecclesiastes, the book, 316
Ecclesiasticus, the book, 269 ff., 518
Editions of Greek O.T., 171 ff.; of particular books, 190 ff.
Egypt, early settlements of Jews in, 3f.; evangelisation of, 104 f.
Egyptian versions, the, 104 ff.; recension of LXX., 78 ff.; words in LXX., 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 ff., 310; fourth book of, 110, 285
Esther, the Greek, 20, 25, 75, 77, 229, 257 ff.
Ethiopic version, the, 109 f.
Euergetes II., 24, 270, 280
Eupolemus, 24 f., 369 f.
'European' O.L., 91
Eusebius, 64, 66, 73, 77, 125
Exegesis of LXX., 446 f., 449 f.
Exodus, book of, 215, 234 ff., 243
620
Ezekiel, the poet, 369 ff.
Ezra-Nehemiah, 25, 220, 265 ff.
ἑβδόμη ἑρμηνεία, ἡ, 55, 82, 85
Ἐβραῖος, ὁ, 56
εἰκοσιδύο, τά, 281
εἵν, 19
ἑκκαιδεκαπρόφητον, τό, 123, 216
ἐκκλησία, 317, 456
ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἔκδοσις, 80
ἐκλογαί, 361
ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος, ἡ, 294
ἐναλλάττειν, 55
ἐνδιάθηκα, τά, 281
Ἐξαγωγή, ἡ, 215
ἑξαπλᾶ, 66
ἐξηγήσεις ἐρανισθεῖσαι, 361
ἔξω, τά, 281
ἐπικατασκευάζειν, 65
Ἐπινομίς, ἡ, 215
ἐπιτομαὶ ἑρμηνειῶν, 361
εὐαγγέλιον, 456
Εὐσεβίου, τό, 77
F, cod., 135 f., 348 f.
Fathers, the Christian, influence of LXX. upon, 462 ff., 464 ff.; their estimate of the LXX., 42 ff.
Fayûm, the, 7, 291
Festival in commemoration of the completion of the LXX., 13
Field, F., 41, 46, 82 f., 458, 500 ff.
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, cod., 72 f., 78, 137 f.; , 234, 485 ff.; Γ, 146
Genesis, the book, 215, 234, 243
Genizah, the Cairo, 34
Georgian version, the, 120
Ginsburg, C. D., 431
Gothic version, the, 117 f.
Grabe, J. E., 125 f., 183 ff.; editions based on his text, 184
Graeco-Latin MSS., 141 f.
Graecus Venetus, 56 ff.
Grammar of LXX., proposed, 290
Grätz, E., 17
Greek Fathers, list of the, 430 ff.
Greek, modern, affinity of LXX. Greek to, 309
Greek of LXX., 9, 20 f., 289 ff., 452 ff.; of the Ptolemaic papyri, 21, 296 f.
Greek spoken in the West, 87
Greek versions of the O.T.: before LXX., 1 f.; the LXX., 9 ff.; of cent. ii. A.D., 30 ff., 457 ff.; mediaeval, 56 ff., 58
Gregory of Nazianzus, 205; the Great, 103
Grinfield, 15, 27
Grosseteste, Robert, 435
Grotta Ferrata palimpsest of the Prophets, 146
Grouping of books, 198 ff., 216 ff.; internal order of groups, 226 ff.
Gwynn, J., 48, 50
Γ, cod., 146
γειώρας, 19
גּוֹלָה, 3
H, cod., 138 f.
Hadrian, 31 f.
Haggada, 327 f.
Hagiographa, date of the Greek, 24 f.; distribution in the Greek Bible, 218, 228 f.; inferior position assigned to, 318
Halacha, 327
Haphtaroth, 343
Harding, Stephen, 435
Harris, J. R., 146 f., 274, 282, 345 ff., 411
Hart, J. H. A., 498, 518
Hatch, E., 256, 328, 406 ff., 428 f., 452, 455 ff., 460
Headings to chapters, 353 ff.
Hebraica veritas, 68, 86, 435
'Hebraisms,' 521 ff.
Hebrew Bible, editio princeps of the, 435 f.
Hebrew MSS. of the LXX., 22, 319 ff.; H. column of the Hexapla, 62165, 67; mediaeval H. scholars, 435; revival of Hebrew learning, 435 f.; text, history of the official Hebrew, 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
Heptastadion, the, 11
Heptateuchus, 227
Hermas, 47, 411
Hesychius, 78 ff.; Hesychian text, 80, 107 ff., 144 f., 150 ff., 482, 486
Hexapla, 61 ff., 64 ff., 74 ff., 113 f., 482 f., 500 ff.; Hexaplaric recension, 67 ff., 76 ff., 481 ff.; Hexaplaric texts, 78, 108 ff., 111, 112 ff., 119, 138, 140, 148 ff., 482; Jerome's Hexaplaric Latin version, 100 ff.
Hilary of Poitiers, 210, 471
Hippolytus, 277, 424 ff.
Hody, H., 15
Holmes, R., 185 ff., Holmes and Parsons, 122 f., 185 ff., 511, 513
Hort, F. J. A., 81, 91 f., 189, 257 f., 300, 486 ff., 491
Howorth, H., 267, 517
Hunt, A. S., 507
hypolemniscus, 71 f.
Hyvernat, H., 106, 111
ה local, 324
I, cod., 141, 353
Jacob of Edessa, 116
Jamnia, 320, 439 f.
Jashar, book of, 246
Jebb, R. C., 294, 309
Jeremiah, book of, 241 ff., 259 f.; Ep. of, 274 f.
Jerome, 9, 14, 23, 34, 40, 64, 74, 76 f., 78 f., 89, 98 ff., 273, 277, 435, 464, 500, 502
Jews in Egypt, 3 ff.; bilingual, 8; their loyalty to Jerusalem, 7, 22; Jewish order of O.T. Canon, 200, 231; Jews wrongly charged with corrupting text of LXX., 424, 479
Ignatius, 413 f.
Infinitive of purpose, 306
Innocent I., 211
Inspiration claimed for LXX., 14, 462 f.
Interpolations in text of LXX., 423 f.
Interpretation of O.T., 326 f.; use of LXX. for the, 445 ff.; patristic int. based on LXX., 463 ff., 470
Job, book of, 43 f., 69, 100 f., 108, 228, 255 ff., 318, 337, 480
John of Damascus, 207 f.
Josephus, 12 f., 26, 217, 220, 279 f., 298 f., 376 ff.
Joshua ben Chananya, R., 32, 440
Irenaeus, 9, 30, 42, 49, 414 ff.; I. (Minutius Pacatus), 289
Isidorus, 212
Jubilees, book of, 110, 285
Judges, book of, 215 ff., 316, 333 f., 488f.
Judith, book of, 103, 222 ff., 229, 272 f.
Junilius, 207
Justin, 30, 47, 417 ff., 464, 479
Justinian, 33
ἶβις, 21
ἰδιόγραφος (ψαλμός), 125, 252 f.
ἱστορικόν, τό, 205
K, cod., 139, 349, 354 f.
Kaisariyeh, 75
Kennedy, H. A. A., 88, 289 ff., 296, 452 f.
Kenyon, F. G., 73 f., 130, 225, 487, 500, 528
Kimchi, D., 57
Kingdoms, books of, 214 ff.; 1 K., 241 f.; 3 K., 237 ff., 246 ff.; 4 K., 249
Kirkpatrick, A. F., 318 ff., 441
Klostermann, E., 58, 132, 353
καθίσματα, 359
622καλλιγράφοι, 73
κανόνες (ψαλμῶν), 125, 359
κερέαι, 320
κιβωτοί, κισταί, 225, 229
Κινώθ, 199
κοινή, ἡ, διάλβκτος, 294, 525; ἔ κδοσις, 68 f., 80, 82, 481, 493
κόμματα, 64, 344 ff.
κόνδυ, 21
κῶλα, 64 f., 344 ff.
כְּתוּבִים, 24
L, cod., 139
Lagarde, P. de, 109, 118 f., 121, 188, 206, 255, 442, 483 ff., 494, 502
Lake, K., 502, 505
Lamentations, book of, 226 ff., 259, 360
Langton, Stephen (Archbp), 343
Laodicene canons, 209, 219, 282
Latin versions, 88 ff., 493
Lections, lectionaries, 168 ff., 343, 356 ff.
Lee, F., 183
Leipzig fragments of Octateuch, 139
lemniscus, 71 f.
Leontius, 207 f., 218
Leontopolis, 8
Lexicography, 290, 302 if., 310; lexicon of LXX., proposed, 290
Libraries of Alexandria, 10 f., 16 ff., 22 f., 293
Library of Pamphilus, 75
Lietzmann, H., 501, 513
Lightfoot, J. B. (Bp), 105
Literature, 10, 27 f., 53, 76, 103 f., l08, 111, 117, 119 f., 121, 170, 194, 230, 262 ff., 285 ff., 314, 340 f., 365 f., 379 f., 404 f., 432, 438, 461, 477, 496 f.
Liturgical notes in titles of the Psalms, 250 f.
Liturgies, the ancient, use of the LXX. in, 471 ff.
London papyrus fragments of Psalter, 142 f.
Lucian, 80 ff., 85, 395 f., 483 ff.; Lucianic texts, 82 ff., 93, 116 ff., 121, 148 ff., 379, 395, 403, 482, 486
Ludovicus de Vives, 15
Lyra, Nicolaus de, 435
Λουκιανός, 80, 365
M, cod., 78, 140 f., 352 ff.; , 234
Maccabees, books of, 25, 276 ff., 312 f., 372
Macedonian words, 291 f.
magna est veritas, 266
Mahaffy, J. P., 5 ff., 21 ff., 279 f., 292
Malchas, 370
Malchion, 81
Manasseh, Prayer of, 253 f.
Manetho, 17
Marchalianus, cod., 77, 8o, 108, 144 f.
Margoliouth, D. S., 518
Martini, Raymundus, 435
Masius, Andreas, 113
Massora, Massoretic text, 234 ff., 322, 434 ff., 438 ff.; non-Massoretic text pre-supposed by LXX., 442 ff.
Materials at the disposal of the critical editor, 491 f.
McLean, N., 110, 119, 135, 189, 191, 489
Melito, 203, 221
Mercati, G., 62, 500 f.
Mesrop, 118, 120
Metaphors in LXX., 329
Methodius and Cyril, 120 f.
Methurgeman, 3, 20
metobelus, 70 ff.
Minutius Pacatus, 289
Moabite stone, the, 320 f.
Mommsen, Th., 5, 8, 212 f., 347
Montfaucon, B. de, 136
Morinus, J., 182, 436; P., 181 f.
Moses, Plato supposed to be indebted to, 1
Moses bar-Cephas, III; M. of Khoren, 118, 120
Mozley, F. W., 518
MSS. of LXX., uncial, 124 ff.; 623cursive, 148 ff.; notation of, 122 ff.; grouping of books in, 123; distribution of, 123 f.; displacements in, 131, 271; recensions in, 78, 80, 82 f., 482
Muratorian Fragment, 268
Museum, the Alexandrian, 16 f., 293
Μαλλαβαϊκά, τά, 222, 226 ff.; Μακκαβαῖος, 276
Μωσαϊκά, τά, 206
N, cod., 131 f., 202
Nathan, R. Isaac, 343
Nestle, E., 112, 127, 133, 169, 181, 187 f., 274, 319, 331, 410, 499
New Testament, the: use of LXX., 26, 381 ff.; tables of quotations from LXX., 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 LXX., 452 ff.
Nicephorus, stichometry of, 208 f., 346 ff.; catena of, 186, 362 f.
Nicomedia, 85
Nicopolis, 54 f.
Notation of MSS., 122 f.
Notes at end of Job, 256 f.
Number of books in O.T. canon, 219 ff.
Numerals confused, 321
Ναυή, Nave, 480
נְבִאִים, 217
0, cod., 144
obelus, 70 ff.
Octapla, the, 66 f.
'Odes,' the nine, 254
Oesterley, W. O. E., 507, 508
Old Latin version, the, 88 ff., 493
Olophernes, 272
Onkelos, 32
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.
Origen, 30, 34, 46 f., 49, 53 f., 59 ff., 77, 203, 222, 242, 356 f., 429 f., 435, 464, 480, 500 f.
Orthography of LXX., 300 ff.
Oxyrhynchus papyri, 508 f.
ὀκταπλᾶ, 66
ὀκτασέλιδνν, τό, 66
ὀκτάτευχος, ἡ, 123
ὁράσεις (in Isaiah and Daniel), 360
ᾠδαί, 123, 253 f.
Ὠριγένης, , 72, 77, 365
P, 124, 164
Pachymius, 79
Pagnini, S., 343
Palaeography, Hebr., 32of.; Greek, 364
Palestinian Syriac version, 114 f.
Palimpsest MSS., 34 ff., 128 f., 138 f.; 145 ff.
Palladius, 50
Pamphilus, 74 f., 76 f.
Papyrus MSS., 142, 146, 225, 229, 507 f., 521, 523 ff.; 'transition to vellum,' effect of, 229 f.
Parashahs, 342 f.
Paris uncial Psalter, 143
Parsons, J., 185 f.
Passages in LXX. discussed, 330 ff.
Patristic quotations, 406 ff.; texts, editions of, 406, 492; commentaries, 430 ff.
Paul of Tella, 112 f.
Pauline Epistles, quotations in, 389 ff., 400 ff.
Pearson, J. (Bp), 457, 477
Pentapla, 67
Pentateuch, Greek, the original LXX., 23; Samaritan, 436 ff.
Peshitta, the, 112, 116
Pesukin, 342
Peter, Gospel of, 50
Petersburg, St, palimpsest of Numbers, 138
Pharisaic influence in LXX., 17, 281, 283
Pharos, 11
624Philadelphus, 10 f., 16f., 293
Phileas of Thmuis, 79
Philo, 12 f., 25 f., 268, 298, 372 ff., 478 f.; the poet, 369
Philometor, 7, 17, 25
Philopator, 279
Philostorgius, 117
Philoxenus of Mabug, 115; Philoxenian version, 115 f.
Phrynichus, 296 f.
Pius V., 99
Points, the Hebrew, 321 f.
Polycarp of Smyrna, 414; the chorepiscopus, 115
Polyhistor, 369
Printed editions of LXX., 171 ff.
Prologue to Sirach, the, 24, 300, 319
Procksch, O., 529
Proper names, 304, 313, 449 f.
Proverbs, book of, 24o ff., 255, 366 f.
Psalms, 25, 98 ff., 191 f., 239 f., 250 ff., 316, 336, 358 f., 447 f.; titles of the, 25o f., 447 f.; books of the Psalter, 254 f.; Psalms of Solomon, 282 f.; Jerome's versions of the Psalms, 98 f.
Psalter of English Prayer-book, 99
Psalterium Romanum, Gallicanum, Hebraicum, 98 ff.
Pseudepigrapha, 265, 281 f., 519; Oxford edition, 521
Pseudo-Aristeas, see 'Aristeas'; Pseudo-Athanasius, 82, 85, 207, 282; Pseudo-Chrysostom, 205; Pseudo-Clement, 411; Pseudo-Gelasius, 211 f., 282
Ptolemies, list of the early, 5 f.
'Ptolemy and Cleopatra,' 25, 258
Π, Cod., 141
Παλαιστιναῖον, τό, 77
Πανάρετος, ἡ, 208
παραγραφαί, 361
παραινετικά, τ ά, 208
Παρλειπόμενα, 214, 216
παρθένος (in
πάσχα, φάσεκ, 317
περικοπή, 358
πεντασέλιδον, τό, 67
πεντάτευχος, ἡ, 123, 204 ff.
ΙΠΙΠ () 39 f.
προσευχὴ Ἀζαρίου, 253, 260; προσευχὴ Μαννασσή, 253 f.
προσήλυτος, ὁ (הַגֵּר), 32
προφητικόν, τό, 205; προφητικά, τά, 208
Πτολεμαϊκά, τά, 279, 519
φρουραί, 258
ψαλμὸς ἰδιόγραφος, 125, 141, 252 f.
פַּרְשִׁיּוֹת ,פְּסוּקִים, 342 f.
Q, cod., 66, 75, 77, 80, 108, 144 f., 348
Quinta, the, 53 ff., 66 f.
Quotations from LXX. by Jewish Hellenists, 369 ff.; in N.T., 381 ff.; in early Christian literature, 406 ff.
R, cod., 141 f., 495
Rahlfs, A., 135, 502, 507, 527 ff.
Recensions of the LXX., 76 ff., 85 f., 481 f.
Redpath, H. A., 135, 141, 147, 290, 495
Reuchlin, J., 436
Robinson, F., 105
'Rock,' metaphor of, 526
Roman edition of LXX., 174 ff., 486; editions based on, 182
Ruffinus, 210, 223
Ryle, H. E., 25 f., 215, 275, 283, 342, 374, 404
S (= א), 75, 77, 129 ff., 201, 219, 252, 352, 490; , , 364; ςʹ, 53
Sabatier, P., 92
Sahidic, 106 ff., 504
Samaritans in Egypt, 6, 437 ff., 441 f.; Samaritan Pentateuch, 436 ff.
Sanday, W., 218 ff., 360
Sanders, H. A., 506
Schürer, E., 499
scriptio defectiva, 321
625Scrivener, F. H. A., 189
Selah, 449
Semitic words in LXX., 19, 306 ff.; Semitic idioms, 323 ff.
'Septima,' the, 53 ff.
'Septuagint,' the name, 9f.; early history of the version, 9 ff.; a collection of versions, 315 f.; was there any version anterior to it? 2; Origen labours upon it, 59 ff.; 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 ff.; use by pagan writers, 22; by Hellenists, 29 f., 369 ff.; in the N.T., 381 ff.; in the Fathers, 406 ff.; influence on Latin Vulgate, 103; its importance to students, 433 ff.; relation to Q'ri, 445; corruptions in text of, 478 ff.; textual problems, 480 ff.; reconstruction of the text, 492 ff.
Sequence, Hebrew and Greek, tables of, 231 ff.; discussion of, 234 ff.
Serapeion library, 16
Seventy-two, the number, 15
'Sexta,' the, 53 ff.
Shashanq (Shishak), 3f.
Sibyllines, the, 372, 380
Siloam inscription, the, 321
Sinaitic MS., the, 129 ff., 490, 505
Sinker, R., 315
Sirach, 269 ff., 372; prologue to, 20, 24, 300, 319; the Hebrew, 270 ff.; disturbed order of the Greek, 271 f.; literature, 286
Sixtine edition, 174 ff., 486; editions based on, 182
Sixtus V, 174 ff.; his letter, 180
'Sixty books,' the, 209 ff., 220, 281 f.
Slavonic version, the, 120 f.
Smith, H. P., 340, 441; W. R., 30 f., 246, 440
Solomon, Psalms of, 282 f., 288; Wisdom of, 267 ff., 285, 311 f.; Odes of, 519
Soter, 6, 19, 293
Speculum, the, 97, 100
Stephen, R., 343
Stichometry, 344 ff.; of Latin MSS., 360 f.; of Coptic MSS., ib.
Stoicism of 4 Macc., 280
Streane, A. W., 259
Susanna, 260 f.
Symmachus, 30, 49 ff., 52 ff., 458 f., 476, 483
Synagogue use of LXX., 29 f.
Synopsis, pseudo-Athanasian, 31, 82, 205; pseudo-Chrysostom's, 207; Lagarde's, 206
Synoptic Gospels, quotations in, 386 ff., 391 ff.
Syntax of O.T. Greek, 305
Syriac versions, 111 ff.
Syro-Hexaplar, 77, 112 ff., 356, 493 f.
σάββατα, 19
σαρβὴθ σαβανὲ ἔλ, 277
Σεγρί, 411
σειρά, 361
Σειράχ, 269
σελίς, 64
σκολιογραφεῖν, 75
Σουσάννα, Σωσάννα, 260
Σοφία, ἡ, 268
στάσεις, 142, 359
στιχηρά, τά, 219
στίχος, 344 ff.
συλλουκιανισταί, 85
συμβουλευτικόν, τό, 205, 219
σύν = אֵת acc., 39, 308, 317
σύνοψισ ἐν ἐπιτόμῳ, 206
Σύρος, 56, 116
σχῖνος, 261
סִירָא, 269
סֶלָה, 449
T, cod., 142, 495; θʹ, θεʹ, 364
Talmud, Aquila, quoted in the, 33
Targum, the Babylonian, 3
Taylor, C., 33, 41, 67, 271, 286, 527
Tertullian, 9, 284, 351
Tetragrammaton, the, 39 f., 320, 327
626Tetrapla, the, 65 ff., 73, 113 f.
Text-division, systems of, 342 ff.
Thackeray, H. St J., 131, 267, 498 f., 509, 513 ff., 526, 528
Thecla the martyr, 125
Theodorus (Egyptian Bishop), 79; Theodore of Mopsuestia, 112, 115, 316, 432
Theodotion, 30, 42 ff., 45 f., 260 ff., 339 ff., 395 ff., 403, 417, 421 ff., 458 f., 483, 499
Theodotus, 369 f.
Thomas of Harkel, 112 f.
Thompson, Sir H., 503 f.
Timothy and Aquila, dialogue between, 31 f., 206
Tischendorf, A. F. C. von, 129 ff., 135, 138 f., 140 ff., 187 f.
Tisserant, E., 506
Titles of Psalms, 250 f., 447 ff.; of chapters, 354 ff.; of books, 198 f., 214 ff.
Tobit, book of, 273 f.
Transliteration, 46, 67, 324 f., 526
trifaria varietas, 86
Turin Prophets, 145, 508
Tyconius, 97
Θεγρί, 411
ταχυγράφοι, 73
τέλος, 358
τέσσαρες, οἱ, 123
τετραβασίλειον, τό, 206
τίτλοι, 354 ff.
τομοι (in Isaiah), 360
תּוֹרָה, 221
תִּקּוּן סוֹפְרִים, 434
V, cod., 132, 202, 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), 132
Verona Psalter, 141 f.
Versions of the LXX., 87 ff., 493 f.
Versions of the O.T. (Greek) later than LXX., 29 ff.; their importance, 457 ff., 476
versus, 344
Vienna Genesis, 139, 185
Vives, L. de, 15
Ulfilas, 117
Uncial MSS. of LXX., 124 ff., 146 ff., 201 f.
Votaw, C. W., 306
vulgata editio, 68
Vulgate, Latin, 103, 474 ff., 476
ὕμνος τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, 261
W, cod., 143
Walton's Polyglott, 182
Washington codex (Θ), 506
Wendland, P., 498, 519
Westcott, B. F. (Bp), 60, 131, 252, 278, 402
Wigan, W., 183
Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach, 269 f., 286
Wisdom of Solomon, 267 ff., 285, 311, 371 f.
Wulfila, 117
X, cod., 143
Xenophon, Greek of, 294
Ximenes de Cisneros, F., 171 ff.
Y, cod., 145
Yebna, 439
Young, P., 183
Z, cod., 140 f., 144 f.; ζʹ, 53
Zugninensis, cod., 505
Zurich Psalter, 142
Indexes
Index of Scripture References
Genesis
1 1 1 1 1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-5 1:1-5 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:6 1:7 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:9 1:10 1:13 1:13 1:13 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:15 1:19 1:20 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:30 2 2:1 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:4 2:5 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:8 2:16 2:23 2:23 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:24 3:4 3:8 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:17 3:20 3:22 3:30 4 4:1 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:3 4:4 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:9 4:10 4:10 4:21 4:21 4:24 5:2 5:3-30 5:4-13 5:24 5:24 5:29-6:2 6:2 6:2 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:4 6:5 6:7 6:14 6:14 6:16 6:19 7:19 8:7 8:21 8:21 9:5 9:24-27 9:25 9:25 9:27 10:4 10:13-18 10:22-29 11:1 11:4 11:6 11:9 12 12:1 12:1 12:1 12:1 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:9 12:9 12:17 13:14 13:14 13:27 14 14 14:13 14:14 14:14 14:14 14:17 14:17 14:18 14:22 14:23 15:1 15:1-6 15:1-6 15:4 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:6 15:6 15:6 15:6 15:6 15:8 15:9 15:11 15:13 15:13 15:15 15:18 15:18 16:8-12 16:9 16:14 17:1 17:1 17:4 17:5 17:5 17:9 17:14 17:23 18:2 18:10 18:10 18:12 18:13 18:14 18:24 18:24-26 18:25 18:25 18:31 19:1 19:3 19:11 19:19 19:23-25 19:24 19:27 19:31 21 21 21:6 21:10 21:10 21:12 21:12 21:12 22 22:1 22:1 22:2 22:2 22:16 22:16 22:18 22:18 23:4 23:15 23:16 23:17 23:19 23:19 24 24:10 24:13 24:20 24:62 25 25:6 25:9 25:17 25:19-22 25:20 25:20 25:21 25:23 25:23 25:25 25:27 25:27 25:32 26 26:3 26:4 26:4 26:18 26:34 27:10-19 27:11 27:13 27:14 27:15 27:18 27:19 27:27 27:30 27:40 27:46 28:10-19 28:12 28:13 28:13 28:19 29:9 30:1 30:10 30:11 31:10-13 31:13 31:15 31:21 31:29 31:31 31:42-46 31:45 31:46 31:46 31:46 31:47 31:48 31:48 31:48-50 31:48-54 31:50 31:51-54 31:53 32:22-30 32:22-30 32:23 32:24 32:26 32:28 32:29 32:30 34:10 34:14 35:6 35:6-10 35:11 35:16 35:16 36:1 36:2 36:32-35 36:33 37 37:3 37:3 37:4 37:9 37:24 37:27 38:8 38:9 38:14 39:1 40:3 40:3 40:4 40:4 40:7 40:7 40:17 41:2 41:13 41:19 41:34 41:43 41:45 41:45 41:56 42:28 43:15 43:16 44:2 44:13 44:24 45:16 46:28 46:28 46:28 47:31 47:31 47:31 47:31 48:9-11 48:14 48:14 48:14 49:3-27 49:6 49:8 49:8 49:8 49:8-12 49:9 49:10 49:10 49:10 49:10 49:10 49:10 49:10 49:10 49:10 49:12 49:18 49:19 49:19 49:19 49:19 49:20 49:30 50:13
Exodus
1 1:1 1:1 1:5 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:12 1:13 1:16 2 2:2-4 2:4 2:5 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:15 2:23 3:2-4 3:3 3:5 3:6 3:6-8 3:7 3:7 3:8 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:19 4:9 4:10 4:10 4:16 4:21 5:7 5:9 5:13 5:13 5:22 6:2-4 6:12 6:12 6:16 8:8 8:17 8:21 8:22 9:3 9:7 9:15 9:16 9:16 9:24 10:13 12 12:7 12:8 12:22 12:23 12:37 12:40 12:43 12:46 12:46 13:2 13:9 13:12 13:12 13:16 13:21 14:6 14:13 14:25 15 15 15:1 15:1 15:1 15:3 15:9 15:14 15:17 15:17 15:27 16:4 16:4 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:18 16:18 16:23 16:24 16:36 16:36 17:6 17:11 17:14 17:15 17:15 17:16 17:16 18 18:11 19:1 19:1 19:1 19:2 19:2 19:5 19:5 19:5 19:5 19:6 19:6 19:12 19:13 19:16 19:16-24 19:22 20:3 20:5 20:5 20:8 20:12 20:12 20:12 20:12-17 20:12-17 20:13 20:13 20:13 20:13 20:13 20:13 20:13-15 20:14 20:14 20:14 20:14 20:15 20:17 20:22 20:23 21:6 21:16 21:17 21:24 21:24 22:1-27 22:7 22:28 23:2 23:20 23:20 23:20 23:22 23:28 23:30 24:8 24:8 24:10 24:10 24:11 24:18 25 25 25 25:22 25:29 25:40 25:40 25:40 25:40 26:16 27:21 28:4 28:15 28:15-23 28:17 28:27-31 28:30 28:32 28:35 28:39 29 29:9 29:22-26 30:1 30:6 31 31:7 31:13 31:13 31:14 31:18 32:1 32:6 32:6 32:6 32:7 32:7 32:8 32:21-24 32:23 32:32 32:32 33:1 33:1-3 33:2 33:8 33:19 33:19 33:19 33:20 33:21 34 34:6 34:13 35 35:8 36:4 36:8 36:8-19 36:8-34 36:9-12 36:13-4 36:15-29 36:20-34 36:30-34 36:35 36:35-37 36:35-38 36:38-40 37:1-2 37:1-9 37:3-6 37:7-18 37:10-16 37:17-24 37:19 37:25-28 37:25-29 38:1-7 38:1-8 38:8 38:9-12 38:9-20 38:13-17 38:17 38:22-24 38:25-26 39:1-5 39:3 39:6-7 39:8-21 39:18 39:18 39:27-29 39:30-31 39:36 40:6-8 40:11 40:26-32 40:29
Leviticus
1:1 1:1 1:3 3:17 4:5 4:5 4:23 4:27-29 6:2 7:2 7:3 8:6 8:7 8:16 11 11 11:3 11:3 11:5 11:17 11:22 11:29 11:29 11:35 11:44 12 12:6 12:8 13:31 13:59 14:20 16:4 16:7 16:8 18:1 18:3 18:4 18:5 18:5 18:5 18:5 18:30 19:2 19:7 19:13 19:15 19:18 19:18 19:18 19:18 19:18 19:18 19:20 19:23 19:23 19:40 20:7 20:26 21:10 22:2 22:3 22:3-23:22 23:3 23:11 23:11 23:29 24:7 24:7 24:11 26:11 26:40 28:20 1909
Numbers
1 1:1 1:2 1:5-15 1:24 3:24 3:34 4:19 4:20 4:46 5:2 5:15 5:17 5:26 6:22 7:15 9:10 9:12 9:12 11:2 11:9 11:21 11:23 11:29 11:34-12:1 12:8 13:1 13:8 13:23 15 15:4 15:14 16:5 16:5 16:5 16:15 16:22 17 18:20 21:1 21:8 21:11 21:11 21:13 21:17 21:20 22:6 22:19 23:7-10 23:8 23:9 23:14 23:19 23:19 23:21 24:7 24:9 24:17 24:17 24:17 24:17 24:17 24:20 24:21 24:23 24:24 24:24 25:8 26 26:15 27:12 27:21 30:2 30:3 32:29 32:29 32:30 33:10 33:44 35:2 35:33 140
Deuteronomy
1 1:1 1:3-5 1:17 1:17 1:22 2:8 2:23 2:35 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:8-10 3:12 3:13 3:27 4:1-23 4:2 4:10 4:11 4:14 4:14 4:19 4:35 4:35 4:37 4:40 4:40 4:45 4:49 5:2 5:8 5:16 5:16 5:16 5:17 5:22 5:22 5:30 6:1-9 6:4 6:4 6:4 6:4 6:7 6:10 6:13 6:13 6:16 6:16 6:18 7:13 7:16 7:16 7:18 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:15 8:18 8:18 8:19 9:5 9:12 9:12 9:13 9:19 9:28 10:12 10:16 10:16 10:16 10:16 10:16 10:16 10:16 10:21 11:4-34:12 11:7 11:9 11:18 11:21 11:30 12:8 12:32 14 14:3-19 14:6 14:12 14:16 14:17 14:18 14:20 14:23 16:9 16:15 16:16 17:14-20 17:18 17:20 18:1 18:15 18:15 18:18 18:18 19 19:14 19:15 19:21 20:19 21:8 21:16 21:23 21:23 21:23 22:29 23:21 24:1 24:1 25:4 25:4 25:4 25:5 25:11 26:2 26:5 27:15 27:26 27:26 27:26 28 28:25 28:25 28:42 28:66 28:66 28:66 29:4 29:4 29:4 29:18 29:18 29:18 30:4 30:4 30:11-14 30:16 30:19 30:29 31:2 31:6 31:6 31:8 31:8 31:16-18 31:18 31:18 32:1 32:1 32:1 32:1 32:3-6 32:3-10 32:4 32:4 32:5 32:5 32:6 32:6 32:7 32:7-9 32:8 32:8 32:8 32:8 32:8 32:8 32:8-10 32:10 32:15 32:15 32:15 32:16 32:16 32:16-23 32:18 32:20 32:20 32:21 32:21 32:21 32:22 32:22 32:23 32:24 32:27 32:30 32:31 32:34 32:34 32:34 32:35 32:35 32:36 32:36 32:37 32:39 32:41 32:42 32:43 32:43 32:43 32:43 32:43 32:47 33:8 33:9 33:12 33:13 33:13-17 33:13-17 33:14 33:15 33:16 33:16 33:17 33:22 33:29 34:28 1911
Joshua
1:1 1:5 3:3 3:15 4:10 4:23-5:1 4:24 5:2 5:2 5:3 5:3 5:7 5:13 5:13-6:2 5:13-6:2 5:14 5:15 6:1 6:2 9:1 9:2 9:2 9:3 9:5 9:33 10:10 10:12 10:12-14 10:13 10:39 10:42 11 11:10-14 14:12 15 15:15 15:59 15:59 19:41-46 19:47-48 19:47-48 19:50 19:51 20:4-6 21:36 21:36-37 21:36-37 21:37 21:42 21:42 21:42 22:29 22:34 24:27 24:30 24:30-33 24:31 29:33 29:33
Judges
1:1 1:19 1:35 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:11 2:13 2:34 3:7 3:14 3:16 4:11 5:15 5:16 5:28-30 6:2 6:3 6:18 8:3 8:7 8:13 9:13 9:26 9:48 10 11:24 12:6 14 14:15 14:20 15 15:14 15:19 15:19 16:13 18:2 18:30 19:18 19:22 20:24
Ruth
1:4 2:2 2:9 2:9 2:14 2:14 2:19 2:22 3:1 3:9
1 Samuel
1:24 1:28 2 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:10 2:10 2:33 3:13 3:21 4:1 4:3 4:7 5:6 6:4 6:19 9:25 10:21 12:3 12:8 14:18 14:41 14:42 15:23 20:19 20:41 23:11-12
2 Samuel
1 Kings
1 1:1 1:1 1:2 1:5 1:8 1:9 1:14 1:20 1:24 1:26 1:26 2:6 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:14 2:29 3:6 3:14 4:10 4:17 4:21 5:6 6:11 6:15 6:20 7:4 9:22 9:24 10:5 10:14 10:22 10:23-33 11:3-8 11:29 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:3 12:8 12:24 13:14 13:20 13:21 14:1-20 14:25 15:20 15:22 15:22 16:7 16:11 16:12 16:14 16:26 16:43 16:51 17 17 17:1 17:12-31 17:36 17:37-43 17:38 17:40 17:41 17:43 17:47 17:50 17:55-18:5 18 18:10-11 18:17-19 18:22-28 18:30 19:13 20 20:9-17 20:10 20:10 20:12 20:30 21 21:4 21:6 21:7 22:9 22:40-52 22:41-44 22:47-50 23:14 27:10 29:6 31:10
2 Kings
1:2 1:18 1:19 1:21 2:2 3:1-3 3:39 4:6 4:10 5:24 6:5 7:8 7:12 7:14 7:14 7:14-16 8:5 8:7 10:4 10:14 11:27 12:21 12:31 13:18 16:2 16:9 16:10 17:6 19:25 19:42 20:6 20:20 22:2 22:2-6 22:3 22:3 22:16 22:32 22:50 23 23 23:3 23:12-27 23:15 23:19 23:21 23:21 23:24 23:24-27 23:31-33 24:1-4 24:13 24:14 24:15 25:11 25:20 25:21 26:20
1 Chronicles
1:17-23 1:20-16 1:44 1:51 2 6:20 6:50-9:27 9:27 11:22 11:22-19:17 14:14 19:17 21:1 21:12 21:15 83
2 Chronicles
1 1:3 2:8 2:8 2:12 3:1 3:1-2 4:11 6:2 9:10 9:10 12:2 19:2 20:37 29:26 33:18 33:18 33:19 35:1-36:21 35:10 35:18 35:19 36:2 36:5
Ezra
1 1 2 2:1-4:5 4:7-24 4:7-24 5 6 7:1-10:44
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
1:1 1:6 1:6 1:15-21 2:1 2:9 2:11 2:12 3:3 4:16 4:21 5:13 5:17 5:17 5:17-26 5:23 5:24-6:9 6:5 6:28 9:9 9:9 11:2 12:22 13:16 14:12 16:1 18:20 19 19:18 19:26 20:9 21:27 24:18 26:5 26:14 27:12 28:21 29:1 29:15 30:8 30:11 30:13 30:15 30:30 33:31 38:11 38:26 38:31 40:14 40:14 42:14 42:17 42:17 42:17 43:17
Psalms
1 1 1 1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:3 1:3-6 1:4 1:5 2 2:1 2:1 2:4 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:8 2:12 2:12 2:12 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:6 4 4 4 4 4:3 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:7 5 5 5 5 5:10 5:10 6 6 6:6 7 7 7:6 7:11 7:12 8 8:2 8:2 8:3 8:3 8:5-7 8:5-7 8:6 9 9 9 9 9:1 9:1 9:9 9:17 9:17 9:17 9:28 10 10 10:4 10:7 11 11 11:5 12:7 13 13:1-3 13:1-3 13:2 13:3 13:3 13:3 13:3 14 15 15:8-11 15:8-11 15:9 15:9 15:10 16 16 16:2 16:8 16:9 17 17 17:2 17:3 17:3-6 17:16 17:26 17:32 17:35 17:44 17:45 17:45 17:50 17:50 18 18 18:2 18:2 18:3 18:3 18:5 18:5 18:7 18:7 18:14 19:7 19:7 20:5 20:10 21 21 21:1 21:1-14 21:1-24 21:2 21:2 21:4 21:7 21:7 21:7 21:7 21:7 21:8 21:8 21:8 21:9 21:9 21:11 21:12 21:14 21:15 21:16 21:17 21:17 21:17 21:17 21:17 21:17 21:19 21:19 21:19 21:21 21:23 21:23 21:23 21:30 21:31 22 22:4 22:4 22:16 23 23:1 23:1 23:1 23:1 23:4 23:10 24 25:6 25:11 26 26 27:7 27:9 27:13 28 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 30:3 30:5 30:6 30:9 31 31:1 31:1 31:1 31:1 31:1 31:2 31:10 32 32:6 32:6 32:9 32:9 33 33:7 33:12 33:12 33:12 33:12-17 33:12-20 33:13 33:13 33:13 33:13-17 33:14 33:14 33:17 33:19 33:20 33:21 34:2 34:8 34:9 34:19 34:19 35 35:1 35:2 36 36:7 36:11 36:35 36:35 36:36 36:38 37 37 37 38 38 38:14 39 39 39:7 39:7 39:7 39:7-9 39:7-9 40:10 40:10 40:26 41 41 41:3 41:3 42 42:3 42:5 42:12 43 43:5 43:16 43:22 43:23 43:24 44 44 44 44:1 44:3 44:7 44:7 44:7 44:7 44:17 45 45 45:3 46 46:1-3 46:1-3 46:6-9 47 47 48 48:5 48:13 48:13 48:21 48:21 48:23 49 49 49:1 49:1 49:3 49:3 49:4 49:6 49:7 49:9 49:10 49:10 49:11 49:14 49:15 49:16 49:16 49:19 49:19 49:21 49:21 49:22 49:22 49:23 49:23 50 50:3 50:6 50:6 50:12 50:14 50:14 50:14 50:14 50:17 50:18 50:19 51 51 51 51 51:3 52 52:1-3 52:2-3 53 53 54 54:20 54:23 54:23 55 55 55:1 56:6 57:4 58:6 59 60 60:2 60:3 61 61:5 61:6 62:6 63 65 65 66 66 67 67 67:12-14 67:18-22 67:19 67:19 67:26 68 68:1 68:3 68:4 68:5 68:6 68:8 68:10 68:10 68:10 68:10 68:13 68:14 68:19 68:23 68:23 68:26 68:26 68:27 68:30-33 68:30-37 69 69 69:26 70 70:3-8 70:6 71:1-19 71:17-19 71:18-20 71:20 72:3 72:5 72:28 73 74 74 74 74 75 75 75:1 75:2 75:3 75:7 76 76 77 77:2 77:2 77:2 77:5 77:20-31 77:24 77:24 77:35 77:36 77:51-61 77:69 78 78 78:3 78:70 79 79 79 79:1 80 80 80 80:4 80:11-15 81 81 81:1 81:6 81:6 81:6 82 82 82:7 83 83 83:7 83:7 84:12 85 85:14 86 86:4 86:5 86:5 86:5 87 87 87 87:6 88 88:5 88:8 88:8 88:21 88:21 88:21 88:21 88:21 88:21 88:43 89 89:2 89:20 90 90 90:1 90:1-13 90:2 90:5-16 90:6 90:6-13 90:8 90:11 90:11 90:13 91 91:4 91:5-10 91:13 91:14 92 92:8 92:10 93 93 93:11 93:11 93:14 94 94:4 94:8-11 94:8-11 95 95:1 95:1 95:5 95:5 95:5 95:5 95:10 95:10 95:10 95:10 96 96:7 96:7 96:7 97 97:2 97:3 98 98 98:1 98:1-7 98:5 99 101 101:5 101:26 101:26-28 101:26-28 101:27 102:4 102:14 103 103:4 103:4 103:4 103:15 103:30 104 104 105 105:38-45 105:48 106 106:2-10 106:20 106:31 107 108:8 108:8 108:14 108:29 109 109:1 109:1 109:1 109:1 109:1 109:1 109:1 109:1 109:1 109:1 109:1 109:1 109:1-4 109:1-4 109:3 109:3 109:4 109:4 109:4 109:5 110 110 110 110:10 111 111:9 111:9 112 112:5 113 113:11 113:11 114 114:9 115 115:1 115:1 115:2 116 116 116:1 116:1 117 117 117:6 117:6 117:12 117:18 117:18 117:19 117:22 117:22 117:22 117:23 118:27-58 118:120 119 120:8 127:3 131:4 131:4 131:10 134 134 134:14 135 135 136 136:1 137 138 138:7 138:7 138:8 138:15 138:15 139 139:4 139:4 140:4 140:5 140:5 140:5 141 141 142 142:2 142:2 143 143:1-144:6 143:9 144 145 145 145:6 146 146 146 146 147 147:2 148 148 148 148 148:1 148:5 149 149 149 150 150 150:4 151 151
Proverbs
1 1 1:1 1:2 1:17 1:20 1:23 1:25 1:28 2:7 2:21 2:21 2:21 2:21 3:4 3:4 3:5 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:11 3:11 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:15 3:16 3:18 3:19 3:22 3:28 3:33 3:34 3:34 3:34 3:34 3:34 4:27 5:22 5:23 6 6:8 6:23 6:27 7:1 8:15 8:21 8:21-29 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22-25 8:24 8:24 8:24-36 8:25 8:26 8:27 8:28 8:29 8:30-31 8:35 8:36 9:12 9:18 9:18 10:8 10:10 10:10 10:11-19 11:9 11:31 11:31 12:11 12:13 13:19 15:17 15:18 17:6 18:21 18:22 19:17 20:21 20:21 21:1 21:16 22:8 22:10 22:20 22:20 22:20 22:28 23:13 23:21 23:29 23:29 23:30 24 24:22 24:23 24:23-34 24:24-37 24:38-49 24:43 24:50-68 24:69-77 25:1-29:7 25:1-29:21 25:21 25:21 25:26 26:1 26:11 26:11 26:11 26:17 27:1 27:20 27:21 29:5 29:28-49 29:43 29:44 30:1-33 31:1-9 31:10-31 31:26
Ecclesiastes
1:1 1:2 2:17 3:1 4:9 5:15 7:17 8
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
1 1 1 1:2 1:2 1:3 1:3 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:11 1:12 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16-20 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:18 1:19 1:22 1:22 1:23 1:23 1:29 2 2:3 2:3 2:5 2:17 2:19 3 3:9 3:9 3:9 3:9 3:9-11 3:9-15 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:16 3:20 3:24 4:2 4:16 5 5:1 5:1 5:2 5:2 5:6 5:12 5:18-25 5:20 5:21 5:21 5:26 6 6:2-3 6:3 6:3 6:3 6:5 6:9 6:9 6:9 6:9 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:11 7:1 7:10 7:10-16 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 8:1 8:3 8:4 8:12 8:12 8:14 8:14 8:17 8:17 9:1 9:1 9:1 9:6 9:6 9:6 9:6 9:6 9:7 9:8 9:14 10:3 10:12 10:13 10:14 10:16 10:17 10:22 10:22 10:23 11:1 11:1-3 11:4 11:4 11:6 11:6 11:10 11:10 12 12:2 13:6 13:9 13:9 13:9 13:22 14:1 14:4 14:11 14:12 14:14 14:16 14:19 14:20 14:21 15:6 16:1 17:10 17:13 19:10 19:19 19:24 21:2 22:13 22:13 25:1 25:8 25:8 25:8 25:8 25:8 25:9 26:2 26:9 26:10 26:19 26:20 27:6 27:9 28:10 28:11 28:11 28:11 28:13 28:16 28:16 28:16 28:16 28:16 28:16 28:16 29:1 29:4 29:10 29:10 29:10 29:11 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:14 29:14 29:18 30:1 30:1 30:1-5 30:2 30:4 30:25 30:29 31:9 31:9 32:1 32:2 32:8 33:13 33:13-19 33:20 33:24 34:4 35:1-7 35:3 35:4 35:5 35:9 36:1-39:8 37:27 37:38 38 38:3 38:8 38:10 38:10 38:10 38:10 38:10-20 38:21 39:2 39:3 39:6-7 39:13 40:1-17 40:3 40:3 40:3 40:3-5 40:3-5 40:6-8 40:6-9 40:9 40:12 40:13 40:13 40:13 40:15 40:17 41:4 41:8 42:1 42:1-4 42:1-4 42:5 42:5-13 42:6 42:6 42:7 42:10 42:16 42:19 43:2 43:5 43:7 43:10 43:10 43:10 43:15 43:18 43:20 43:23 43:23 44:8 44:13 44:20 44:28 45:1 45:2 45:7 45:11 45:13 45:14 45:14 45:21 45:23 45:23 45:23 45:23 46:9 46:9 48:22 48:22 49:1 49:5 49:6 49:6 49:6 49:6 49:6 49:6 49:6 49:8 49:8 49:8 49:15 49:16 49:17 50:4 50:6 50:6 51:4 51:6 51:23 52:5 52:5 52:5 52:5 52:5 52:7 52:7 52:7 52:7 52:10 52:11 52:11 52:13 52:13-53:8 52:13-53:12 52:14 52:15 52:15 52:15 52:15-53:1 52:16 53:1 53:1 53:1 53:1 53:1 53:1-12 53:2 53:3 53:3 53:4 53:4 53:4 53:4 53:5 53:5 53:5 53:5 53:5 53:6 53:6 53:7 53:7 53:7 53:7 53:7 53:8 53:8 53:8 53:8 53:8-12 53:9 53:9 53:9 53:10 53:10 53:11 53:12 53:12 53:12 54:1 54:1 54:1 54:1 54:8 54:11 54:13 54:13 54:15 55:3 55:3 55:3 55:3 55:3-13 56:7 56:7 57 57:1 57:1 57:1-4 57:2 57:5 57:15 57:16 57:19 58:1-11 58:2 58:4 58:5 58:6 58:6 58:6 58:6 58:6 58:9 58:11-14 58:13 58:14 59:7 59:7 59:8 59:20 59:20 60:6 60:17 60:17 60:17 60:17 60:17 61:1 61:1 61:1 61:1 61:1 61:1 61:1 61:1 61:1 62:2 62:10-63:6 62:10-63:6 62:11 62:11 62:11 62:12 62:12 63:1 63:1 63:3 63:5 63:9 63:9 63:14 63:15-64:12 64:3 64:4 64:4 64:10 65:1 65:1 65:1 65:1 65:1 65:1 65:2 65:2 65:8 65:9-12 65:17 65:17 65:17-25 65:19 65:21 65:22 65:25 66:1 66:1 66:1 66:1 66:1 66:1 66:2 66:2 66:2 66:3 66:5-11 66:12 66:13 66:18 66:22 66:23 66:24 66:24 66:24 66:24 66:24 66:24 88
Jeremiah
1 1:5 2:12 2:12 2:12 2:13 2:13 2:23 2:26 2:29 4:3 4:3 4:22 5:4 5:8 6:12-15 6:17 6:20 6:23 6:29 7:2 7:2 7:3 7:11 7:11 7:11 7:16 7:21 7:21 7:22 7:25 7:29 8:10-12 8:10-12 8:16 9:2 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:24 9:24 9:24 9:24 9:24 9:25 9:26 9:26 10:6 10:6 10:8 10:8 10:10 10:10 10:11 10:25 11:15 11:15 11:18 11:19 11:19 11:19 12:12 12:15 12:15 12:34 13:14 13:24 13:24 13:25 13:27 14:9 15:4 15:10 17:1 17:1-5 17:1-15 17:5 17:9 17:9 18:2 18:15 19:13 20:17 22:17 23:5 23:6 23:7 23:20 23:23 23:23 23:24 23:29 23:33 24:8-10 25 25:13 26:10 26:15 26:25 29:16-20 29:16-20 31:3 31:10 31:26 31:33 31:35 31:37 33:14-26 33:14-26 34:17 35:15 36:1 36:30 38:11 38:13 38:15 38:15 38:15 38:27 38:31 38:31 38:31-34 38:31-34 38:31-34 38:31-37 38:32 38:33 38:34 38:37 38:40 39:4-13 39:4-13 39:19 40:14-26 41:8 41:8 43:31 46:4-13 47:4 49:19 51:1 51:30 52:28-30 52:28-30
Lamentations
1:1 1:1 1:1 2 2:15 2:16 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20
Ezekiel
2:1 3:5 3:15 3:17-19 7:3-4 7:3-9 7:7-8 8:10 9:9 11:21 13:18 13:18 14:20 16:3 16:10 16:21 16:52 18:9 20:12 20:14 20:19-26 20:23 20:40 22:11 23:43 24:4 25:16 28:25 31:6 32:27 36:12 36:26 37:1 37:4 37:7 37:12 37:27 38:2 40:16 40:17 41:16 42:5 42:6 42:14 45:20
Daniel
1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:2 1:2 1:6 1:17 1:18 2:1 2:1 2:5 2:18 2:23 2:35 2:41 3 3:1-3 3:2 3:23 3:23 3:23 3:23 3:24 3:24-45 3:24-90 3:26 3:26 3:44 3:46 3:46-51 3:52 3:52-90 4 4:14 4:19 4:29-34 5:5 5:13-23 5:23 6:2-5 6:12-4 6:22 6:22 6:22 6:23 7 7 7:7 7:8 7:9 7:9-14 7:9-28 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:13 7:13 7:13 7:14 7:14 7:20 7:21 7:22 7:24 7:24 8:11 8:13 8:23 9:1 9:7 9:13 9:24 9:24 9:27 10:6 10:20 11:31 11:35 12:1 12:1-4 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:3 12:3 12:4 12:7 12:7 12:9 12:9 12:9 12:9 12:11 12:11 12:13 12:13
Hosea
1 1:1 1:10 1:10 2:23 2:23 4:1 4:6 4:7 4:13 6:5 6:6 6:6 6:6 7:6 10:6 11:1 11:1 11:4 12 12:4 12:5 12:10 13:6 13:14 13:14 13:14 40:4
Joel
1:1 1:14 2:5 2:15 2:28 2:28-32 2:28-32 3:6 3:16 10
Amos
1:2 2:6 2:6-8 2:9-12 2:13 3:12 4:13 5:12 5:16 5:18 5:18-6:7 5:18-6:7 5:19 5:20 5:22 5:23 5:24 5:25 5:25 5:25-27 5:26 5:26 5:27 6:1 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:6 6:7 7:13 8:1 8:6 8:9 9:5 9:5 9:6 9:6 9:7 9:11 9:11 9:11 17
Obadiah
Jonah
1:3 1:9 1:9 1:14 2:3 2:3 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:10 4 4:4
Micah
1:5 2:3 2:7 2:8 3:5 4 4:1-7 5:1 5:1 5:1 5:1-4 5:2 5:2 5:2 5:2 5:2 5:2 5:3 5:3 5:4 5:5 7:6 7:19 7:19 13
Nahum
Habakkuk
1:5 1:5 1:12 1:16 2:3 2:3 2:4 2:4 2:11 2:11 2:11 2:20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:2 3:2 3:3 3:3 3:3 3:3 3:3 3:9 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:19 4
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
2:6 2:10-3:2 2:11 3:1 3:2 3:2 3:8 4 6:12 6:12 7:9 7:10 7:11 8:7 8:16 8:16 8:17 8:17 9:9 9:9 9:9 9:9 9:9 11:7 11:13 11:13 11:13 11:15 12:10 12:10 12:10 12:10 12:10 12:10-12 12:12 13:2 13:7 13:7 13:7 16:1 32 40:3
Malachi
1 1:2 1:2 1:7 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10-12 1:10-12 1:11 1:11 2:3 2:10 2:11 2:13 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 4:1 4:1 4:4 4:5 10
Matthew
1:23 1:23 1:23 2:5 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:16 2:18 2:18 2:18 3:3 3:3 3:3 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:6 4:6 4:6 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:3 5:18 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:27 5:27 5:27 5:31 5:31 5:31 5:33 5:33 5:33 5:38 5:38 5:38 5:38 5:38 5:43 5:43 5:43 5:43 6:6 7:23 8:17 8:17 8:17 8:17 8:17 9:13 9:13 9:13 9:13 10:21 10:35 11:5 11:10 11:10 11:20 11:21 11:23 12:7 12:7 12:7 12:7 12:18 12:18 12:18 12:18-21 12:18-21 13:14 13:14 13:14 13:14 13:15 13:32 13:35 13:35 13:35 13:35 13:35 15 15:4 15:4 15:4 15:4-6 15:8 15:8 15:8 15:8 15:8 15:8 17:17 18:16 18:17 19:4 19:5 19:5 19:5 19:5 19:7 19:18 19:18 19:19 21:4 21:4 21:4 21:4 21:5 21:13 21:13 21:13 21:13 21:16 21:16 21:16 21:16 21:33 21:33 21:42 21:42 21:42 22:24 22:32 22:32 22:37 22:37 22:37 22:37 22:39 22:39 22:39 22:44 22:44 22:44 22:44 22:44 23:35 24:15 24:15 24:15 24:21 24:29 24:30 24:39 26:31 26:31 26:31 26:64 27:9 27:9 27:9 27:9 27:32 27:43 27:43 27:46 27:46 40
Mark
1:1 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:14 4:12 4:29 4:32 6:3 6:23 6:30 7 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:32 9:48 9:48 9:48 9:48 9:48 10:4 10:6 10:6 10:6-8 10:7 10:7 10:19 10:19 10:19 10:21 11:17 11:17 11:17 11:17 12:1 12:10 12:10 12:10 12:19 12:26 12:26 12:29 12:29 12:29 12:29 12:29-33 12:31 12:31 12:31 12:32 12:32 12:32 12:36 12:36 12:36 12:36 13:14 13:14 13:14 13:19 14:27 14:27 14:62 15:28 15:28 15:29 15:34 15:34 16:8 16:19 22:36 23:24 35
Luke
2:22 2:23 2:23 3:4 3:4-6 3:4-6 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:16 4:18 4:18 4:18 4:18 4:18 4:18 7:27 7:27 7:27 8:10 9:41 10:15 10:27 10:27 10:27 10:27 10:27 10:27 10:27 10:28 12:14 12:22 12:52 12:53 13:19 13:27 17:27 18:16 18:20 18:20 18:20 19:46 19:46 19:46 19:46 20:9 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:28 20:37 20:37 20:42 20:42 20:42 21:22 21:24 21:25 22:37 22:37 22:69 23:30 23:35 23:46 24:44
John
1:23 1:23 1:23 1:51 2:17 2:17 2:17 6:31 6:31 6:31 6:45 6:45 6:45 7:35 7:35 7:42 8:17 9:24 10:34 10:34 10:34 12:15 12:15 12:38 12:38 12:38 12:38 12:40 12:40 12:40 13:16 13:18 15:25 15:25 15:25 19:24 19:24 19:36 19:36 19:36 19:37 19:37 19:37
Acts
1:2 1:11 1:17-21 1:20 1:20 1:20 2:9 2:9 2:10 2:10 2:17-21 2:25-28 2:25-28 2:30 2:34 2:34 2:34 3:22 3:22 3:25 3:25 4:25 4:25 6:1 6:9 7:3 7:3 7:3 7:6 7:6 7:27 7:27 7:27 7:27 7:32 7:33 7:35 7:37 7:40 7:40 7:42 7:42 7:43 7:49 7:49 8:32 8:32 8:32 8:32 11:20 11:20 13:1 13:15 13:20 13:22 13:22 13:22 13:33 13:33 13:33 13:33 13:34 13:34 13:34 13:35 13:41 13:41 13:47 13:47 15:15-17 15:16 15:16 15:16-18 15:21 18:2 18:24 23:5 28:26 28:26 28:27
Romans
1 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:34 2:24 2:24 2:24 3:4 3:4 3:4 3:10 3:10-18 3:10-18 3:13-18 3:20 3:20 4:3 4:3 4:3 4:6-8 4:7 4:7 4:17 4:17 4:18 4:18 4:18 4:22 7:7 7:7 7:7 8:36 8:36 8:36 9:7 9:7 9:7 9:9 9:9 9:12 9:12 9:12 9:13 9:13 9:13 9:15 9:15 9:15 9:16 9:17 9:17 9:17 9:17 9:25 9:25 9:26 9:26 9:27 9:27 9:27 9:29 9:29 9:33 9:33 9:33 9:33 9:33 10:5 10:6 10:6-8 10:6-9 10:11 10:15 10:15 10:16 10:16 10:16 10:16 10:16 10:18 10:18 10:18 10:19 10:19 10:19 10:20 10:20 10:20 11:1 11:2 11:3 11:3 11:3 11:4 11:8 11:8 11:8 11:8 11:8 11:9 11:9 11:9 11:26 11:26 11:26 11:26 11:34 11:34 11:34 12:17 12:17 12:19 12:19 12:20 12:20 12:20 13:9 13:9 13:9 13:9 13:9 14:11 14:11 14:11 15:3 15:3 15:3 15:9 15:9 15:9 15:10 15:10 15:11 15:11 15:11 15:11 15:12 15:12 15:12 15:21 15:21 15:21 42
1 Corinthians
1:19 1:19 1:19 1:31 1:31 1:31 1:31 1:31 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:16 2:20 3:19 3:20 3:20 6:16 6:16 6:16 9:9 9:9 10:7 10:7 10:7 10:26 10:26 10:26 14 14:21 14:21 14:21 15:2 15:27 15:32 15:32 15:32 15:45 15:45 15:45 15:54 15:54 15:54 15:54 15:54 15:55 25 26 33:5 34 34 42 55
2 Corinthians
3:3 4:13 4:13 4:13 6:2 6:2 6:2 6:16 6:16 6:16 6:17 6:18 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:21 9:7 9:9 9:9 10:9 10:17 10:17 10:17 10:17 13:1 13:2
Galatians
2:16 2:16 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:11 3:11 3:11 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:13 3:13 3:13 4:14 4:27 4:27 4:27 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:14 5:14 5:20 10
Ephesians
1:13 2:17 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:16 4:25 4:25 4:26 4:26 5:2 5:3 5:31 5:31 5:31 6 6:2 6:2 15:1 18:17
Philippians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Hebrews
1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:6 1:6 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:10-12 1:10-12 1:12 1:13 1:13 1:13 1:13 2 2 2:6 2:6-8 2:6-8 2:12 2:12 2:12 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:16 3:5 3:7-11 3:7-12 3:9 3:10 4:4 4:4 4:4 5:5 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 6 6:7 6:8 6:13 6:13 6:13 7:1 7:11 7:15 7:17 7:17 7:21 7:21 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:8 8:8-12 8:8-12 8:8-13 9:19 9:20 9:20 10:5 10:5 10:5-7 10:5-10 10:6 10:16 10:29 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:37 10:37 11:5 11:5 11:5 11:12 11:17 11:18 11:18 11:18 11:21 11:21 11:21 11:21 11:22 11:28 11:31 11:33 11:37 12:5 12:5 12:5 12:5 12:6 12:12-21 12:15 12:15 12:15 12:15 12:19 12:20 12:20 12:21 12:26 12:26 13:5 13:5 13:6 13:6 13:6 13:11 13:20 31:25 31:26
James
1:1 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:11 2:11 2:11 2:11 2:23 2:23 2:23 2:23 2:23 4:6 4:6 4:6 4:6 5:20 7:35
1 Peter
1:1 1:16 1:20 1:24 1:24 1:24 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:18 2:22 2:24 3:10 3:10 3:10-12 3:10-12 3:14 4:8 4:18 4:18 4:18 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:7 5:7
2 Peter
1 John
Jude
Revelation
1:7 1:41 4 9:20 10:6 12:7 13:7 19:6 20:4 20:11 22:18 1903
Tobit
1:1 1:14 2:2 2:2 2:3 2:3 2:4 2:4 2:8 2:8 4:10 5:15 6:9 6:9-13:18 11:14 12:9 21
Judith
1 1:2 5:19 7:10 8:6 9:11 10:2 10:5 11:13 12:7 34
Wisdom of Solomon
2:12 3:9 6:7 6:18 6:19 7 7:24 8:7 8:20 9:15 10:6 11:4 11:17 11:22 12:8 12:12 13:2 13:3 15:10 16:22 18:4 18:24
Baruch
1:1-14 1:1-3:8 1:1-3:8 1:10 1:15-18 1:15-3:8 2:3 2:11-19 3:4 3:9-4:4 3:9-4:4 3:9-5:9 3:13 3:38 3:38 4:5-5:9 4:30 4:36 4:36-5:9 5:2
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 Maccabees
1:4 5:53 7:17 8:17 13:30 15:23 16:23
2 Maccabees
1:10 1:27 2:1 2:23 2:23 3:15-39 5:20 6:12-16 6:18-7:42 6:19 6:23-28 6:30 7 7:14 8:1 9:20 11:28 12:43 13:19-26
1 Esdras
1 2:1-14 2:3 2:9 2:15-25 2:15-25 2:21 3 3:1-5:6 3:1-5:6 4:13 4:13 4:38 4:41 4:41 5:34 6 7 8:1-9:36 9:37-55 9:55
2 Esdras
4:17 5:10 6:21 9:9 9:9 9:9 11:9 15:13-16 15:15 16:14-17:3 17:13-45 18:13 18:15 19:10 19:29 19:30 21 21:16 21:20 21:21 21:28 21:32-35 21:39 22 22:4-6 22:9 22:15-21 22:38 22:40 22:41 80
3 Maccabees
Sirach
1:1 1:6 1:14 1:18 1:18 3 4:21 4:31 6:26 21:4 23 29:19 30:34 33:13 34:25 36:6 36:16 37:13 38:1 39:13 39:18 43:17 43:23 43:26 46:9 48:9 48:14 49:10 49:14 50:21 50:22
Greek Words and Phrases
Hebrew Words and Phrases
Latin Words and Phrases
German Words and Phrases
Index of Pages of the Print Edition
i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x xi xii xiii xiv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626
[1]Individual cases, such as that of the Jew mentioned by Clearchus (ap. Jos. c. Ap. 1, 22), who was Ελληνικὸς οὐ τῇ διακέκτῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ, are exceptions to a general rule. How numerous and prosperous were the Jewish colonies in Asia Minor at a later period appears from the Acts of the Apostles; see also Ramsay, Phrygia 1. ii. p. 667 ff.
[2]This belief was inherited by the Christian school of Alexandria; see Clem. strom. v. 29, Orig. c. Cels. iv. 39, vi. 19; and cf. Lact. inst. IV. 2.
[3]δἰ ἑτέρων, Eus.
[4]See Tischendorf, V. T. Gr. (1879) prolegg. p. xiii. n.
[5]Cf. Walton (ed. Wrangham), p. 18; Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 14f.; Buhl, Kanon u. Text, p. 108 f.
[6]See art. Diaspora in suppl. vol. of Hastings' D.B.
[7]The later Hebrew term was גּוֹלָה, 'exile'; see Dr Hort on 1 Pet. l. c.
[8]The 'Babylonian' Targum is of Palestinian origin (Buhl, p. 173). On early Aramaic translations arising out of the synagogue interpretations, see ib., p. 168 f.; and for the traditional account of the origin of the Syriac O. T. see Nestle, Urtext u. Übersetzungen der Bibel (Leipzig, 1897), p. 229.
[9]Professor Driver in D. G. Hogarth's Authority and Archaeology, p. 87 f.
[10]The passage is thought by some scholars to belong to the Ptolemaean age; see Cheyne, Intr. to Isaiah, p. 105.
[11]Cf. Authority and Archaeology, p. 117.
[12]Jer. li. = xliv. 1 ff. ἅπασιν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτου κτλ. Many of these refugees, however, were afterwards taken prisoners by Nebuchadnezzar and transported to Babylon (Joseph. ant. x. 9. 7).
[13]Ant. xi. 8. 4 f. The story is rejected by Ewald and Grätz, and the details are doubtless unhistorical: cf. Droysen, l’histoire du l’Hellenisme, i. p. 300.
[14]Plutarch Alex. 26 ἐβούλετο πόλιν μεγάλην καὶ πολυάνθρωπον Ἑλληνίδα συνοικίσας ἐπώνυμον ἑαυτοῦ καταλιπεῖν.
[15]See Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 86.
[16]On the relations in which the Jews stood to Alexander and his successors see Wellhausen, Isr. u. jüd. Geschichte, c. xvi.
[17]In Philo's time the Jews occupied two districts out of five (in Flacc. 8). Droysen, iii. p. 59.
[18]Strabo ap. Jos. ant. xiv. 7. 2; cf. Schürer Gesch. d. jüd. Volkes³, iii. 40; Lumbroso, Recharches, p. 218; Droysen, iii. p. 40 n. On the ἀλαβάρχης (ἀραβάρχης) who is sometimes identified with the ethnarch see Schürer iii. 88.
[19]On the magnificence of the principal synagogue see Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation (ed. White), p. 67.
[20]Temporary checks seem to have been sustained by the Alexandrian Jews under Philopator I. and Physcon; see 3 Macc. ii. 31, and cf. Mahaffy, pp. 267 ff., 381, 390.
[21]See Mahaffy, Empire, &c., p. 86 n.; cf. Philo de sept. 6.
[22]Where Blass (Philology of the Gospels, p. 69 f.) proposes to read Λιβυστίνων for Λιβερτίνων.
[23]Philo ad Cai. 36.
[24]See Schürer³, iii. 97 ff.
[25]Droyson, iii. p. 35.
[26]Mommsen, Provinces, ii. p. 163 f. On the whole question see Hody, de Bibl. textibus, p. 224 f.; Caspari, Quellen zur Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, iii. p. 268 ff.; Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 61 ff.; Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Gk., p. 21 ff.
[27]There was a large Greek settlement on the Pelusiac arm of the Nile at an early period; see Herod. ii. 163.
[28]Cf. Streane, Double Text of Jeremiah, p. 11 f.
[29]Irenaeus (iii. 21. 3) speaks of the seniorum interpretatio; Tertullian (Apol. 18) of the septuaginta et duo interpretes; Jerome, of the LXX. interpretes, or translatores (praeff. in Esdr., Isai.), LXX. editio (praef. in Job, ep. ad Pammach.), editio LXX. (praef. in Paralipp.). Augustine, de civ. Dei, xviii. 42, remarks: "quorum interpretatio ut Septuaginta vocetur iam obtinuit consuetudo."
[30]From the mention of Cyprus as 'the island' (§ 5) it has been inferred that Aristeas was a Cypriot. The name occurs freely in inscriptions from the islands of the Aegean and the coast of Caria (C. I. G. 2262, 2266, 2349, 2399, 2404, 2655, 2693, 2694, 2723, 2727, 2781, 2892), and was borne by a Cyprian sculptor (see D. G. and R. B., i. 293). Wendland, however, thinks 'the island' is Pharos, as certainly in § 301. The Aristeas who wrote περὶ Ἰουδαίων (Euseb. praep. ev. ix. 25) was doubtless an Alexandrian Jew who, as a Hellenist, assumed a Greek name.
[31]See Ostermann, de Demetrii Ph. vita (1857); Susemihl, Gesch. d. gr. Litt. in d. Alexandrinerzeit, i. p. 135 ff. On the royal library at Alexandria see Susemihl, i. p. 335 ff. and the art. Bibliotheken in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie, v. 409 f.
[32]See See Birt, Die Buchrolle in der Kunst (Leipzig 1907), p. 21 f.
[33]The mole which connected the Pharos with the city: see art. Alexandria in Smith's Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geography, pp. 96 f.
[34]In defence of the genuineness of this testimony see Schürer, G. J. V.³ iii. 384—392. On the other hand cf. L. Cohn in Neue Jahrbücher f. d. Klass. Alterthum i. 8 (1895), and Wendland in Byzantinische Zeitschrift vii. (1898), 447—449. For Aristobulus see Susemihl, p. 630 f.
[35]Clement of Alexandria identifies this Aristobulus with the person named in 2 Macc. i. 10 Ἀριστοβούλῳ διδασκάλῳ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ βασιλέως. See Valckenaer diatribe de Aristobulo (printed at the end of Gaisford's edition of Eus. praep. ev. iv.).
[36]On the date of this treatise, which is commonly ascribed to Justin, see Krüger, Hist. of Chr. Literature (E. T.), p. 112 f., and cf. Harnack-Preuschen, p. 107.
[37]Cf. ib. οὐχ ἑρμηνεῖς ἐκείνους ἀλλ᾿ ἱεροφάντας καὶ προφήτας προσαγορεύοντες.
[38]The story of the cells is not peculiar to Christian writers; it is echoed by the Talmud (Bab. Talm. Megillah 9a, Jerus. Talm. Meg. c. i.; cf. Sopherim, c. i.).
[39]In his Contra historiam LXX. interpretum Aristeae nomine inscriptam dissertatio, originally published in 1684, and afterwards included in De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, versionibus Graecis, et Latina vulgata libri iv. (Oxon. 1705). For other writers on both sides cf. Buhl, p. 117 (E. T. p. 115).
[40]On the Rabbinical partiality for this number, cf. Ewald, Hist. of Israel, v. 252 n. (E. T.); Schürer 11. i. p. 174; Buhl, p. 117 (=116, E. T.).
[41]Or the letters of Philopator in 3 Maccabees.
[42]See the remarks of Wilcken in Philologus liii. (1894), p. 111 f., and cf. Lumbroso, p. xiii.
[43]See Schürer³, iii, p. 468 f.
[44]See Mr I. Abrahams in J.Q.R. xiv. 2, pp. 321 ff., Recent Criticisms of the Letter of Aristeas.
[45]Tertullian exaggerates his literary merits (apol. 18 Ptolemaeorum eruditissimus . . . et omnis litteraturae sagacissimus).
[46]Cf. Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 164 ff. On the character of Philadelphus see also Droysen, iii., p. 254 f.
[47]Mahaffy, pp. 163 f., 170.
[48]Gesch. Juden³, iii. p. 615 ff.
[49]He also notes the rendering ἄρχων in Deut. xvii. 14—20.
[50]See Expository Times, ii. pp. 209, 227 f.
[51]Cf. Freudenthal, hellen. Studien, p. 41.
[52]The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila strangely says: ἦν δὲ οὗτος ὁ Δημήτριος τῷ γένει Ἐβραῖος.
[53]De bibliothecariis Alexandrinis (1884), p. 1 ff.; cf. Droysen, iii. p. 256; Mahaffy, p. 115.
[54]Diog. Laert. v. 78. The statement rests on the authority of Hermippus Callimachus (temp. Ptolemy III.).
[55]Cf. Plutarch, Apophthegm. viii. Δημήτριος ὁ Φαληρεὺς Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ παρῄνει τὰ περὶ βασιλείας καὶ ἡγεμονίας βιβλία κτᾶσθαι καὶ ἀναγινώσκειν.
[56]Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 8 f.
[57]Cf. Philo ap. Eus. praep. ev. viii. 7 τῶν ἱερέων δέ τις παρών, ἢ τῶν γερόντων εἶς, ἀναγινώσκει τοὺς ἱεροὺς νόμους αὐτοῖς καὶ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον ἐξηγεῖται. But ἐξηγεῖται is ambiguous.
[58]The hope of winning converts may have been among the motives which inspired the translators and gained a ready welcome for their work; cf. the prol. to Sirach: οὐ μόνον αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας δέον ἐστὶν ἐπιστήμονας γίνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἐκτὸς δύνασθαι τοὺς φιλομαθοῦντας χρησίμευς εἶναι καὶ λέγοντας καὶ γράφοντας—where however the influence of the Jewish Scriptures on pagans is regarded as indirect, and not immediate.
[59]Cf. Mommsen, Provinces, ii. p. 164.
[60]Another example is offered by the Greek Esther, if the note at the end of the book is to be trusted (ἔφασαν . . . ἐρμηνευκέναι Λυσίμαχον Πτολεμαίου τῶν ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ).
[61]See Hody, ii. 4; Eichhorn, p. 472; H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 24 f.; on the other hand, cf. Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 40 ff.
[62]Exp. Times, iii. p. 291; cf. Mahaffy, Greek life, p. 198 f.
[63]Evidence of this kind will doubtless accumulate as new volumes of papyri are issued. The verbal indices which usually accompany such collections offer a rich field for the Biblical student who will be at the pains to explore them.
[64]See however Buhl, p. 124.
[65]According to Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 10 f.) the rolls only were sent in the first instance, and the interpreters followed in consequence of a second application from Philadelphus. This form of the story suggests that the desire for a translation may have been stimulated by the arrival of MSS. from Jerusalem.
[66]See, however, Mahaffy, Hist. of Gk. class. literature, 1. ii. p. 195.
[67]Apol. 18; cf. Justin, apol. i. 31, Chrys. or. 1 adv. Jud., and Epiph. de mens. et pond. § 11. The library in the Brucheion perished in the time of Julius Caesar; that of the Serapeion is said to have been destroyed by Omar, A.D. 640.
[68]See, e.g., §§ 3, 10, 46, 171, 176.
[69]In Ezech. v.; cf. in Gen. xxxi., in Mich. ii. See the Talmudical passages cited by Hody, p. 296.
[70]de mens. et pond. 3 sq.
[71]Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 113. Cf. Buhl, p. 12.
[72]Cf. prol. supra: τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων.
[73]Pp. 108, 119; cf. p. 185.
[74]Ib. p. 138f.
[75]Ib. p. 138f.
[76]Cf. Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, pp. 12, 83.
[77]Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xxxi. f.
[78]Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xxxiii.
[79]Ryle, Canon, p. 151.
[80]Ib. p. 163.
[81]Robertson Smith, The O. T. in the J. Ch., p. 64; cf. ib. p. 87 f.; Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, p. 63 ff.; cf. Buhl, p. 118 f.
[82]Eus. H. E. vi. 16.
[83]Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, p. 27 f.; cf. Hort, Commentary on Peter, p. 172 ff.
[84]The name is written קילם ,אקילם ,עקילם or עקיעלם, and in the Bab. Talmud, אגקלום. On the identity of Aquila with Onkelos see Anger de Onkelo Chaldaico (before 1845), Friedmann Onkelos u. Akylas (Wien, 1896); or the brief statement in Buhl, p. 173.
[85]Field, Hexapla, prolegg. p. xviii.
[86]Megilla 1. 9: in יפיפית there is a play upon יפת (cf. Gen. ix. 27).
[87]See Dr C. Taylor in the preface to Prof. Burkitt's Fragments of Aquila, p. vi.: "Aquila in a sense was not the sole or independent author of the version, its uncompromising literalism being the necessary outcome of his Jewish teachers' system of exegesis."
[88]Ep. ad Afric. 3. Cf. Aug. l.c.
[89]See p. 31.
[90]Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the translation of Aquila (Cambridge, 1897).
[91]Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests (Camb. 1900). See also Amherst Papyri, i. p. 30 f. (London, 1900).
[92]Cod. A is nearer to Aquila, as the following variants shew: 10 ποιησαισαν μοι οι θεοι και ταδε προσθειησαν Α 12 οτε] ως Α | παντες οι β. Α 13 τω βασ.] pr τω Αχααβ Α | τον οχλον] pr παντα Α | εις χ. σας σημερον Α.
[93]MS. ; see Burkitt, op. cit. p. 2.
[94]The following variants in Cod. A agree with Aquila: 22 πασων ημερων A 23 το πασχα] + τουτο A
[95]MS. , at the end of a line: see Burkitt, p. 16.
[96]11 ταις οδοις] pr τασαις A(R)T
[97]MS. .
[98]The following variants deserve attention: 6 εβαθυνθ. Babאc.aRT 10 pr οτι ιδου οι εχθροι σου κε אAaRT
[99]For these see Burkitt, Aquila, p. 12.
[100]This singular use of σύν appears also in the LXX., but only in Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, which Freudenthal is disposed to assign to Aquila (p. 65); cf. König, Einleitung, p. 108 n., and McNeile, Introd. to Ecclesiastes.
[101]Aq. does not transliterate עחהא (see Burkitt, p. 14).
[102]In a few Hexaplaric MSS. (e.g. Q, 86, 88, 243mg, 264) the Greek letters ΠΙΠΙ are written for יהוה, but (with the exception of the Genizah Palimpsest, Taylor, p. 27) the Greek MSS. use it solely in their excerpts from the non-Septuagintal columns of the Hexapla, and only the Hexaplaric Syriac admits ΠΙΠΙ into the text of the LXX., using it freely for κύριος, even with a preposition (as ). Oxyrh. Pap. 1007 (vol. VII.), late 3rd cent., has ZZ, representing doubled yod, in Gen. ii., iii. Ceriani expresses the opinion that the use of ΠΙΠΙ is due either to Origen or Eusebius, i.e. one of those fathers substituted ΠΙΠΙ for for in the non-Septuagintal columns, using the letters to represent the Hebrew characters which were familiar to them. On the whole subject the student may consult Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profane, ii. p. 106 ff.; Schleusner, s.v. πίπι, Field, Hexapla ad Esa. i. 2; Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, p. 1135; Driver in Studia Biblia, i. p. 12, n. 3; Z. D. M. G. (1878), 465 ff., 501, 506. Prof. Burkitt acutely points out (p. 16) that (and doubtless also ΠΙΠΙ was read as Κύριος, since in one place in the Aquila fragments where there was no room to write the Hebrew characters "instead of οἴκῳ we find οἴκῳ κυ." On the orthography see Burkitt, p. 15, par. 4.
[103]Even Jerome speaks of Aquila as "eruditissimus linguae Graecae" (in Isa. xlix. 5).
[104]See Prof. Burkitt's note (p. 26).
[105]The student who wishes to pursue the subject may refer to Field, Prolegg. p. xxi. sqq., and Dr Taylor's article Hexapla in Smith and Wace's Dict. Chr. Biog. iii. p. 17 ff. Jerome speaks more than once of a second edition of Aquila "quam Hebraei κατ᾿ ἀκρίβειαν nominant." The question is discussed by Field (prolegg. xxiv. ff.).
[106]See Prof. Burkitt's article Aquila in the Jewish Quarterly Review, Jan. 1898, p. 211 ff.
[107]Dr Taylor, pref. to Fragments of Aquila, p. vii.
[108]Marcion flourished c. A.D. 150; Commodus was Emperor from 180—192. The Paschal Chronicle, following Epiphanius, dates the work of Theodotion A.D. 184.
[109]See Field, Hexapla, p. xxxix.; Hatch, Essays, p. 215; Margoliouth, art. 'Job' in Smith's Bible Dict. (ed. 2).
[110]Orig. ep. ad Afric. 3.
[111]On Baruch see Nestle's remarks in Hastings' D. B. iv. (art. Septuagint).
[112]O. T. in Greek, iii. pp. vii. ff., 320 f.
[113]Another considerable fragment of Theodotion may be found in Jer. xlvi. (xxxix.) 4—13, see O. T. in Greek, p. 534 f.
[114]Hexapla, prolegg. p. xxxix. "Theodotionis stylus simplex et gravis est." LXX. of Jer. xxiii. 5, 6 may be set beside Θ of xl. 14, 15.
[115]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 loc.
[116]0p. cit. p. xl. sq.
[117]D. C. B. art. Hexapla (iii. p. 22). Cf. ib. iv. p. 978.
[118]Thus in Mal. l. c. he was perhaps unwilling to use θεός in connexion with the phrase אִל גֵכָר.
[119]Jerome on Dan. iv.: "Origenes in nono Stromatum volumine asserit se quae sequuntur ab hoc loco in propheta Daniele non iuxta LXX. interpretes . . . sed iuxta Theodotionis editionem disserere."
[120]Dr Gwynn in D. C. B. (iv. p. 974).
[121]The Chigi MS. known as Cod. 87 (H. P. 88); see O. T. in Greek, iii. pp. vi., xii., and cf. the subscription printed ib. p. 574.
[122]Old Latin and Itala, p. 18 ff.
[123]An exception in i. 19. 2 (Dan. xii. 9 f.) is due to a Marcosian source.
[124]See Salmon, Intr. to the N. T.7 p. 639.
[125]On the trustworthiness of Justin's text here see Burkitt, op. cit. p. 25 n. (against Hatch, Essays, p. 190).
[126]Heb. l. c. ἔφραξαν στόματα λεόντων (Dan. Th., ἐνέφραξεν τὰ στόματα τῶν λεόντων; LXX., σέσωκέ με ἀπὸ τῶν λεόντων).
[127]The references are from Dr Salmon's Intr. p. 548 f. He adds: "I actually find in the Apocalypse no clear evidence that St John had ever seen the so-called LXX. version." See Bludau in Th. Q. 1897 (p. 1 ff.).
[128]The N. T. occasionally inclines to Theodotion in citations which are not from Daniel; cf. Jo. xix. 37 (Zech. xii. 10), 1 Cor. xv. 54 (Is. xxv. 8); see Schürer³, iii. p. 324 "entweder Th. selbst ist älter als die Apostel, oder es hat einen 'Th.' vor Th. gegeben."
[129]D. C. B. art. Theodotion iv. p. 970 ff. Dr Salmon (Intr. p. 547) is disposed to accept this view.
[130]D. C. B. iv. p. 977 n.; cf. Hastings' D. B., i. p. 761.
[131]On the whole question of the date of Theodotion, see Schürer, G. J. V.³ iii. 323 f., where the literature of the subject is given.
[132]The name סומכום occurs in the Talmud as that of a disciple of R. Meir, who flourished towards the end of the second or beginning of the third century. Geiger desires to identify our translator with this Symmachus; see Field, prolegg. ad Hex. p. xxix.
[133]Euseb. l. c.
[134]Philastrius, who represents the Symmachiani as holding other views, says (c. 145): "sunt haeretici alii qui Theodotionis et Symmachi itidem interpretationem diverso modo expositam sequuntur." See Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Litt., 1. i. p. 212.
[135]D. C. B. iv. p. 971 ff. Σευήρου in de pond. et mens. 16 is on this hypothesis a corruption of Οὐήρου. Cf. Lagarde's Symmicta, ii. p. 168.
[136]The Gospel of Peter, which cannot he much later than A.D. 170, and may be fifteen or twenty years earlier, shews some verbal coincidences with Symmachus (Akhmîm fragment, pp. xxxiv. 18, 20), but they are not decisive.
[137]Cf. D. C. B. iv. p. 103.
[138]The Hexaplaric renderings are from Cod. 86 (Cod. Barberinus): Field, Hexapla, ii. p. 1033.
[139]For other examples see Field, prolegg. p. xxx. ff.; D. C. B. iv. p. 19 f.
[140]Reading, perhaps, בעלם ובעלם אלהים; cf. Nestle, Marginalien, pp. 3, 15.
[141]See D. C. B. iii. p. 20.
[142]Jerome (prol. in Orig. exp. Cant.) confirms Eusebius, on whose words see Dr Mercati, Studi a Testi 5, v. p. 47 (1901).
[143]The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila identifies Nicopolis with Emmaus Nicopolis in Palestine.
[144]D. of Gk and Lat. Ant. p. 1202. These πίθοι are said to have been sometimes used instead of cistae or capsae for preserving books. In 1906 five Greek documents were found in an earthenware jar at Elephantine; see Dr F. G. Kenyon in Egypt Exploration Fund Archaeological Report for 1907—8, p. 50.
[145]Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 432.
[146]Cf. Eus. H. E. vi. 7; Spartian. in Sev. 17.
[147]Prolegg. ad Hexapla, p. xlvi; see however R. Sinker, Psalm of Habakkuk (Camb. 1890), p. 42. Ps.-Athanasius calls Lucian the seventh version: ἐβδόμη πάλιν καὶ τελευταία ἑρμηνεία ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Λουκιανοῦ.
[148]According to Harnack-Preuschen (i. p. 340) the opposite is implied by Eusebius' use of ἐναλλαττούσας in reference to these versions: "d. h. die eine war nur für diese, die andere nur für jene Bücher vorhanden."
[149]On Quinta see Mercati, Studi e Testi 5, IV. p. 28; and Burkitt in Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archaeology, June 1902.
[150]adv. Rufin.
[151]"Prodens manifestissime sacramentum," as Jerome himself remarks. No doubt the primary reference is to Joshua (Field), but the purport of the gloss is unmistakable.
[152]leg. fors. Ἰησοῦ τοῦ χριστοῦ σου.
[153]Prolegg. pp. lxxv.—lxxxii. See also Lagarde, Ueber den Hebräer Ephraims von Edessa. On τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν see Field, p. lxxii. ff., and Nestle, Urtext, p. 206. For some ambiguous references to other(?) versions see Philostr. haer. cc. 143, 144.
[154]See Eichhorn, p. 421 ff.; De Wette-Schrader, p. 122 f.
[155]Graecus Venetus Pentateuchi &c. versio Graeca. Ex unico biblioth. S. Marci Venetae codice nunc primum uno volumine comprehensam atque apparatu critico et philologico instructam edidit O. G. Praefatus est Fr. Delitzsch.
[156]Gebhardt, p. lvii. ff.
[157]Ib. p. lxii.
[158]Ὀντωτής, ὁντουργός, οὐσιωτής are his usual renderings of יהוה.
[159]Eus. H. E. vi. 2.
[160]Hieron. de virr. ill. 54.
[161]Cf. ep. ad Paulam.
[162]See D. C. B. art. Hebrew Learning (ii. p. 351 ff.).
[163]See D. C. B. art. Origenes, iv. p. 129 ff.
[164]Cf. Bp Westcott in D. C. B, iv. p. 99: "it was during this period (i.e. before A.D. 215) in all probability that he formed and partly executed his plan of a comparative view of the LXX. in connexion with the other Greek versions."
[165]Cf. Un palimpsesto Ambrosiano dei Salmi Esapli (Giov. Mercati) in Atti d. R. Accademia d. Scienze di Torino, 10 Apr. 1896; and E. Klostermann, die Mailänder Fragmente der Hexapla. The MS. does not supply the Hebrew column.
[166]In the MS. λανου appears in the third column, where it has displaced Aquila's rendering.
[167]MS. εὐρέθης.
[168]Or Quinta? Cf. H. Lietzmann in G. G. A. 1902, v., p. 332: "die letzte Columne ist nicht, wie man anfangs glaubte, Theodotion, sondern die Quinta mit Interlinearvarianten."
[169]With marginal variants, εἰς τὸ τέλος, ψαλμός (LXX.).
[170]With interlinear variant τοῖς υἱοῖς (Th.).
[171]With marginal variants, εἰς τὸ τέλος, ψαλμός (LXX.).
[172]MS. 1 a manu ἡμῖν (? Aq. Sym.).
[173]With interlinear variant εὑρεθήσεται ἡμῖν.
[174]With interlinear variant ταῖς εὑρούσαις ἡμᾶς (LXX.).
[175]MS. ταῖς.
[176]With interlinear variant μετατίθεσθαι (LXX.).
[177]On σελίς, cf. Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography, p, 58.
[178]See also ib. 18 sq.; Hieron. Praef. in Paral., and in ep. ad Tit., c. iii.
[179]Used here loosely as = κόμματα, the κῶλον being properly a line consisting of a complete clause, and of 8—17 syllables: cf. E. M. Thompson, Gk and Lat. Palaeography, p. 81 f.; J. R. Harris, Stichometry, p. 23 f.
[180]In the earlier Cairo palimpsest even such words as אל and μή had each a line to itself; see Nestle in Hastings' D.B. iv. 443.
[181]Ἐπικατασκευάζειν is insuper vel postea concinnare (Field, prolegg. p. xii.); cf. Dio Cass. l. 23 τὰ σκάφη κατεσκεύασε . . . καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὰ πύργους ἐπεκατεσκεύασε. Oeconomus (iv. 873), who regards the Tetrapla as the earlier work, understands Eusebius to mean only that Origen added to the LXX. the three columns containing ΑʹΣʹΘʹ .
[182]Field, Hexapla, ii. ad loc.; cf. Hieron. in Psalmos (ed. Morin.), p. 66.
[183]It occurs (e.g.) in the Hexaplaric Syriac at 2 Kings xvi. 2.
[184]Cf. the practice of Aquila (Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kings acc. to Aquila, p. 14).
[185] Ep. ad Sunn. et Fret.
[186]See Driver, Samuel, p. xlvi.: "he assumed that the original Septuagint was that which agreed most closely with the Hebrew text as he knew it . . . a step in the wrong direction."
[187]A combination of the asterisk and obelus; see below, p. 71.
[188]E.g. at Exod. vi. 16, Γηρσών was substituted by Origen for Γεδσών. Whether his practice in this respect was uniform has not been definitely ascertained.
[189]Hieron. Praef. ad Chron.: "quod maioris audaciae est, in editione LXX. Theodotionis editionem miscuit, asteriscis designans quae minus ante fuerant, et virgulis quae ex superfluo videbantur apposita." The Book of Job offered the largest field for interpolation: a scholion in cod. 161 says, Ἰὼβ στίχοι, αχʹ χωρὶς ἀστερίσκων, μετὰ δὲ τῶν ἀστερίσκων ͵βςʹ.
[190]See a complete list of these in Gardthausen, Griech. Paläographie, p. 288 f.
[191]On an exceptional case in which he obelised words which stood in the Hebrew text, see Cornill, Ezechiel, p. 386 (on xxxii. 17).
[192]A somewhat different view of Origen's practice is suggested by H. Lietzmann (Gött. gel. Anz. 1902, 5) and G. Mercati (Atti d. R. Acc. d. Sci. di Torino, 10 Apr. 1896: vol. 31, p. 656 ff.
[193]This sometimes becomes a hook .
[194]Prolegg. p. lix. sq.
[195]Lietzmann proposes to read: Εὐαγρίου σχόλια εἰσίν, ὅσα . . . ἀριθμόν, Ὠρ. δέ, ὅσα Ὠριγένην κ.τ.λ.
[196]The vertical bars denote, of course, the length of the lines of Cod. G. The lines of the LXX. column of the Hexapla, if we may judge by the specimen (p. 62 f.), varied in length according to the sense.
[197]See the confused and inexact statement of Epiphanius, de mens. et pond. 18.
[198]See Birt, das antike Buchwesen, pp. 100, 107 ff.
[199]If the Hexapla was written in lines consisting of only one word like the Cairo palimpsest, this estimate is far too low; see Nestle in Hastings, D. B iv. p. 443.
[200]See also the note at the end of the Scholia on Proverbs printed in the Notitia l. c.: μετελήφθησαν ἀφ᾿ ὧν εὕρομεν ἑξαπλῶν, καὶ πάλιν αὐτοχειρι Πάμφιλος καὶ Εὐσέβιος διορθώσαντο.
[201]= Hpaul, Gregory, p. 449, Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 183 f.
[202]See G. A. Smith, Hist. Geogr. of Palestine, p. 143 f.
[203]Hieron. praef. in Jos.: "et sumptu et labore maximo indigent."
[204]Ep. ad Sunn. et Fret. 2.
[205]Adv. Rufin. ii. 27.
[206]Identified by some with an Antoninus martyred three months before Pamphilus (Lake).
[207]On ἀντιβάλλειν and διορθοῦσθαι, see Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 55.
[208]Jerome says indeed (ep. ad Aug. ii.): "quod si feceris (i.e. if you refuse Origen's recension) omnino ecclesiae bibliothecas damnare cogeris; vix enim onus vel alter inveniatur liber qui ista non habeat." But he is drawing a hasty inference from experiences gathered in Palestine.
[209]See c. v.
[210]Jerome speaks elsewhere (in Esa. lviii. 11) of "exemplaria Alexandrina."
[211]Fabricius-Harles, vii. p. 547 (cf. vi. p. 205).
[212]This is however mere conjecture; see Harnack-Preuschen, i. p. 442: "dass dieser Hesychius . . . identisch ist mit dem etwa gleichzeitigen Bibelkritiker gleichen Namens, ist nicht zu erweisen."
[213]Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, p. 66 ff., the Hesychian group in Ezekiel is βςʹ κλμφψ, i.e. codd. 49, 68, 87, 90, 91, 228, 238 (Parsons). See also Ceriani in Rendiconti (Feb. 18, 1886).
[214]For the Octateuch Mr McLean (J. Th. St. ii. 306) quotes as Hesychian or Egyptian MSS. H.-P. 44, 74, 76, 84, 106, 134, &c.
[215]Cf. the scholion in cod. M at 3 Regn. iii. 46 ἐντεῦθεν διαφόρως ἔχει τὰ ἀνατολικὰ βιβλία. The Lucianic text was also known as the ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἔκδοσις (Oeconomus, iv. 548).
[216]Oeconomus refuses to identify this person with the martyr and saint (iv. p. 498 n.).
[217]Introduction to the N. T. in Greek, p. 138; c., the Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the N. T., p. 29.
[218]Introduction, p. 134 f.
[219]Cf. F. C. Burkitt, Old Latin and Itala, p. 91, "Lucian's recession in fact corresponds in a way to the Antiochian text of the N. T. Both are texts composed out of ancient elements welded together and polished down."
[220]Prolegg. p: lxxxiv. f.
[221]See c. v.
[222]Cf. his Prolegomena to Librorum V T. Canon. Pars prior graece (Gotting. 1883), p. xiv.
[223]Or, as he denotes them, h, f, m, d, p.
[224]A Hexaplaric reading due to Aquila; see Field ad loc.
[225]Notes on the Heb. text of the Books of Samuel, p. li. f.
[226]Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, p. 324.
[227]Newman, Arians, p. 6 f.; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 31 n.
[228]Hort, Introd. p. 143.
[229]On Lucian's work see the art. Lucianic Recension of the LXX. in Ch. Q. R. (Jan. 1901); E. Hautsch, Der Lukiantext des Oktateuch (in Mitteilungen des Septuaginta Unternehmens, Heft i., Berlin, 1910.
[230] Praef. in Paralipp.
[231]Cf. Hort, Introd. p. 142.
[232]The evidence is collected by Caspari Quellen zur Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, iii. 267 f., and summarised by Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. lii. ff.
[233]The evidence is collected by Caspari Quellen zur Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, iii. 267 f., and summarised by Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. lii. ff.
[234]On the other hand reasons have been produced for suspecting that the Latin version had its origin at Antioch; see Guardian, May 25, 1892, p. 786 ff., and Dr H. A. A. Kennedy in Hastings' D. B. iii p. 54 ff. [This chapter was already in type when Dr Kennedy's article came into my hands. I regret that for this reason I have been unable to make full use of his exhaustive treatment of the Latin versions.]
[235]To facilitate comparison obvious errors of the MSS. and orthographical peculiarities have been removed.
[236]On the MSS. of the Testimonia cf. O. L. Texts, ii. p. 123 ff
[237]cod. demiserunt
[238]hiat cod.
[239]cod. delinquit
[240]cod. adfert
[241]Burkitt (O. L. and Itala, p. 93) proposes refectionis.
[242]Introduction, p. 78 ff. Cf. Westcott, Canon, p. 252 ff.; Wordsworth, O. L. Biblical Texts, i., p. xxx. ff.
[243]On Augustine's use of this term see F. C. Burkitt, O. L. and Ita1a, p. 55 ff.
[244]Cf. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 6; Kennedy, in Hastings' D. B. p. 58 ff.
[245]Introduction, p. 83.
[246]For this purpose the Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum is the best collection available; but it is still far from complete.
[247]A revised Sabatier is promised by the Munich Academy (Archiv, viii. 2, p. 311 ff.).
[248]Rules of Tyconius, p. cxvi. f.
[249]Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 6. Cf. Driver, Samuel, p. lxxvii. f.
[250]Variae lectiones, ii., p. 426.
[251]Monumenta sacra et profana, 1. i., p. xvi.; Le recensioni dei LXX e la versione latina detta Itala (Rendiconti, Feb. 18, 1886). See also Driver, Notes on Samuel, p. lxxviii. f.; Kennedy, in Hastings' D.B., l.c.; Nestle, Einführung 2 , pp. 148 note, 280 [E. Tr., p. 182 f.]; Wordsworth-White. p.654.
[252]Burkitt, Rules of Tyconius, p. cxvii.
[253]Cf. N. McLean in J. Th. St. ii. 305 ff.
[255]Leviticus and Numbers formed until recently a separate codex, see Robert, p. vi. f.
[256]Deut. xi. 4—xxxiv. 12 belongs to the fragment announced by Delisle and published by Robert in 1900.
[257]Belonging to the Library of the University of Würzburg.
[258]See V. Schultze, die Quedlinburger Itala-Miniaturen der k. Bibliothek in Berlin (Munich, 1898).
[259]On these see Bergen Hist. de la Vulgate, p. 18 f., and the caution in O. L. and Itala, p. 9 f.
[260]These fragments, as I am informed by Dr W. O. E. Oesterley, contain an almost purely Vulgate text, and should perhaps disappear from this list.
[261]Aug. ep. 82 (ad Hieronymum): "hi qui me invidere putant utilibus laboribus tuis."
[262]Cf. adv. Rufin. ii. 30 "psalterium . . . certe emendatissimum iuxta LXX. interpretes nostro labore dudum Roma suscepit"; where, as Westcott says (Smith's D. B. iii. 1698 n.), he seems to include both revisions.
[263]Martène, de ant. rit. i. p. i8 f.
[264]Cf. Bp Westcott, History of the English Bible, pp. 206 ff., 351 ff.; Kirkpatrick, Psalms, Intr. p. lxxiii f.
[265]Editions published in 1874 by Baer and Tischendorf (Lib. Psalm. Heb. atque Lat.) and by Lagarde (Psalt. iuxta Hebraeos).
[266]Burkitt, O. L. and Itala, pp. 8, 32 f.
[267]Praef. in libr. Job: "qui adhuc apud Latinos iacebat in stercore et vermibus scatebat errorum."
[268]ibid. "integrum immaculatumque gaudete."
[269]Ad Pammach.: "veterem editionem nostrae translationi compara, et liquido providebitis quantum distet inter veritatem et mendacium." Jerome's satisfaction with his original revision of Job was continued even after he had produced a new version from the Hebrew; in the preface to the latter he leaves the student free to choose between the two ("eligat unusquisque quod vult").
[270]Praef. in Job ed. Heb. See below, pt II., c. ii.
[271]In Mittheilungen, ii.
[272] Praef. ad Moralia in Job.
[273]Cf. e.g. Berger, op. cit. p. xi.: "les textes des anciennes versions et de la nouvelle sont constamment mêlés et enchevêtrés dans les manuscrits."
[274]On the relation of Jerome's Latin Judith to the Septuagint see C. J. Ball in Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha, p. 257 ff.
[275]See Gospel acc. to St Mark, p. xiv. f. The Clementine Homilies (i. 8 ff.) attribute the foundation of the Alexandrian Church to Barnabas. But a yet earlier beginning is possible. In Acts xviii. 24 cod. D reads Ἀλεξανδρεὺς . . . ὃς ἦν κατηχημένος ἐν τῇ πατρίδι τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου, on which Blass (Acta app. p. 201) remarks: "itaque iam tum (id quod sine testimonio suspicandum erat) in Aegyptum quoque nova religio permanaverat."
[276]Acts ii. 9 f. οἱ κατοικοῦντες . . . Αἴγυπτον. Ib. vi. 9 τινὲς ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τῆς λεγομένης . . . Ἀλεξανδρέων. Cf. Report of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1899— 1900, p. 54.
[277]Cf. what is said of St Anthony in the Vita Antonii (Migne, P. G. xxvi. 944 sq.).
[278]Of the 31 letters of the Coptic alphabet 7 only () are not from the Greek. On the pre-Christian systems see Clem. strom. v. 4 οἱ παῤ Αἰγυπτίοις παιδευόμενοι πρῶτον μὲν πάντων . . . ἐκμανθάνουσι τὴν ἐπιστολογραφικὴν καλουμένην (the Demotic), δευτέραν δὲ τὴν ἱερατικὴν . . . ὑστάτην δὲ καὶ τελευταίαν τὴν ἱερογλυφικήν.
[279]Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 97.
[280]Intr. to N. T. in Greek, p. 85.
[281]Sacr. bibl. fragmenta Copto-Sahidica, i. p. viii.
[282]Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 105 f.
[283]Hastings' D. B. i. p. 672. Cf. F. E. Brightman in J. Th. St. i. 254.
[284]The Demotic, as it is known to us, appears to present no dialectic variation, perhaps because the specimens which have reached us were all the work of the single class—the scribes: see Hyvernat, Étude sur les versions Coptes in Revue Biblique, v. 3, p. 429; A. C. Headlam in Scrivener-Miller, p. 105.
[285]Formerly known as the Memphitic, a name which might be more appropriately applied to the form of Middle Egyptian current at Memphis. 'Bohairic' is derived from el-Bohairah, a district S. of Alexandria. 'Sahidic,' also called Thebaic, is from es-sa‘îd = Upper Egypt. On some characteristics of the several dialects see Hyvernat, p. 431.
[286]Cf. Steindorff, Die Apokalypse des Elias, p. 2.
[287]On the correspondence of this Psalter with cod. U see below, p, 143.
[288]See O. T. in Greek, iii. p. ix.
[289]A. Schulte in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1894— 5; see Hyvernat, p. 69.
[290]Ezechiel, p. 66 ff.
[291]Burkitt in Encycl. Brit. iv. 5027; cf. Hatch, Essays, p. 215 ff.; Dillmann, Textkritiches zum Buche Ijob, p. 4; Burkitt, O. L. and Itala, p. 8; Kenyon, Our Bible and the ancient MSS., p. 751.
[292]Hyvernat, p. 71.
[293]See the remarks of F. Robinson in Hastings' Dict. of the Bible i. 673a.
[294]Charles (art. Ethiopic Version, in Hastings' D. B. i. p. 792) states that "the Abyssinians first received Christianity through Aramaean missionaries." But Tyre in the fourth century was as Greek as Alexandria and Antioch.
[295]Nestle, Urtext, p. 148. Loisy, Histoire critique, I. ii. p. 231.
[296]Ankündigung einer neuen Ausgabe der gr. Übersetzung d. A.T., p. 28; cf. Materialen, i. p. iii.
[297]This criticism of Lagarde's view is due to Mr N. McLean, who has recently examined the Ethiopic Genesis for the larger Cambridge Septuagint.
[298]Loisy, Hist. crit., I. ii. p. 239. Mr Burkitt in Hastings' D. B. (i. p. 137) writes "J(udges), S(amuel), K(ings), and Ch(ronicles), are all from the Peshitta."
[299]Lagarde gives for the Psalter four texts, viz. those published at Rome (1614), Paris (1645), Quzhayya (1612), Aleppo (1706); for Job, besides the versions mentioned in the text, that of the Paris Polyglott.
[300]Migne, P. G., lxvi. 241; cf. ib. 252 f., 263, 466 ff., 492 ff.
[301]Nestle in Urtext, p. 230; cf. Bleek-Wellhausen, pp. 558-560; W. E. Barnes in J. Th. St. ii. 186 ff.
[302]Gwynn, D. C. B., iv. p. 434.
[303]Gwynn, Paulus Tellensis and Thomas Harklensis, in D. C. B. iv. pp. 266 ff., 1014 ff.
[304]Viz., parts of Genesis and Joshua; half of Numbers, nearly the whole of Judges, Ruth, and 3 Kingdoms, and Exodus complete.
[305]Field, Prolegg. in Hex., p. lxix., where many instances are produced.
[306]The fragments in Studia Sinaitica are accompanied by critical notes, the work of Dr Nestle, in which they are carefully compared with the Greek text (pp. xl.— lxxiv.).
[307]Burkitt in Anecd. Oxon., Semitic ser., 1. ix. p. 44, and cf. Nestle's notes to Studia Sinaitica, vi.
[308]See Studia Sin., vi. p. xiv. f. For recent additions see Nestle in Hastings' D. B. iv. 447.
[309]Bickell, Conspectus rei Syr. lit., p. 9; cf. Ebedjesu in Assemani, iii. 71.
[310]Field, Hexapla, ii. p. 448.
[311]Mon. sacr. et prof. v.; cf. Gwynn in D. C. B. iv. p. 433.
[312]Gwynn, D. C. B. iii.
[313]1 Regn. i. 1— 3 Regn. ii. 11, and Isaiah are in the London MSS. lx., lxi. (Wright, Catalogue, p. 37 ff.), and the Pentateuch and Daniel are preserved at Paris.
[314]See Ladvocat, Journal des savants, for 1765; Eichhorn, Bibliothek, ii. p. 270; De Sacy, Notices et extraits, iv. p. 648 ff.; Ceriani, Mon. sacr. et prof. v. i. 1.
[315]On the other hand see Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 7, note; and Bleek Wellhausen (1893), p. 560.
[316]For the Apocryphal books see Lagarde, Libri V T. apocr. Syriace, and Bensly-Barnes, The fourth book of Maccabees in Syriac (Camb. 1895).
[317]Socr. ii. 11, iv. 33, Theodoret iv. 37, Philostorg. ii. 5.
[318]So F. C. Conybeare (Hastings, i. p. 152). In Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 151, he suggests that the earlier books had been rendered previously.
[319]On this see Conybeare, Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 153.
[320]See Dr Salmon in D. C. B., iii. p. 908.
[321]Conybeare, op. cit., p. 151 f. He attributes the composite character of the Armenian text (of which he gives instances) to Hexaplaric influences.
[322]Genesis Gr., p. 18.
[323]Mr McLean, who has collated the greater part of the Octateuch, informs me that "the Armenian shews a typical hexaplar text in Genesis and Exodus, agreeing closely with the Syriaco-hexaplar version, and in varying degrees with the MSS. that compose the hexaplar group." "The hexaplar element (he adds) is much less in evidence in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, but again appears strongly in Joshua, Judges, and Ruth."
[324]Op. cit., p. 152 f.
[325]In some MSS. Job precedes the Psalter.
[326]See Part II. c. i.
[327]The Russian Bible, in Ch. Quart. Review, xli. 81 (Oct. 195), p. 219.
[328]Lagarde's CEHKRSUYZ were unknown to the Oxford editors. Greek capitals have been used in the Cambridge manual LXX. for a few uncials not mentioned by Lagarde.
[329]Libr. V. T, can. pars i., p. v. sq.
[330]Ezechiel, p. 19 ff.
[331]Cf. Orig. in Ioann. t. xiii. 26, Epiph. de mens. et pond. 4. Pentateuchus occurs in Tertullian adv. Marc. i. 10.
[332]For IX = P see under Cursive MSS. (H.-P. 294.
[333]This MS. ought to take rank among the cursives; see below, p. 145.
[334]For the order of the books see Part II. c. i.
[335]As to these see Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient MSS., p. 129.
[336]See c. vi.
[337]Prolegg. i. p 358.
[338]E. Maunde Thompson, Cod. Alex. i. p. 8 ff. Ibid.
[339]This has been proved by Nestle (Academy, May 30, 1891) against Batiffol (La Vaticane de Paul III. à Paul V., Paris, 1890, p. 82. Cf. Nestle, Septuagintastudien, ii. p 11, note i.
[340]La Vaticane de Paul III. à Paul V. (Paris, 1890). Gregory, Prolegg. p. 360.
[341]On this work see Nestle, Septuagintast. iii. p. 13 ff.
[342]Specimens are given in Sir E. Maunde Thompson's Greek and Latin Palæography, p. 150; and F. G. Kenyon's Our Bible &c., p. 136; E. Nestle, Einführung², Tafel 4.
[343]Sir E. M. Thompson, op. cit. p. 159; WH., Intr. p. 75.
[344]F. G. Kenyon, Palæography of Greek papyri, p. l20. See A. Rahlfs, A1ter u. Heimath der Vat. Bibelhandschrift, in G. G. N., 1899, i. p. 72 ff.
[345]On palimpsest MSS. see Sir E. M. Thompson, Greek and Latin Palæography, p. 75 ff.
[346]For a list of these see Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs, p. 2.
[347]Tischendorf, Cod. Ephraemi rescriptus, prolegg. p. 9.
[348]See a photographic facsimile in Facsimilés des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibl. Nat. (H. Omont, Paris, 1892).
[349]See Tischendorf, op. cit., prolegg. p. 5.
[350]So called in honour of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony.
[351]Cf. Tischendorf's remarks in Litt. C.-Blatt, 1867 (27).
[352]"They have much of the appearance of the successive columns in a papyrus roll, and it is not at all impossible that it [the MS.] was actually copied from such a roll." Kenyon, p. 124; cf. Scrivener-Miller, p. 95.
[353]Another explanation (suggested by Dr Gwynn) is given by Dr Lupton in Wace's Apocrypha, i., p. 2.
[354]A facsimile of 2 Esdr. xviii. 15—xix. 15 may be seen in Stade, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, ii, p. 192.
[355]Cf. Wetstein, N. T. i. p. 133; Lagarde, Septuagintastudien, p. 48.
[356]Cf. Deutsche Lit.-Zeit. 1897, p. 1475 f.
[357]Klostermann, p. 9.
[358]Holmes, Praef. ad Pentateuch.
[359]It was the eighth of Bessarion's MSS.; see Schott in Eichhorn's Repert., viii. 181.
[360]Still an episcopal see in the time of Le Quien; see Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 64, note.
[361]They stated that it had once been the property of Origen.
[362]Walton's statement that Cod. D at one time contained the Pentateuch is however groundless; in the Cotton catalogue of 1621 it is described as "Genesis only."
[363]I owe the reference to Dr Nestle (Urtext, p. 71).
[364]Mr Bradshaw, I now learn, had previously noticed this, but he does not appear to have published the fact, or to have left any written statement about it.
[365]In his paper über eine von Tischendorf aus dem Orient mit-gebrachte, in Oxford, Cambridge, London, u. Petersburg liegende Handschrift der Septuaginta, reprinted from Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1898; cf. Th. L.-Z., Feb. 4, 1899, p. 74. See also E. Klostermann, G. G. A., 1895, p. 257.
[366]"The date of the whole MS., including the uncial part, may very well be the tenth century" (Class. Review, l.c.).
[367]The fragments of Malachi and Isaiah, attributed to F in Holmes, followed by Tischendorf V. T.², and Kenyon (p. 62), belong to a MS. of cent. xi.; see Ceriani, Mon. sacr. et prof., praef. p. ix.
[368]See Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Pal., p. 62.
[369]Cf. Thompson, op. cit. p. 72, "they were not systematically applied to Greek texts before the 7th century."
[370]Fragments marked are at Paris; that marked † is at St Petersburg.
[371]Montfaucon, Pal. sacr. p. 186 f.; Tischendorf, Mon. sacr. ined. n. c. iii. prolegg. p. xviii.
[372] V. T. gr. cod. Sarraviani-Colbertini quae supersunt in bibliothecis Leidensi Parisiensi Petropolitana phototypice edita. Praefatus est H. Omont.
[373]On the fragments of Judges see Moore, Judges, p. xlv.
[374]On the latter see H. S. Cronin, Codex Purpurcus Petropalitanus, p. xxiii.
[375]Other notes occur in a hand of the ninth century and in a late cursive hand.
[376]Gregory, i. p. 375; Scrivener-Miller, i. p1 134.
[377]See Gregory, i. p. 447, Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 172 f.
[378]Cf. Nestle, Septuagintastudien, iii. p. 17 ff.
[379]See Catalogue of Ancient MSS. in the British Museum, i. (1881), where there is a photograph of Ps. xxiii. 10 ff., and Dr Kenyon's Palaeography of papyri, p. 116 f.
[380]Kenyon, loc. cit.
[381]Cf. F. E. Brightman in J. Th. St. ii. 275 f.
[382]See E. Klostermann, Analecta zur Septuaginta, &c., p. 63.
[383]Hexapla, ii. p. 2.
[384]See Gregory, i. p. 399 f.; Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 153.
[385]Recensioni dei LXX., p. 6.
[386]Printed in 0. T. in Greek, iii.², p. 8 f.
[387]In Eichhorn's Repertorium, viii. p. 202 f.
[388]The specimens and descriptions in the Turin catalogue (p. 74 ff.) seem to shew that the headings only are written in uncials.
[389]Edited (1905) by Prof. G. Deissmann.
[390]The Amherst Papyri, pt. i. (1900), adds some small uncial fragments from Gen. (i. 1—5) and Job (i. 21 f., ii. 3) and portions of Pss. v., lviii., lix., cviii., cxviii., cxxxv., cxxxviii.—cxl. Finally, Mrs Lewis (Exp. Times, Nov. 1901) announces the discovery of a palimpsest from Mt Sinai containing Gen. xl. 3, 4, 7 in an uncial hand of the sixth or seventh century.
[391]The arabic numerals are the symbols employed by H. and P. For descriptions of the unnumbered MSS., the writer is indebted to Messrs Brooke and McLean, and Mr Brooke has also assisted him in verifying and correcting the earlier lists.
[392]Dots in this position shew that the MS. extends beyond the Octateuch.
[393]Dots before the name of the first book quoted indicate that the MS. has already appeared under (A), where fuller information may be sought. This note applies mutatis mutandis to (C) and (D).
[394]The only Greek MS. which in Ps. xcv (xcvi) 10 adds απο τω ξυλω (sic); see below, p. 467.
[395]Other Psalters used by Lagarde (Specimen, p. 3 f.) are St Gall 17 (ix) = G(ps); Munich 251 = L(ps); a Bamberg Graeco-Latin MS. and a Cologne MS. closely related to it, which he calls W and Z respectively. Cf. Rahlfs, Sept.-St. ii. pp. 7, 8.
[396]Specimens are given by H. Omont, Facsimilés du plus anciens MSS. Grecs (Paris, 1892), nos. xx.—xxii.
[397]A few lectionaries have already been mentioned among the H.P. MSS. (37, 61, 132).
[398]At Messina, as Mr Brightman informs me, there are six lectionaries of cents. xii, xiii. Mr T. W. Allen (Notes on Greek MSS. in Italy, 1890) mentions two at Bologna (xi) and one at Lucerne (xv).
[399]Their words are: "mediam autem inter has Latinam B. Hieronymi translationem velut inter Synagogam et orientalem ecclesiam posuimus, tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones, medium autem Iesum, hoc est Romanam sive Latinam ecclesiam, collocantes."
[400]In the dedication to Leo X. he says: "testari possumus . . . maximi laboris nostri partum in eo praecipue fuisse versatum ut . . . castigatissima omni ex parte vetustissimaque exemplaria pro archetypis haberemus."
[401]"Ex ista apostolica bibliotheca antiquissimos tum V. tum N. Testamenti codices perquam humane ad nos misisti."
[402]See Vercellone, in V. et N. T. ed. Mai, i. p. v. n.; Var. lectt. ii. p. 436; Dissertazioni Accademiche, 1864, p. 407 ff.; Tregelles, An account of the printed text of the Greek N.T. (London 1854), p. 2 ff.; Delitzsch, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Polyglotten Bibel des Cardinals Ximenes (Leipzig, 1871); Lagarde Libr. V. T. can. i., p. iii.; E. Nestle, Septuagintastudien, i., pp. 2, 13; E. Klostermann, Analecta, p. 15 f.
[403]On the orthography see Nestle, Septuagintastudien, ii., p. 11, note b.
[404]Cf. Lagarde, Genesis graece, p. 6; Cornill, Ezechiel, p. 79; Nestle, Urtext, p. 65. On the source of the Psalms in this edition see Nestle, Septuagintastudien, iii., p. 32.
[405]The second i has been added in many copies with the pen. The impression was worked off in 1586, but the work was not published until May 1587.
[406]"Elle n’est point signée, mais on sait qu’elle fut redigée par Fulvio Orsini. Elle est d’ailleurs très inférieure à la lettre de Carafa." (P. Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul III. à Paul V., p. 89).
[407]On the genesis of the Sixtine edition the curious reader may consult Nestle, Septuagintastudien, i., ii., where the particulars are collected with the utmost care and fulness.
[408]Cf. Tregelles, An account of the printed text, &c., p. 185.
[409]According to Nestle (Septuagintastudien, i. p. 9, ii. p. 12) Genesis i. 1—xlvi. 28 in cod. B are supplied from cod. Chis. R. vi. 38 (H.P. 19, Lag. h).
[410]The praefatio was reprinted with Archd. Churton's notes by Prof. W. Selwyn (Cambridge, 1855). The 1665 edition was reissued by John Hayes, 1684.
[411]See Nestle, Septuagintastudien, iii. p. 32, note p.
[412]Patrick Young had projected a complete edition of cod. A (Walton's Prolegomena, ed. Wrangham, ii. p. 124). His transcript of the MS. is still preserved at the British Museum (Harl. 7522 = Holmes 241; see above, p. 152).
[413]Cf. Ch. Q. R., April 1899, p. 102.
[414]Cf. Madan's Summary catalogue of MSS. in the Bodleian: Eighteenth Century collections, pp. 614—641.
[415]On Holmes' less distinguished coadjutor see Ch. Q. R. p. 104. Parsons died in 1847 at the age of 85.
[416]See above, p. 153.
[417]Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 132.
[418]Libr. V. T. Canon. p. i. p. xv.
[419]Prolegg. § viii.
[420]Cambridge University Reporter, March 13, 1883.
[421]Much of the labour of revision was generously undertaken by Dr Nestle, and valuable assistance was also rendered by several English scholars; see i. p xxxiii., ii. p. xiv., iii. p. xviii. f.
[422]The fourth edition is in progress (i. 1909).
[423]V. T. Libr. can. praef. p. xvi.
[424]Cf. E. Nestle, Zur Rekonstruktion der Septuaginta, in Philologus, N. F. xii. (1899), p. 121 ff.
[425]See also Nestle in Hastings, D. B. iv. 441.
[426]A fuller list is given by Nestle in Hastings, D.B. iv. 441.
[427]See Nestle's art. Sirach in Hastings, iv.
[428]As given by Origen ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 25.
[429]I.e. חׂמֶשׁ פִּקּוּדִים 'fifth of the precepts'; cf. the Mishnic title פִּקּוּדִים סֵפֶר (Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 294). Jerome transliterates the initial word, vayedabber; cf. Epiph. (Lagarde, Symmicta ii. 178), οὐαϊδαβήρ ἥ ἐστιν Ἀριθμῶν. The book is also known as בְּטִדְבַּר.
[430]I.e. וִהַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד, (first two words of 1 Kings i.), Malachim, Jerome; δμαλαχείμ, Epiphanius.
[431]With variants Μεσλώθ, Μισλώθ (leg. for. Μσλώθ). Masaloth, Jerome; δμεθαλώθ, Epiphanius.
[432]Origen includes Ruth with Judges under Σαφατείμ.
[433]Epiph. l.c.: ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἄλλη μικρὰ βίβλος ἣ καλεῖται Κινώθ [Mishn. קִינוֹת], ἥτις ἑρμηνεύεται Θρῆνος Ἰερεμίου.
[434]This list has been adapted from Ryle, Canon of the O.T. (table following p. 280).
[435]Cf. Eus. H.E. iv. 22 ὁ πᾶς τῶν ἀρχαίων χορὸς Πανάρετον Σοφίαν τὰς Σολομῶνος παροιμίας ἐκάλουν.
[436]Lagarde, l.c.: "ich widerhole sie, von mir redigiert."
[437]The B.M. MS. counts Ruth as a separate book and after Daniel places the numeral λεʹ.
[438]"Quibusdam autem visum est additis Tobia et Judith xxiv libros secundum numerum Graecarum literarum connumerare."
[439]Of the canonicity of these two books Augustine speaks with some reserve: "de quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur . . . qui tamen quoniam in auctoritatem recipi meruerunt inter propheticos numerandi sunt."
[440]The text of Preuschen has been followed; it is based on a St Gall MS. which appears to be less corrupt than the Cheltenham MS. used by Mommsen and others.
[441]See also the Latin list printed by Mr C. H. Turner in J. Th. St. i. 557 ff.
[442]Or less correctly Παραλειπόμενοι, 'omitted books,' as in some lists.
[443]On this rendering see Driver, Deuteronomy, p. i. The Massora calls the book מִשְׁגֵה הַתּוֹרָה.
[444]See also Acts xiii. 20, 33, Rom. x. 16, xv. 11, Heb. xi. 22.
[445]See Prof. Ryle's Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xx. ff.
[446]So in Cohn-Wendland's edition (iii. 4, 57, 230); in ii. 271 this title is ascribed to Moses, although ἐξαγωγή does not like ἔξοδος occur in the Alexandrian version of the book. Ἡ Ἐξαγωγή was also the title of the Hellenist Ezekiel's poem on the Exodus (see below, p. 371).
[447]Cf. the change from מְלָּכִים to Βασιλεῖαι.
[448]See Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 294.
[449]Sometimes in a simple transliteration, as Genesis &c. Tertullian has Arithmi but in Cyprian the Latin Numeri is already used; see Burkitt, O. L. and Itala, p. 4.
[450]The official Vulgate had Canticum, until the plural was adopted by Sixtus V.; see Nestle, ein Jubiläum der Lat. Bibel, p. 18.
[451]Driver, Introd., p. xxvii.
[452]So already in Sir. xlix. 10 τῶν ιβʹ πρφητῶν.
[453]See Ryle, Canon of the O.T., p. 165 f.
[454]Unless we omit the comma after ὕμνους and regard ὕ. καὶ τὰ ἄλλα as = the Hagiographa; cf. Joseph. c. Ap. as quoted below, p. 220.
[455]Yet even the Torah was not always kept apart in the Greek Bible, as the names Octateuch and Heptateuch witness.
[456]Dr Sanday (in Studia Biblica, iii. p. 240) regards this as Palestinian, identifying it with Cyril's method. But Cyril begins with a dodecad (δωδεκάτη ἡ Ἐσθήρ· καὶ τὰ μὲν Ἱστορικὰ ταῦτα).
[457]The term γραφεῖα (כְּתוּבִים) or ἁγιόγραφα is transferred to this group.
[458]So Leontius τὰ ταραινετικά), but he classed the Psalter among them.
[459]See Kihn, Theodor v. Mopsuestia u. Junilius, p. 356 f.
[460]Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah appears to have been originally a single book. But while Ezra and Nehemiah are still joined in the Greek Bible, Chronicles stands by itself both in and , and in it follows Nehemiah and forms the last book of the Canon (cf. Mt. xxiii. 35, and see Barnes Chronicles, in the Cambridge Bible, pp. x.—xiii.).
[461]The division probably began in the LXX.
[462]Jerome, Prol. Gal.: "quinque a plerisque libri duplices aestimantur." As the twenty-two books answered to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, so these 'double books' were thought to correspond to the 'double letters,' i.e. those which had two forms (כ ,מ ,נ ,פ ,צ). The 'double books were not always identical in different lists; see Sanday, op. cit. p. 239.
[463]Cf. Ryle Canon, pp. 157 f., 222, 292; Sanday, op. cit. p. 236 ff.
[464]Zahn offers a suggestion, to which Sanday inclines, that the writer refers to the Excerpta ex Theodoto which are partly preserved in the works of Clement of Alexandria.
[465]Melito ap. Eus. H.E. iv. 26 ἐπειδὴ μαθεῖν τὴν τῶν παλαιῶν βιβλίων ἐβουλήθης ἀκρίβειαν, πόσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ ὁποῖα τὴν τάξιν εἶεν . . . ἀνελθὼν εἰς τὴν ἀνατολὴν καὶ ἕως τοῦ τόπου ἔνθα ἐκηρύχθη καὶ ἐπράχθη . . . ἔπεμψά σοι.
[466]Eus. H.E. vi. 24.
[467]Already cited freely by Josephus as an authority for the history of the period. Origen, it should be added, regards 1, 2 Esdras as a single volume (Ἔσδρας πρώτη, δευτέρα ἐν ἑνί).
[468]Cf. Melito's omission of Esther, and the note appended to the list of Amphilochius.
[469]The N.T. members of the same class are the Teaching and the Shepherd.
[470]Haer. I. i. 1.
[471]De mens. et pond. 4.
[472]Like Origen, he explains that they form together but a single book (τοῦ Ἔσδρα αἱ δύο εἰς μίαν συναπτόμεναι βίβλον).
[473]The non-canonical books (τὰ ἔξω) are however carefully distinguished from real apocrypha when the latter are mentioned; e.g. in the stichometry of Nicephorus, and in the list of the 'Sixty Books.'
[474]In symb. 38 "alii libri sunt qui non canonici sed ecclesiastici a maioribus appellati sunt."
[475]Cf. Retract. ii. 4.
[476]1 Cor. 55.
[477]c. 19. 9.
[478]c. 4.
[479]Philipp. 10.
[480]Strom. i. 10, v. 14.
[481]Cf. Westcott in D. C. B. iv. p. 130.
[482]See Kenyon, Palaeography of Greek papyri, pp. 24, 113 ff.
[483]Ib. p. 122: "no papyrus roll of Homer hitherto discovered contains more than two books of the Iliad. Three short orations fill the largest roll of Hyperides."
[484]E. M. Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 57.
[485]Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xxxiii.
[486]See Ryle, Canon, p. 225 ff.
[487]Ryle, ib., pp. 229 ff., 281 f.
[488]On this see Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii. p. 241.
[489]Ruth is attached to 1 Regn. in the Cheltenham list, and Augustine inclines to this arrangement (see Sanday, 1.c., p. 242). The result was to create a Heptateuch; for the word cf. J. E. B. Mayor, The Latin Heptateuch, p. xxxvi. R. Peiper's text of the Heptateuchos, to which Prof. Mayor refers (p. xxxiv.), appeared in the Vienna Corpus scr. eccl. lat. vol. xiii. (1895).
[490]For statements by early Mohammedan writers as to the extent of the Jewish and Christian Canons see Margoliouth in Exp. Times, Nov. 1899, p. 91.
[491]The chief exceptions are: Cod. v, Hosea, Amos, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah; Greg. Naz. and Cod. Barocc., Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Jonah, Obadiah; Junilius, Ebedjesu, Augustine, the Hebrew order.
[492]Ryle, Canon, p. 229.
[493]The proximity of Esther to Judith in many lists is perhaps due to the circumstance that in both books the central figure is a woman; cf. p. 213 (right-hand column).
[494]Cf. Ryle, Canon, p. 199 ff.
[495]Cf. Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii. p. 233 ff.
[496]See Kenyon, Palaeography of papyri, p. 119 f.; Sanday, l.c. Papyrus was freely used for codices in Egypt during the third century; cf. Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ii. p. 2.
[497]For the order of the books in Latin MS. Bibles see S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, pp. 301—6, 331—9.
[498]Following the order of The Old Testament in Greek, these are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1—4 Kingdoms (vol. i.), 1—2 Paralipomena, 2 Esdras, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, Esther (vol. ii.), the Twelve Minor Prophets, the Four Greater Prophets (vol. iii.)—37 in all.
[499]Driver, Intr. p. 15.
[500]The Nash (Heb.) Papyrus agrees generally with ; see S. A. Cook, A Unigue Biblical Papyrus, Exp. T. xiv. 200; Burkitt, in J.Q.R. xvi. 559.
[501]Driver, Intr. pp. 37, 38.
[502]Robertson Smith, O. T. in the J. Ch. p. 124 f.
[503]See Driver, Intr. pp. 35, 39; Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, ii. p. 276 f.
[504]Robertson Smith, O. T. in the J. Ch. p. 125. Mr H. St J. Thackeray notes, however, that "the same technical terms are sometimes differently rendered in adjacent verses."
[505]Driver, Intr. p. 100.
[506]Cf. infra, p. 244.
[507]Cf. Driver, Intr. p. 182, and note; C. F. Burney, in Hastings' D. B. p. 862 ff.
[508]Intr. p 181.
[509]B however omits the important statement of v. 3a, which comes from the older narrative (Driver).
[510]See Field ad loc., and cf. Silberstein, über den Ursprung der im cod. Alex. u. Vat. des dritten Königsbuches . . . überlieferten Textgestalt (Giessen, 1893).
[511]C. F. Burney, l.c.
[512]See Cheyne, Book of Psalms, p. 228; Bleek-Wellhausen, p. 471. Prof. Kirkpatrick (Psalms, l. p. 41) speaks with less confidence.
[513]See Kennicott, ii. p. 410. It should be added that in the MSS. Pss. cxvi., cxvii., cxviii. are also often written continuously.
[514]"Both in Palestine and in Alexandria great importance seems to have been attached to this number. In Palestine, however, there were some who counted only 147 Psalms" (Cheyne op. cit. p. xiv.). See also Lagarde, nov. Ps. gr. spec., p. 8.
[515]Cf. Robertson Smith, O. T. in J. Ch. p. 111; Toy, Proverbs, p. xxxiii.
[516]See Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griech. Übersetzung d. Proverbien, pp. 90, 91.
[517]Cf. Origen ad Afric. 4 πολλὰ δὲ τοιαῦτα καὶ ἐν τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ κατενοήσαμεν, ἐν ᾦ καὶ πολλὴω μετάθεσιν ἐναλλαγὴν τῆς λέξεως τῶν προφητευομένων εὕρομεν.
[518]Driver, Intr. p. 263.
[519]Ezechiel, p. 212.
[520]Pt. I. c. iii.
[521]See G. A. Smith in Hastings' D. B. ii. p. 784.
[522]Op. cit., p. 781 ff.
[523]Driver, Intr. p. 105.
[524]See Kennicott, i. p. 474, De Rossi, i. p. 96 ff.; and cf. Field, Hexapla, i. p. 387, Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, ii. p. 472 ff.
[525]See Knobel in Kurzgef. exeg. Handbuch zum A.T., p. 488.
[526]Driver, Samuel, p. 20.
[527]See Wellhausen, der Text d. B. Samuelis, p. 42; Driver, op. cit., pp. 17, 18, 21; H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 13.
[528]Driver, Intr., p. 170; Samuel, p. 116 f.
[529]0. T. in J. Ch., pp. 121, 431 ff.; Cf. Kirkpatrick, 1 Samuel, p. 241 ff.
[530]1 Samuel, p. 117.
[531]Cf. Field ad loc.
[532]See H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 212.
[533]See C. F. Burney, Notes on Heb. Text of Books of Kings, esp. pp. xix—xxx.
[534]Cf. Field ad loc.
[535]See Field ad loc., who quotes from cod. 243, ταῦτα ἐν τῷ ἐξαπλῷ παρὰ μόνοις φέρεται τοῖς οʹ.
[536]Cf. Driver, Intr., p. 182. See Appendix on Thackeray's examination of this passage in J. Th. St. xi. 44.
[537]See the passage discussed in Robertson Smith, O. T. in J. Ch., p. 433.
[538]Robertson Smith, op. cit., p. 118.
[539]Lagarde, V. T. Gr. i. ad loc. For a careful treatment of the differences between and in 3 Regn. see Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, ii.
[540]Cf. πέμπτῃ σαββάτου prefixed to Ps. lxxxi. in the cursive MS. 156 (Urtext, p. 75).
[541]Cf. Hatch, Essays, p. 209 ff.
[542]Cf. Oeconomus, iii. p. 634 f.
[543]The προσευχὴ Μαννασσή (so Cod. A; Cod. T. πρ. Μανασσὴ υἱοῦ Ἑζεκίου is usually regarded as an attempt by a Hellenistic Jew to reconstruct the prayer mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18; see, however Ball in Speaker's Comm. (Apocr. ii. 362 ff.). The Greek text appears in Const. Apost. ii. 22 and in the Didascalia, where it follows a reference to Chron. l.c.; in MSS. of the LXX. it finds a place only among the canticles. See Fabricius-Harles, iii. 732, Westcott in Smith's D. B. ii. 226, Schürer³, iii. 337 f.: and for the text with an apparatus, Fritzsche, V. T. Gr. libr. Apocr., pp. xiv sq., 92 sq. A detailed account of the editions, MSS., and versions and a discussion of the origin of the Prayer will be found in Dr Nestle's Septuagintastudien iii. (Stuttgart, 1899), p. 6 ff.; see also Ryssel in Kautzsch's Apokryphen u. Pseudepigraphen.
[544]The προσευχὴ Μαννασσή (so Cod. A; Cod. T. πρ. Μανασσὴ υἱοῦ Ἑζεκίου is usually regarded as an attempt by a Hellenistic Jew to reconstruct the prayer mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18; see, however Ball in Speaker's Comm. (Apocr. ii. 362 ff.). The Greek text appears in Const. Apost. ii. 22 and in the Didascalia, where it follows a reference to Chron. l.c.; in MSS. of the LXX. it finds a place only among the canticles. See Fabricius-Harles, iii. 732, Westcott in Smith's D. B. ii. 226, Schürer³, iii. 337 f.: and for the text with an apparatus, Fritzsche, V. T. Gr. libr. Apocr., pp. xiv sq., 92 sq. A detailed account of the editions, MSS., and versions and a discussion of the origin of the Prayer will be found in Dr Nestle's Septuagintastudien iii. (Stuttgart, 1899), p. 6 ff.; see also Ryssel in Kautzsch's Apokryphen u. Pseudepigraphen.
[545]For some other orders see Dom Morin in Revue Bénédictine (cited by A. E. Burn, Creeds, p. 262).
[546]A pre-Christian arrangement, as Hippolytus, already knew (hypoth. in Psalmos, τὸ ψαλτήριον εὶς πέντε διεῖλον βιβλία οἱ Ἑβραῖοι). Cf. Robertson Smith, O. T. in Jewish Ch., p. 194 n. In the lists of the Canon "the mention of five Books of Psalms is peculiar to Codex Amiatinus" (Sanday, in Studia Biblica iii. p. 242 ff.).
[547]For this correction see a note by Dr Nestle in Exp. Times, Aug. 1899 (p. 523).
[548]Cf. Hatch, Essays, p. 216; Field, Hexapla, ii. p. 1 f.; E. Klostermann, Analecta, p. 63 f.
[549]Burkitt, O. L. and Itala, p. 8.
[550]Essays, p. 214 ff.
[551]On the translator's date cf. Schürer³, iii. pp. 311, 356 f.
[552]Cf. Hatch, op. cit. p. 219: "It was made after Judaism had come into contact with Greek philosophy. It may be presumed to have been intended not only for Greek-speaking Jews, but also for aliens." The version shews some knowledge of Homer and Aeschylus (cf. Smith, D. B.2, vol. I. pt. ii. p. 1723).
[553]Cf. Testament of Job (ed. M. R. James, Apocr. anecd. ii. p. 117).
[554]"Ἐκ τῆς Σ, β. weist doch auf einen Midrasch oder ein Targum hin" (Dillmann, Hiob, p. 361).
[555]Schürer³, iii. p. 311.
[556]Cf. Origen, ad Afric. 3 ἐκ τῆς Ἐσθὴρ οὔτε ἡ τοῦ Μαρδοχαίου εὐχὴ οὔτε ἡ τῆς Ἐσθὴρ . . . παῤ Ἐβραίοις φέρονται· ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ αἱ ἐπιστολαί· ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ ἡ τῷ Ἁμμὰν ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνους γεγραμμένη, οὐδὲ ἡ τοῦ Μαρδοχαίου.
[557]In the Cambridge LXX. they are distinguished by the Roman capitals A—F, a notation suggested by Dr Hort.
[558]See Ryle, Canon, p. 139 f., 203 ff.; and cf. supra, p. 228 f.
[559]Φρουραί (Φρουραια א*, Φρουριμ אc.a), cf. c. ix. 26, and Jos. ant. vi. 13 οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τὰς προειρημένα> ἡμέρα> ἑορτάζουσιν προσαγορεύσανρες αὐτὰς φρουρέας (v. l. φρουραίας, Lat. conservatores). The 'Letter of Purim' seems to be the book of Esther as a whole; cf. c. ix. 20.
[560]Handbuch zu d. Apocrypha, i. p. 73.
[561]Ryssel (in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 212) inclines to B.C. 114, the fourth year of Soter ii (Lathyrus), and Willrich to B.C. 48—7, that of Ptolemy xiv.
[562]See above, p. 25.
[563]P. 24 f. Cf. A. B. Davidson in Hastings' D.B. ii. 573 ff. Thackeray, on the other hand, instances the large Alexandrian additions to Esther and Daniel.
[564]Vide supra, p. 46 ff.
[565]On Theodotion's Bel, see Gaster in J. of Bibl. Archaeology, xvi. 289, 290, 312 ff., xvii. 71 ff.
[566]Susanna is perhaps made to precede Daniel because it describes events which belong to his early life; cf. v. 44 ff. and v. 62 in a, b (LXX.).
[567]Cf. J. T. Marshall in Hastings, D. B. iv. 632; on the other hand, see Kamphausen in Encycl. Biblica, i. 1013, and comp. Rothstein, Apokr., p. 173 ff. On the Aramaic version of the additions from Theodotion's Greek cf. Schürer³, iii. p. 333.
[568]Ball, l. c., p. 308. See Nestle, Exp. T. xii. 527, and Daubney, Exp. T. xviii. 287.
[569]Bevan, Daniel, p. 46.
[570]The future (praevalebit) 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.
[571]H. St J. Thackeray, in Hastings' D. B. i. p. 76.
[572]ant. x. 4. 4—xi.
[573]ant. xi. 3. 2 sqq.
[574]ant. xi. 2. 1 sqq.
[575]The English Article (vi) follows this numeration.
[576]In the Academy for 1893.
[577]And possibly the work of Theod. (Gramm. of O. T. in Gk, p. 13. (In Cod. א, 1 Chron. xi. 22—xix. 17 goes on without a break to Esd. β. ix. 9, the whole being headed Εσδ. β..)
[578]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.
[579]See this worked out by W. J. Deane, Book of Wisdom, p. 33 f.; C. J. Bigg, Christian Platonists, p. 14 ff.
[580]See Rep. 427—439, 442, &c.
[581]Westcott in Smith's B. D. iii. 1780. Cf. Jerome, 1. c. "ipse stylus Graecam eloquentiam redolet."
[582]See Deane, p. 27, Westcott, p. 178, Ryle, Smith's B. D2. i. p. 185.
[583]Σειράχ = סירא. "In the Hebrew Josippon (Pseudo-Josephus) the form שירך is a transliteration from the Latin" (Cowley and Neubauer, Original Hebrew of a portion of Ecclesiasticus, p. ix. n.).
[584]On Ἐλεαζάρ (which follows Σειράχ in the Greek) see Ryssel in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 253. The newly-discovered Hebrew reads בן ישוע בן אלעזר בן סירא שמעון on which see Schechter, Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. 65; Nestle in Hastings' D. B. iv. p. 541 f.
[585]Cf. Deissmann, Bible Studies (E. Tr.), p. 339 ff.
[586]Cf. Hatch, Essays, p. 281. A group of MSS. headed by V = 23 contains a considerable number of verses or stichi omitted by the rest of our Greek authorities; see Smith, D. B2. 1. i. p. 842.
[587]Origin of the original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus, 1899. See on this a letter by Prof. Driver in the Guardian, June 28, 1899, and Dr Taylor's remarks in Ben Sira, p. lxx ff.
[588]It now appears that even H-P. 248 is no exception, so that Fritzsche's "uno fortasse cod. 248 excepto" (Libri apocr. p. 462) must be deleted. On this MS. see Fritzsche, p. xxiii; Zenner in Z. K. Th., 1895. The text of Sirach after 248 has been edited by J. H. A. Hart, for the Cambridge University Press (1909).
[589]See Fritzsche in exeg. Handbuch, v. p. 169 f.
[590]On the O.L. of the Wisdoms see above, pt. i. c. IV (pp. 96, 103).
[591]See Lightfoot's note ad loc. and his remarks in Clement i. p. 313 ff.
[592]Not Ὁλοφέρνης, as is presupposed by the Latin.
[593]Cf. art. Holofernes in Hastings' D. B. ii. p. 402. There were, however, earlier kings of the same name (op. cit. p. 823; cf. Schürer3, iii. p. 169 f., n. 19).
[594]See however Ball in Speaker's Comm. Apocr. i. pp. 243, 259 ff.; and F. C. Porter in Hastings' B. D. ii. p. 822b.
[595]Fritzsche, libri apocr. p. xviii sq.; Schürer3, iii. p. 172. The text in codd. 19, 108, is said to be Lucianic (Max Löhr in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 147).
[596]A Chaldee text, corresponding in some respects to Jerome's Latin, is preserved in the Bodleian, and has been edited by Neubauer (Oxford, 1878).
[597]An Oxyrh. Pap. 1076 (vol. viii) gives a new recension of c. ii. 2, 3, 4, 8.
[598]Origen, while omitting Baruch, includes the Epistle in a formal list of the Hebrew canon (Eus. H. E. vi. 25 Ἰερεμίας σὺν Θρήνοις καὶ τῂ Ἐπιστολῇ ἐν ἑρί
[599]On the first point see J. T. Marshall in Hastings' D. B. ii. p. 579, and on the other hand Schürer3, iii. p. 344. Cf. Nestle, Marginalien, p. 42 f.
[600]In the first section the Divine Name is Κύριος or Κ. ὁ θεός, while in the second it is either [ὁ] θεός or ὁ αἰώνιος, ὁ ἅγιος. See Dr Gifford in Speaker's Comm., Apoc., ii. f. 253. Thackeray holds that "the first half of Baruch is, beyond a doubt, the production of the translator of Jer. β." Gramm. of 0. T. in Gk. i. pp. 12, 13; J. Th. St. iv. 261 ff.
[601]"On the margin of the Syro-hexaplar text of Baruch there are three notes by a scribe stating that certain words in i. 17 and ii. 3 are 'not found in the Hebrew.'" (A. A. Bevan in Encycl. Biblica, i. 494.)
[602]E.g. by J. T. Marshall in Hastings' D. B. i. p. 251.
[603]Psalms of the Pharisees, pref., esp. p. lxxvii.
[604]Dr Nestle points out that Baruch and Jeremiah seem to have been translated by the same hand, unless the translator of Baruch deliberately copied the translator of Jeremiah. Certain unusual words are common to the two books in similar contexts, e.g. ἄβατος, ἀποστολή, δεσμώτης, πεινῶσα. Cf. Thackeray, l. c.
[605]v. 20. But the reference to Baruch is wanting in the Syriac Didascalia (Smith, D. B.2 i. p. 359).
[606]For the name Μακκαβαῖος see Schürer, E. T. i. p. 212 f. n.; it belonged primarily to Judas, cf. 1 Macc. i. 4 ἀνέστη Ἰούδας ὁ καλούμενος Μ.; Joseph. ant. xii. 6 Ἰούδας ὁ καλ. Μ..
[607]For various attempts to interpret it see Ryle, Canon, p. 185; R. Kraetzschmar, in Exp. T., xii. p. 93 ff.
[608]A Hebrew text is printed by A. Schweizer, über die Reste eines heb. Textes vom ersten Makkabäerbuch (Berlin, 1901); but see Th. Nöldeke in Lit. Centralblatt, March 30, 1901.
[609]Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, pp. 62, 68.
[610]Westcott in Smith's D. B.1 ii. p. 175.
[611]See the list of words given by Westcott, l. c. i. and in Smith's D.B.2 i. and Apocrypha.
[612]So Luther, in his preface to 2 Macc.: "so billig das erste Buch sollte in die Zahl der heiligen Schrift genommen sein, so billig ist dies andere Buch herausgeworfen, obwohl etwas Gutes darinner steht."
[613]Fritzsche has used codd. 19, 44, 55, 62, 64, 71, 74, 93.
[614]In the Pseudo-Athanasian synopsis where the MSS. give Μακκαβαικὰ δʹ, Πτολεμαικά. Credner proposed to read Μ. καὶ (қ) Πτολ. An explanation of the existing reading attempted by Fabricius, cod. pseud. epigr. V. T. i. p. 1164, is hardly to be considered satisfactory. Zahn (Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, ii. p 317) suggests πολεμικά, but this is more ingenious than convincing. But Wendland (Aristeas, p. 133) and Thackeray consider that Πτολεμαϊκὰ means the letter of Aristeas.
[615]Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 267 ff.
[616]That of Euergetes II. (Physcon); cf. Mahaffy, p. 381.
[617]Westcott in Smith's D. B. ii. p. 179.
[618]Schürer3, iii. p. 365.
[619]"The date is probably c. 80 B.C.," Thackeray thinks, "as shown by epistolary formulae and papyrus evidence."
[620]The same belief is expressed by the fact that the book is found in some MSS. of Josephus. See Fabricius-Harles, v. 26 f.
[621]Viz. c. iii. 19, to the end.
[622]Westcott in Smith's D. B.1 ii. p. 181.
[623]On this list see Zahn, Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, ii. p. 289 ff. and M. R. James, Testament of Abraham, p. 7 ff. (in Texts and Studies, ii. 2).
[624]The catalogue ends . . . | and below, | .
[625]By Dr J. R. Harris, who points out (Johns Hopkins Univ. Circular, March 1884) that the six missing leaves in א between Barnabas and Hermas correspond with fair accuracy to the space which would be required for the Psalms of Solomon. Dr Harris has since discovered a Syriac version of sixteen of these Psalms (out of eighty contained in the MS.).
[626]Cf. Bals. ap. Beveregii Synod. p. 480 εὑρίσκονταί τινες ψαλμοὶ πέρα τοὺς ῥνʹ ψαλμοὺς τοῦ Δαβὶδ λεγόμενοι τοῦ Σολομῶντος . . . τούτους οὖν ὀνομάσαντες οἱ πατέρες ἰδιωτικούς.
[627]In the latter case they go with the two Wisdoms in the order Sap., Ps. Sol., Sir. or (in one instance) Sap., Sir., Ps. Sol.
[628]Ryle and James, Psalms of the Pharisees, p. xl ff., xliv ff. Schürer3, iii. p. 152 f.
[629]Ryle and James, p. lxxii ff. On the date see W. Frankenberg, die Datierung der Psalmen Salomos (Giessen, 1896).
[630]Ryle and James, p. xc ff.
[631]These may be conveniently consulted in the Corpus historiae Byzantinae, t. 1, where they are edited by W. Dindorf.
[632]See Schürer3, iii. p. 196 ff.
[633]A collection of Greek O. T. apocrypha might perhaps include, amongst other remains of this literature, the Rest of the Words of Baruch (ed. J. Rendel Harris), the Apocalypse of Baruch (ed. M. R. James), the Testament of Abraham (ed. M. R. James), parts of the Oracula Sibyllina (ed. A. Rzach), the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs (ed. Sinker), the Latin Ascension of Isaiah (ed. O. von Gebhardt, with the new Greek fragments), and perhaps also the Latin versions of certain important books which no longer survive in the Greek, e.g. 4 Esdras (ed. R. L. Bensly), the Assumption of Moses (ed. R. H. Charles), the Book of Jubilees, ἡ λεπτὴ Γένεσις (ed. R. H. Charles).
[634]A collation of the Syriac 4 Macc. with the Greek has been contributed by Dr Barnes to O. T. in Greek2, vol. iii. (p. 900 ff.).
[635]The text in the Cambridge manual LXX., which is that of cod. Vat. gr. 336, and is accompanied by an apparatus and a brief description of the MSS., can be had, together with the text of Enoch, in a separate form.
[636]See Fabricius-Harles, vi. p. 193 f. Both writers lived in the time of Augustus.
[637]Sturz's treatment of the dialect. of Alexandria and Egypt needs to be checked by more recent researches, but it is still the most complete work upon the subject. Thiersch deals directly with the Greek of the LXX., but he limits himself to the Pentateuch.
[638]Bibelstudien (1895), and Neue Bibelstudien (1897).
[639]Sources of N. T. Greek (1895).
[640]Étude sur le Grec du N.T. (1896).
[641]A lexicon was planned in 1895 by a Cambridge Committee, but the work is suspended for the present. There have now appeared, dealing with the Accidence, R. Helbing's Grammatik der Septuaginta, i. Laut- und Wortlehre, Göttingen, 1907; and H. St J. Thackeray's Grammar of the O. T. in Greek, vo1. I. Introd. Orthography and Accidence, Cambridge, 1909.
[642]ap. Strab. 797
[643]Mahaffy in Flinders Petrie Papyri, i. p. 42. Cf. Empire of the Ptolemies p. 178 f.
[644]As the change of φ into β (Βερενίκη for Φερενίκη, &c.), cf. Sturz, de dial. Mac., p. 51, n.
[645]A list of these words, collected from Hesychius and other lexicographers, may be seen in Sturz, p. 34 ff.
[646]From Q. Curtius (De rebus gestis Alexandri M., vi. 9. 36) it appears that the Macedonian and the native Greeks understood one another with difficulty.
[647]In the Cunningham Memoirs for 1891, '93, edited by Prof, Mahaffy.
[648]In Fayûm Towns and their Papyri (London, 1900), pp. 100—112. Further contemporary illustrations of Alexandrian Greek may be found in Wilcken's Griechische Ostraka (1899).
[649]Flinders Petrie Papyri, II. xiii. (p. 33). The reader will notice several LXX. words (δεκάταρχος = LXX. δεκάδ., διοικητής, χρηματίζεσθαι, ἐνέχυρον). Sometimes these papyri afford illustrations of the LXX. which are not merely verbal; cf. II. xiv. 2 ἐς τὰ ἄχυρα πρὸς τὴν πλίνθον.
[650]Strabo, 794; cf. Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 91 ff.
[651]Joseph., ant. xii. 2. Seneca, de tranquil. animae 9. Cf. Susemihl, Gesch. d. griech. Litteratur in d. Alexandrinerzeit, i. 336.
[652]See Professor Jebb in Vincent and Dickson's Handbook to modern Greek, p. 290.
[653]Mullach, Gramm. d. Vulgarsprache, p. 48. H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 11 ff.
[654]See Winer-Moulton, p. 29.
[655]Acts vi. 1, xi. 20.
[656]Or ἐξουδενοῦν, other forms being due to mixture; Thackeray, Gr. O. T. p. 105.
[657]Kennedy, op. cit., p. 62. Cf. the lists in the appendix to Grimm-Thayer's Lexicon of N. T. Greek (p. 691 ff.).
[658]Essays, p. 69.
[659]See above, p. 292.
[660]οἰθείς began to yield again to οὐδείς before the end of the second century B.C., and was obsolete at the date when the earliest extant MSS. of the LXX. were written. It is hence an archaism in them (Thackeray, Gr. O. T. pp. 58 ff.).
[661]Cf. Sturz, de dial. Maced., p. 111 ff.
[662]See (e.g.) K. Meisterhans, Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften (Berlin, 1885); Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, Marburg, 1897. E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, I. Teil, Leipzig, 1898 (Progr. des Gymn. Heilbronn).
[663]Especially in cod. B (O.T. in Greek, I. p. xiii.).
[664]See Thackeray, Gr. O. T. pp. 146, 147, "always a vulgarism"; also J. Psichari, Essai sur le grec de la Septante, in Revue des Études Juives, LV. No. 110, p. 164 ff.
[665]See, however, Lightfoot on Clem. Rom. i. 34; Thackeray, Gr. O. T., p. 235.
[666]Yet see Job iii. 3 ff., xxiv. 18 f., Ps. cviii. (cix.) 14, Isai. xlix. 15, Ps. 1xii. (lxiii.) 6, Prov. xxv. 26, and the exx. quoted on p. 305.
[667]I follow mainly the classification of C. W. Votaw in his excellent thesis on the subject (Chicago, 1896). Votaw has shewn that in the translated books of the O. T. there is almost an equal number of cases of the anarthrous and the articular inf., whereas in the N. T. the articular inf. is seldom found except in St Luke.
[668]On this head see esp. Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 132 ff.; Thiersch, de Pentat. vers. Alex., p. 111 ff.; Thumb, Die griech. Spr. . . . des Hellenismus, pp. 128 ff., 171 ff.: Thackeray, Gr. O. T. p. 25 ff.; Psichari, op. cit., p. 183 ff.
[669]See above, p. 39, n. 2.
[670]See Psichari, op. cit., p. 179 ff.; S. Menardos, The Value of Byzantine and Modern Greek, Oxford, 1909.
[671]Cf. Prof. Jebb in Vincent and Dickson, p 289: "modern Greek has inherited, not only the ancient literature, but also an oral tradition which preceded that literature, which co-existed with it, and which has survived it."
[672]Cf. supra, p. 268 f., for some interesting examples from other parts of the book.
[673]The external evidence has been briefly stated in Part i. c. i. (p. 23 ff.).
[674]Cf. R. Sinker, Some remarks on the LXX. Version of the Psalms, p. 9 ff.
[675]Cf. e.g. Job ix. 9, xlii. 14; from the latter passage Theodore of Mopsuestia argued the pagan origin of the book (D. C. B. iv. p. 939).
[676]Moore, Judges, p. xlvi.
[677]According to McNeile (Introd. to Ecclesiastes) it is the earlier edition of Aquila's version; cf. Thackeray, Gr. 0. T. pp. 13, 60.
[678]On Job xxxiii. 31 see Thackeray, Gramm. O. T. p. 55.
[679]Theod. has Ἀφφουήρου in Daniel.
[680]Cf. prol. to Sirach: τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων.
[681]A. F. Kirkpatrick in Expositor, v. iii. p. 268. Cf. W. R. Smith, O. T. in Jewish Ch., pp. 75 f.
[682]Prol. οὐ γὰρ ἰσοδυναμεῖ κτλ.
[683]Even in Palestine "before the Christian era . . . the exegetical tradition was still in a rudimentary stage" (Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, p. 69).
[684]Dr Nestle points out that the mistakes of the LXX. are sometimes due to Aramaic or Arabic colloquialisms, and gives the following examples: Aramaic: Num. xxiv. 7 ἐξελεύσεται. Ps. cxl. 4 προφασίζεσθαι. Hos. ii. 23 (25) ἠγαπημένην, vi. 5 ἀπεθέρισα. Isa. iv. 2 ἐπιλάμψει, liii 10 καθαρίσαι. Jer. xxxviii. (xxxi.) 13 χαρήσονται. Arabic: Ps. lxxxiii. 7 δώσει. Dan. vii. 22 (LXX.) ἐδόθη.
[685]See W. R. Smith, O. T. in J. Church, pp. 56 f.; Driver, Samuel, p. xxxix.; Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of the O. T., p. 64. Among the Rabbis of Jamnia were Eleazar, Joshua, and Akiba, the reputed teachers of Aquila; see Edersheim-White, History of the Jewish Nation, pp. 132 ff., 174 f.
[686]See pp. 39 f.
[687]כְּתָב מְרֻבָּע, or, as the Talmud calls it, כּ׳ אַשּׁוּרִית; see Driver, Samuel, pp. ix. ff.
[688]Except perhaps those which lay before the translators of the Pentateuch; see Driver, l.c.
[689]A specimen of such a script, but of much later date, may be seen in Driver, op. cit., p. lxv.
[690]Cf. Streane ad loc. and on Jer. xx. 17.
[691]See Driver, op. cit., p. lxxxvi., or Hastings' D.B. iii. art. Moab.
[692]Driver, op. cit., p. xv.
[693]Jerome in the last years of the 4th century knows nothing of a system of vowel points; see Nowack, Die Bedeutung des Hieronymus für die ATliche Textkritik (Göttingen, 1875).
[694]Cf. Driver, op. cit., p. lviii.
[695]Thus Hatch and Redpath take note of 39 transliterations, exclusive of proper names, under A alone. They are thus distributed: Pentateuch, 4; Histories, 26; Psalms &c., 3; Prophets, 6. The principles by which the LXX. appear to have been guided in these transliterations of Hebrew consonants and vowel-sounds are expounded by Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 107 ff.
[696]Unless the a is here prothetic, which is however less probable.
[697]Cf. Hieron. Quaest. hebr. p. 44 (ed. Lagarde), De situ et nom. pp. 106, 158. Pearson (Praef. paraen. p. 6) endeavours to defend the LXX. even here.
[698]Similarly in Prov. xxii. 10, where the LXX. read וישב בת דין, the last two words are rendered ἐν συνεδρίῳ.
[699]See W. R. Smith, O. T. in J. Church, p. 77. Aquila, as we gather from Origen and now know from his published fragments (p. 39 f.), wrote the word in archaic Hebrew characters, which however were read as Κύριος.
[700]"Because salt as well as frankincense was used in the actual ritual of their period" (W. R. Smith, op. cit., p. 77).
[701]On xxiii. 11 see p. 17.
[702]"An evident attempt to shield the priest from the charge of harshness" (II. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 10).
[703]The example is suggested by Dr Hatch (Essays, p 18), who gives many of the passages at length. The index Hebraeus at the end of Trommius will enable the student to add other instances (besides διδόναι and its compounds).
[704]Philo has ἀπελεύσοκαι (see below).
[705]Or, as Dr Nestle, suggests, it may have been taken as introducing the acc., as in later Hebrew or in Aramaic.
[706]Driver, ad loc.
[707]In this passage the text of B in O.T. in Greek, i. 489, should be compared with that of A (ed. Brooke and McLean)
[708]"Of the versions only [Vulg.] comes near the true sense" (Moore). Jerome renders pulcherrima feminarum.
[709]The paraphrastic character of the reference appears more distinctly in the second stanza ἐκ σοῦ . . . Ἰσραήλ, which blends Mic. v. 1b, 3a. It will be observed that cod. A reads ἡγούμενος with Mt.
[710]Zech. xiii. 2, Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 10 are the only exceptions, and in both cases the MSS. are divided.
[711]W. R. Smith, O. T. in J. Church, p. 83.
[712]If the student prefers to begin with Genesis, he will learn much as to the LXX. version from Spurrell's Notes (ed. 2, 1898). For more advanced study Proverbs will form a suitable subject, and here he may seek help from Lagarde's Anmerkungen, and Professor Toy's commentary in the 'International Critical' series.
[713]In such cases both systems are represented in the Cambridge edition of the LXX. (see O. T. in Greek, i. p. xiv.).
[714]For a full account of the divisions of the Hebrew text see Buhl, Kanon u. Text, p. 222; Bleek-Wellhausen, p. 574 f.; Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 235. Blau, Massoretic Studies, iii., in J.Q.R., Oct. 1896.
[715]A similar system of paragraphing has been adopted in the English Revised Version, and in the Cambridge LXX.; see R. V. Preface, and O.T. in Greek, i. p. xv.
[716]In Baer's edition they are given throughout the Bible.
[717]In the Pentateuch there is only one, the lesson (12) which begins at Gen. xlvii. 28 (Ryle, p. 236).
[718]See Gregory, prolegg. p. 167 ff.
[719]It prints the verse-numbers in the margin, and begins every verse with a capital letter.
[720]E.g. H.-P. 38 (xv.), 122 (xv.), where the modern chapters are marked.
[721]By Ch. Graux, Revue de philologie, II. (1878), p. 97 ff.
[722]J. R. Harris, Stichometry, pp. 8, 15.
[723]See E. Maunde-Thompson, Gr. and Lat. Palaeography, i. p. 80; Prof. Sanday, in Studia Biblica, iii. p. 263 f.; J. R. Harris, op. cit. p. 26.
[724]"Indiculum versuum in urbe Roma non ad liquidum, sed et alibi avariciae causa non habent integrum."
[725]See Wordsworth-White, Epilogus, p. 733, nn. 1, 2.
[726]Migne, P. L. xxviii. 771.
[727]Migne, P. L. xxviii. 938.
[728]Migne, P. G. xxiii. 1339 sq.
[729]Total of first 7 books, '18000.'
[730]In Mommsen's list the following totals are also given: Ruth and 1—4 Kingdoms, 9500; Salomonic books, 6500; Major Prophets, 15370; the whole canon, 69500.
[731]Susanna is calculated separately (500).
[732]It is printed by Harris, Stichometry, p. 59 ff. Cf. Nestle, Introd. to the Textual Criticism of the N. T. (E. tr.), p. 4.
[733]ωκ, or as Allatius read the MS., (3808); see Cozza, Sacr. bibl. vet. fragm. iii. p. xv.
[734]De cod. March., p. 23 f.
[735]The symbol used is , which occurs also in B. On this symbol, see J. Woisin, De Graecorum notis numeralibus, n. 67 (Kiel, 1886).
[736]The numeration of the stichi in the poetical books ascribed to the greater uncials in the Cambridge manual LXX. is derived from Dr Nestle's Supplementum² (Leipzig, 1887) and rests on an actual counting of the lines, and not on statements in the MSS. themselves.
[737]Cf. J. R. Harris, Stichometry, p. 31.
[738]See p. 44 ff. Cf. J. Th. St., ii. p. 238 ff.
[739]4400 in H.-P. 54.
[740]3530 in H.-P. 54.
[741]2450 in H. P. 54.
[742]Ecclesiastical Canticles, 600, Barb. iii. 36.
[743]Total of Minor Prophets variously calculated at 3750 3500, 3300 (Barb. iii. 36).
[744]Possibly a corruption of (see next page).
[745]Tischendorf (Mon. sacr. ined. n. c., i. prolegg., p. xxvii.) points out that Tertullian recognises a system of chapters in Numbers.
[746]In this book the chapter-numbers correspond to the divisions indicated in the original by the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and in the recension by transliteration of the Hebrew alphabetic names.
[747]This number includes the Greek additions.
[748]See the pref. to Fabiani and Cozza's facsimile, p. xvii. sqq.
[749]Tischendorf, notes to facsimile, p. v.
[750]Ceriani, de cod. March., p. 24 ff.
[751]See Montfaucon, Biblioth. Coisliniana, p. 4 sqq.
[752]Another Coislin MS. (Coisl. gr. 8) gives the following capitulation for some of the later histories: 1 Chron. 83, 2 Chron. 86, Tobit 21, Judith 34, 1 Esdr. 109, 2 Esdr. 80, Esther 55.
[753]Beginning at c. iv. 41.
[754]In Judges there is no capitulation, but the periods of bondage are distinguished as , , &c., and the exploits of the successive judges by , and so forth.
[755]Cf. the numbers in B. M. Add. MS. 35123: Gen., 148; Exod., 84; Lev., 62; Num., 61; Deut., 69; Josh., 30; Jud., 33.
[756]Analecta, p. 80 ff. This division into sections, however, refers not to the text of the books, but to that of the synopsis contained in the MS. Cf. also the κεφάλαια in Hab. iii. found in Barb. v. 45 (86, H.-P.).
[757]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 above, e.g. Exod. xxii. 1—27 forms part of the 68th chapter and Deut. xxv. 11 ff. of the 93rd in their several books, while Leviticus apparently contains 150 chapters and Numbers 140.
[758]Paragraphs or sections marked by capitals protruding into the margin or written in red ink, or (less frequently) distinguished by numbers, occur perhaps in the majority of cursives; the following list of cursives thus divided is taken from descriptions of MSS. made for the use of the Editors of the larger LXX.: H.-P. x. xi., 16, 17, 18, 29, 38, 46, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 64 (double system of capitulation), 68, 70, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79 (in Gen. χπβʹ), 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. Ω. i. 13, Σ i. 16; Munich gr. 454; Grotta Ferrata A. γ. 1; Leipzig gr. 361; Athos, Pantocr. 24 (double system of capitulation, τίτλοι), Vatop. 513, 516; Laur. γ. 112 (both chapters and στίχοι numbered); Athens, nat. gr. 44; Sinai 1, Jerusalem, H. Sep. 2.
[759]Tischendorf (Mon. sacr. ined. n. c. i. p. 78) prints .
[760]Migne, P. G. xciii., 1345 sqq. The titles for Isaiah with a collection of glosses, apparently by the same author, have been edited by M. Faulhaber from cod. Vat. Gr. 347 (Hesychii Hieros. interpretatio Isaiae, Freiburg i. Breisgau, l900).
[761]Bugati, Daniel, p. 1. See also the περιοχαὶ (or ὑποθέσεις) εἰς τοὺς ψαλμούς ascribed to Eusebius of Caesarea, which precede the Psalter in Cod. A (printed in Migne, P. G. xxiii. 67 sqq.).
[762]See above, p. 168, and cf. Gregory, Textkritik, i. p. 337.
[763]H. S. v. 22 ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ τῇ τετράδι τῇ λεγομένῃ παρασκευῇ γραφαί τε ἀναγινώσκονται, καὶ οἱ διδάσκαλοι ταύτας ἐρμηνεύουσι . . . καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ ἔθος ἀρχαῖον· καὶ γὰρ Ὠριγένης τὰ πολλὰ ἐν ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις φαίνεται ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας διδάξας.
[764]D. C. B. iv, p. 104.
[765]Cf. the τίτλοι in the Coislin MS. (M), where μηʹ, μθʹ, νʹ are nearly identical with cc. xxxi., xxxii., xxxiii. respectively (Montfaucon, Bibl. Coisl., p. 28).
[766]Brightman, Eastern Liturgies, pp. 470, 476, 527, 580. See Chrys. in Rom. xxiv. 3 (cited above, p. 168).
[767]D. C. A., Prophecy Liturgical (ii. 173b ff.).
[768]De inst. coenob. ii. 6.
[769]On this word see Suicer, Thesaurus, ii. 673 sqq . It is used by Justin, Dial. 78 and Clem. Al., Strom. iii. 38. In Origen (quoted above) the περικοπή is merely a section; at a later time it was used for the ἀνάγνωσμα.
[770]Fabiani and Cozza, prolegg., p. xix.
[771]See p. 251.
[772]Cf. Cassian, Inst. iii. 289.
[773]Cf. Const. viii. 37, μετὰ τὸ ῥηθῆναι τὸν ὀρθρινόν.
[774]Cf. Const. viii. 34, τὸν ἐπιλυχνικὸν ψαλμόν.
[775]Cf. O. T. in Gr., ii. p. xi.
[776]The variations in the MSS. are interesting and instructive.
[777]Greek numerals are sometimes added in the margin; see above, p. 351.
[778]R gives the Heb. letters in Greek; T the corresponding Greek numerals.
[779]In cod. V = 23 these become sometimes lengthy τίτλοι, e.g. at v. 7 ἐξῆλθεν μὴ εὑροῦσα τὸν νυμφίον ἡ νύμφη καὶ ὡς ἐν νυκτὶ εὑρεθεῖσα ἀπὸ τῶν φυλακῶν τῆς πόλεως τραυματίζεται, καὶ αἴρουσιν αὐτῆς τὸ θέριστρον οἱ τειχοφυλακοῦντες.
[780]Cf. Sanday, op. cit., p. 272.
[781]Ch. Q. R. i. 99, p. 34: "the process of drawing up Catenae goes on from the fifth to the fourteenth or fifteenth century."
[782]See, however, the facts collected in Ch. Q. R. i. 99, p. 46 f.
[783]For terms connected with writing and reading which occur in the text of the LXX. see Nestle, Introd. to the Textual Criticism of the N. T., p. 46 f.
[784]Cf. Joseph., ant. i. 15, Clem. Al. strom. i. 130, Eus. pr. ev. ix. 17.
[785]See Schürer³, iii. p. 347 f.
[786]Cf. Gen. xxii. 1 ff.
[787]Cf. Gen. xxxv. 16.
[788]Cf. Gen. xxv. 6; Cf. Num. xi. 34—xii. 1.
[789]Cf. Exod. xv. 23 ff.
[790]Cf. 2 Chron. ii. 12 ff.
[791]Cf. Job xlii. 17 b, c, i. 1 ff. Pseudo-Aristeas ad Philocratem makes abundant use of the Greek Pentateuch, as the reader may see by referring to the Appendix, where LXX. words and phrases are indicated by the use of small uncials.
[792]Cf. Exod. ii. 4 ff.; iv. 10, where οὐκ εὔλογος is read by cod. F.
[793] Exod. xiii. 9
[794]Exod. ix. 3. Ἔσται Α, ἐπέσται Β. Καὶ 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.
[795]See Edersheim in Wace's Apocr. ii. p. 26.
[796]Cf. A. Deissmann in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 150: "als Abfassungszeit wird man den Zeitraum von Pompejus bis Vespasian annehmen dürfen."
[797]Leg. ad Cai. i. 28.
[798]On these see J. R. Harris, Fragments of Philo, p. 11 ff., and F. C. Conybeare, Expositor, IV. iv. p. 456 ff.
[799]Cf. Ryle, Philo, p. xlv. f.
[800]Cf. vit. Moys. 6, 7.
[801]On this see Nestle, Zur neuen Philo-Ausgabe in Philologus, 1900, p. 259. Dr Nestle informs me that cod. 75 often agrees with Philo.
[802]See Nestle, op. cit., p. 270.
[803]See above, p. 371.
[804]In Genesis i.—xlvi. 27, where B is wanting, Philo shews on the whole a similar preference for the text represented by D. The figures, which are Dr Ryle's, are based on Mangey's text, but the new edition, so far as examined, gives very similar results.
[805]See Ryle, p. xvi. ff.
[806]Cf. D. C. B. iv. p. 387 a.
[807]Vit. 1.
[808]Ib. 2.
[809]B. J. prooem. 1 τῇ πατρίῳ [sc. γλώσσῃ] συντάξας.
[810]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 [καὶ] ἔλαβον χαρισαμένου Τίτου.
[811]For some of these instances I am indebted to a collation made by Mr C. G. Wright for the Editors of the larger LXX.
[812]Bloch, Die Quellen d. Fl. Josephus, p. 8 ff.
[813]Die Bibel des Josephus, p. 59 ff.
[814]See below, p. 403.
[815]See above, p. 251 f.
[816]Westcott, Hebrews, p. 473.
[817]Turpie, O.T. in the N., p. 267.
[818]Grinfield, Apology for the LXX., p. 37.
[819]On these see Hatch, Essays, p. 104, and the writer's St Mark, p. 255.
[820]Hatch, op. cit., p. 177 f.
[821]St Mark, p. 318 f.
[822]Cf. Sir J. C. Hawkins, Hor. Syn., p. 123 ff.
[823]St Mark, p. 2.
[824]In nos. xxxv., xxxvi., xxxviii., xl.
[825]xxxvi., p. 97 f.
[826]Cf. Zahn, Einleitung, ii. p. 314 ff.
[827]Cf. p. 48.
[828]Mt. ascribes this prophecy to Jeremiah: τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἰερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου. The slip is probably due to a confusion between Zach. 1. c. and Jer. xviii. 2.
[829]See against this Nestle, Textual Criticism of the N. T., p. 291.
[830]An exact citation, with one or two variants of the A type.
[831]On this reading see W. H.², Notes on select readings, p. 96.
[832]Cf. Mc. x. 19, Lc. xviii. 20. Jas. ii. 23, v. 20, 1 Pet. iv. 8, differ from LXX.
[833]On the few variants in this passage see Hort, St Peter, p. 93.
[834]B A reads δύναμιν.
[835]ανοις BaאRa.
[836]On this passage, see above, p. 251 f.
[837]Cf. 1 Pet. ii. 8 (Hort).
[838]Aq. καὶ εἰς στερεὸν σκανδάλου.
[839]On this passage see Resch, Agrapha, p. 154 ff.
[840]So Theodotion.
[841]As ἐν τῷ νόμῳ seems to indicate.
[842]Westcott, Hebrews, p. 476.
[843]Cf. p. 338.
[844]Yet "he nowhere shews any immediate knowledge of the Hebrew text" (Westcott, op. cit., p. 479).
[845]Cf. Rom. xii. 19. Apparently a stock quotation, current in this form.
[846]A a has πυρὸς φλέγα (sic) in Ps. ciii. 4.
[847]See Mayor, St James, pp. lxviii. ff., cxxxix.
[848]The facts are collected by Dr Ryle in Smith's D.B.² art. Apocrypha (i. pp 183, 185).
[849]See below, c. iv.
[850]Biblical Essays, p. 133.
[851]Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (Hinrichs, Leipzig). The volumes already published contain part of Hippolytus. and an instalment of Origen.
[852]On Clement's quotations from the Psalms and Isaiah, see Hatch, Essays, pp. 175—9.
[853]The Latin version supports the MSS. of the Greek text of Clement in both cases, so that with our present knowledge we are not at liberty to assume a transcriptional error.
[854]On 'composite' quotations from the LXX. see Hatch, op. cit. p. 203 ff.
[855]Cf. p. 245.
[856]1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x. 17: see Lightfoot's note ad loc.
[857]See Hatch, op. cit., p. 177f.
[858]Clement of Rome, p. 61. Dr Nestle (Z. f. die NTliche Wissenschaft, i. 2) points out the Semitic style which reveals itself in Clement, e.g. v. 6 ἐπτάκις, xii. 5 γινώσκουσα γινώσκω..
[859]The acute conjecture of Dr J. Rendel Harris, who saw that the name, which appears in the MS. as Θεγρί or the like, must be an attempt to reproduce the verb סגר (Dan. l. c.).
[860]See above, p. 47, n. 4.
[861]See Hatch, Essays, p. 180 ff.
[862]For further details see Hatch, op. cit. p. 180 ff.
[863]On this quotation, however, see Nestle in Exp. Times, ix., p. 14 f.
[864]On this quotation, however, see Nestle in Exp. Times, ix., p. 14 f.
[865]The chapters and sections are those of Stieren.
[866]Cf. Justin, Dial. 120.
[867]See above, p. 47.
[868]See above, p. 407.
[869]Words common to Justin and LXX. but not in Th. are printed in small uncials; those common to Justin and Th. but not to LXX., in thick cursives. Most of the remaining words are to be found in the three texts.
[870]Burkitt, Old Latin and Itala, p. 23 ff.
[871]Dial. 124. In the editions ἄνθρωποι occurs twice, but the context appears to shew that the singular should stand in the quotation.
[872]Dial. 13 f.
[873]Ap. i. 41, Dial. 73. Cf. Tert. c. Marc. iii. 19, adv. Jud. 10. No existing Greek MS. of the Psalter is known to contain the words except cod. 156 (see p. 160), which gives them in the suspicious form ἀπὸ τῷ ξύλῳ. A ligno is found in the Sahidic and in the Latin of R and in some other O.L. texts. Cf. the hymn Vexilla regis: "impleta sunt quae concinit | David fideli carmine | dicendo nationibus | Regnavit a ligno Deus" (for the literature see Julian, Dict. of Hymnology, p. 1220).
[874]Dial. 72. The same Apocryphon is quoted by Irenaeus (iii. 20. 4, iv. 22. 1, 33. 1, 12, v. 31. 1) and attributed by him to Jeremiah (iv. 31. 1) or to Isaiah (iii. 20. 4). Cf. Lightfoot, Clement, ii. p. 40, and the writer's Apostles' Creed³, p. 58 f.
[875]Dial. ib.
[876]On his works see Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, ii. pp. 388 ff., 419 ff.
[877]Edited by G. W. Bonwetsch and H. Achelis in the new Berlin Corpus (Hippolytus' Werke, i., Leipzig, 1897).
[878]The references in the Index locorum of Duncker and Schneidewin's edition (Göttingen, 1859) direct the reader for the most part to mere allusions, or citations of only a few consecutive words.
[879]In Hippolyti Romani quae feruntur omnia Graece (Leipzig, 1858).
[880]Clement's text of the Gospels has been examined by Mr P. M. Barnard (Biblical texts of Clement of Alexandria in the Four Gospels and the Acts, Cambridge, 1899) with some interesting and important results. His text of the LXX. is not likely to be equally instructive, but it ought to reward a patient investigator. [Since this note was written an examination of Clement's LXX. text has been made by Dr O. Stäh1in (Clemens Alex. u. die Septuaginta, Nürnberg, 1901).]
[881]See above, p. 97, and the art. Old Latin Versions in Hastings' D. B. iii. (already mentioned, p. 88).
[882]Essays, i. p. 129 ff. ("On Early Quotations from the Septuagint.")
[883]See Part III. c. vi.
[884]They are collected in Migne, P. G. xi.—xvii.
[885]See, however, H. M. Gwatkin, Arianism, p. 69 n.
[886]See Part I., c. iv.
[887]See Schürer, II. i. p. 329 n.; Dr C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, p. 54 f.
[888]For the text see the great work of C. D. Ginsburg, The Massorah, compiled from MSS., alphabetically and lexically arranged, 3 vols. (London, 1880—5), or the Bible of S. Baer; and for the Massorets and their work, cf. Buxtorf, Tiberias, Ginsburg's Introduction (London, 1897), and his edition of the Massoreth ha-massoreth of Elias Levita, or the brief statements in Buhl, Kanon u. Text (p. 96 ff.), and in Urtext (p. 20 ff.); or Strack, art. Text of the O. T., in Hastings, D.B. iv.
[889]On these see Dr W. E. Barnes in J. Th. St., April 1900.
[890]See C. J. Elliott's art. Hebrew Learning, in D. C. B. ii., esp. the summary on p. 872 b.
[891]Above, p. 6o ff.
[892]See his comm. on Isaiah vi. 9 (Migne, P.L. xxiv. 99).
[893]A few mediaeval scholars had access to the Hebrew, e.g. the Englishmen Stephen Harding († 1134), Robert Grosseteste († 1253), Roger Bacon († c. 1292), the Spaniard Raymundus Martini († c. 1286), and especially the Norman Jew, Nicolaus de Lyra († 1340). On Lyra see Siegfried in Merx, Archiv, i. p. 428, ii. p. 28.
[894]See De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch, p. 217 f.
[895]Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum (Leipzig, 1840), p. 731.
[896]As early as 255 B.C. (Thackeray); Petrie Pap. Series II. iv. (11).
[897]Vetus T. Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus (Oxford, 1776—80).
[898]Variae lectiones V. T. (Parma 1784—8): Supplementum (1798).
[899]"The earliest MS. of which the age is certainly known bears date A.D. 90" (Pref. to the R.V. of the O.T. p. ix. 2).
[900]Cf. F. C. Burkitt, Aquila, p. 16 f.
[901]Cf. S. R. Driver, Samuel, p. xxxix.: "Quotations in the Mishnah and Gemara exhibit no material variants . . . the Targums also pre-suppose a text which deviates from (the M. T.) but slightly."
[902]Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p. 73 f.
[903]See W. Robertson-Smith, O. T. in Jewish Ch., p. 62 f.; A. F. Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of the O. T., p. 63 ff.
[904]See Ryle, Canon, p. 91 f.
[905]Pt. II., c. v., p. 315 ff.
[906]Samuel, p. xxxix. f.
[907]Expositor V. iii., p. 273.
[908]See H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 397 f., and the remarks that follow.
[909]Lagarde (Symmicta i., p. 57) suggests a form אישבורא.
[910]On the relation of the LXX. to the Q'ri, see Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 219 ff.
[911]The titles which are given in the LXX. but are wanting in , have been enumerated in Pt. II. c. ii. (p. 250 ff.).
[912]On this word see an article by C. A. Brigs, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1899, p. 132 ff., and art. Selah, in Hastings, D.B. iv.
[913]On the quotations see above p. 392 ff.
[914]Essays, p. 34.
[915]Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 88.
[916]Deissmann, Bibelstudien, pp. 106, 138.
[917]Essays, p. 35.
[918]Essays, p. 65 ff.
[919]Ἀγάπησις occurs in the sense of Divine love (Hos. xi. 4, Zeph. iii. 17, Jer. xxxi. 3).
[920]See Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, p. 9 f.
[921]Praef paraen., ed. E. Churton, p. 22 f.
[922]See above, p. 40.
[923]Cf. Aquila, p. 16 f.
[924]Field, Hexapla, i. p. xxiv.
[925]Ibidem.
[926]See Burkitt, Aquila, p. 18 ff.
[927]See pp. 47 ff., 395 f., 403, 417 etc.
[928]On the excellence of his Greek scholarship see Field, op. cit. p. xliv.
[929]Essays, p. 28.
[930]These instances are chiefly from Hatch (Essays, p. 25). They might easily be multiplied by an inspection of the Oxford Concordance or of the Lexicon and Hexapla at the end of Trom.
[931]See above, p. 30 f.
[932] See above, p. 13 f.
[933]See above, p. 219 ff.
[934]Part III. c. 3.
[935]See above, p. 87 ff.
[936]2 Justin occasionally adopts a rendering preferred by his Jewish antagonists, 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.
[937]See above, p. 60 ff.
[938]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."
[939]See below, p. 468.
[940]See his Preface to the Gospels, addressed to Damasus.
[941]Aug. Ep. ii. 82, § 35. He deprecates the change of cucurbita 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."
[942]v.l. adprehendite.
[943]Eph. i. 13.
[944]Cf. the Tractatus in Psalmos, p. 402.
[945]See above, p. 424, n., and cf. Deut. xxviii. 66.
[946]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. H. Kihn, Th. v. Mops., p. 87 ff. (Freiburg i. B., 1880).
[947]Fragment of the Thalia, in Athan. or. c. Ar. i. 6.
[948]Ib. ἀρχὴη τοῦ κτίζεσθαι ἔσχε καὶ αὐτός.
[949]The references are to the pages of Mr Brightman's Liturgies, Eastern and Western, i. (Oxford, 1896).
[950]Cf. St Basil (B. 311).
[951]The composite quotation in Clem. R. 1 Cor. xxxiv. (Dan. vii. 10 + Isa. vi. 3) is probably an echo of an early Roman Preface. A reference to Dan. l.c. in the same connexion is not uncommon; cf. St Clement (B. 18), St Mark (B. 131), Sarapion (J. Th. St. i. 1, p. 105).
[952]To these may perhaps be added the Ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδε (cf. Clem. R. l.c.). On Kyrie eleison see a paper by Mr Edm. Bishop, in the Downside Review, 1899—1900 (published separately by Walters, Weston-super-mare).
[953]E. W. Watson, in Studia Biblica, p. 194 f.
[954]See above, pp. 98 f., 103.
[955]Cf. Kaulen, Handbuch zur Vulgata (Mainz, 1870), pp. 83 ff., 130 f., 189 ff.
[956]Field, Hexapla, i., p. xxiv.
[957]For other exx. see Field, op. cit., p. xxxiv.
[958]Praef. paraen., ed. E. Churton, p. 25 f.
[959]Cf. Apoc. xxii. 18 f.
[960]Thackeray, however, points out that this may not be textual corruption; cf. Lev. xviii. 30 πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς, Numb. xiii. 23 πρὸ τοῦ Τάνιν Αἰγύπτου.
[961]As in all our MSS. of Ps. xxxix.
[962]See codd. BAF in Deut. l.c..
[963]Above, p. 424.
[964]Cf. dial. 120; Iren. iii. 21. 1, 5; Eus. dem. ev. vi. p. 257 c, d.
[965]Intr. 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.
[966]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 Λαήλ (לאל). The name of Joshua's father in the LXX. is Ναυή (0. L. Nave), probably in the first instance an error for Ναύν (ΝΑΥΗ for ΝΑΥΝ) = נון). Another well-known instance is the A text of Jud. v. 8 σκέπη νεανίδων σιρομαστῶν ἀνήφθη καὶ σιρομάστης, which, as Ewald pointed out, conceals the doublet (1) σκέπην ἐὰν ἴδω καὶ σιρομάστην, (2) σκέπην ἐὰν ὀφθῇ καὶ σιρομάστης. In 1 Esdr. v. 34 Σαφάγ B is an orthographical error (cf. A).
[967]Though he is referring especially to MSS. of the N.T. his next words shew that the remark is meant to include the LXX.: τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν κτλ.. (see, for the rest, above, p. 60).
[968]The gravest instance of ἀφαίρεσις was found in the book of Job; see above, p. 255.
[969]In the context Origen refers to the apparent confusion of Γάδαρα and Γέργεσα in the Gospels.
[970]Ἡ κοινὴ ἔκδοσις was also used of the LXX. as compared with the Hebrew text and the other Greek versions: see Nestle in Hastings, D.B. iv. 438.
[971]Driver, Samuel, p. x1vii.
[972]See above, Part I. c. iii.
[973]For fuller information see pp. 78, 112 ff., 118 ff., 137 f., 140, 148 ff.
[974]See pp. 82 ff., 93, 116 ff., 148 ff.
[975]Lagarde would add (Ankündigung, p. 27) the writings of the Emperor Julian.
[976]See pp. 80, 107 ff., 145, 148 ff., and on the recensions generally cf. Ceriani in Rendiconti d. R. Ist. Lomb. (18 Feb. 1886).
[977]228, and 238 to some extent, fluctuate between Luc. and Hes.; see Oesterley, Amos, p. 19 f.
[978]See above, p. 83 f.
[979]An earlier scheme is set forth in Genesis Graece, p. 21: "primum molior librum a 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."
[980]Praef. xv.
[981]See Driver, Samuel, pp. lii. f., lviii.: I. Hooykas, Iets over de grieksche vertaling, van het 0. T., p. 12 ff.
[982]Cornill, Ezechiel, p. 79: "ein wunderbar glücklicher Zufall hätte uns somit in der Aldine im Grossen and Ganzen den Hesych gegeben, wie die Complutensis im Grossen and Ganzen den Lucian darstellt."
[983]See O.T. in Greek, p. xi. f.
[984]This however has been doubted; see Nestle, Introd. to the Textual Criticism of the N. T., pp. 61 f., 183 f.
[985]See his Ezechiel, pp. 84, 95. The theory was suggested by an early hypothesis of Lagarde (Anmerkungen, p. 3) that the text of B was extracted from a glossed codex.
[986]In Gött. gelehrte Anzeigen, 1886 (reprinted in Mittheilungen, ii. p. 49 ff.).
[987]On the provenance of B and א see Hort, Intr.², p 264 ff., Harris, Stichometry, p. 71 ff., Robinson, Euthaliana, p. 42 ff., and the summary in Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient MSS., p. 128.
[988]Gött. gelehrte Nachrichten, xxx. (1888, 8, p. 194 ff).
[989]Tyconius, p. cxvii.
[990]Aquila, p. 19.
[991]An interesting and plausible specimen of this class of errors occurs in 4 Regn. iii. 2 B καὶ εἶπον Ὤ (A, with , καὶ ἐπάνω. The process of corruption is evident (, , ). In Sirach instances are especially abundant, e.g. xliii. 17 ὠνείδισεν (A, ὠδίνησεν); 23 ἐφύτευσεν αὐτὴν Ἰησοῦς (H. P. 248 ἐφ. ἐν αὐτῇ νήσους); 26 εὐωδία τέλος (248 εὐοδοῖ ὁ ἄγγελος).
[992]Grabe, ep. ad Millium (1705).
[993]Moore, Judges, p. xlvi.
[994]A. E. Brooke and N. M cLean, The Book of Judges in Greek acc. to the text of Cod. Alexandrinus (Cambridge, 1897), p. v.
[995]On the B text of Sirach and Tobit see above, pp. 271, 274.
[996]Driver, Samuel, p. 1.
[997]Burkitt, Aquila, p. 19; cf. p. 53 f. Cf. Silberstein, Über den Ursprung der im cod. Alex. u. Vaticanus des dritten Königsbuches . . . überlieferten Textgestalt (Giessen, 1893).
[998]Above, pp. 395 f., 403, 413, 422.
[999]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.
[1000]See above, p. 75. The N. T. has now appeared in collotype, with introduction by Prof. K. Lake (Oxford, 1911).
[1001]Cf. Nestle, Zur Rekonstruction der Septuaginta (in Philologus, 1899).
[1002]Ed. 2 (1896), pp. 19—72.
[1003]The original text may be regarded as the primary document for the text of the version.
[1004]Cf. Hort, Intr.², p. 90.
[1005]Burkitt, Tyconius, p. cxvii. f.
[1006]On this point see Burkitt, Aquila, p. 33 f.
[1007]Above, p. 484 f.
[1008]On the scope for conjecture where evidence fails, see Hatch, Essays, p. 281, where some other remarks are to be found which deserve attention but need sifting and safeguarding.
[1009]See the second fasciculus of Dr Redpath's Supplement to the Oxford Concordance.
[1010]The earlier editions are enumerated by Schmidt in his preface to the text (Merx, Archiv, Bd. 1. 1870).
[1011]Recherches sur l’économie politique de l’Égypte sous les Lagides, par G. Lumbroso (Turin, 1870), p. xiii.
[1012]Some instances are the titles ἀρχισωματοφύλακες, οἱ ἐπὶ τῶν χρειῶν, χρηματισταί, οἱ ὑπηρέται τῶν ταγμάτων (cf. ταγματικοῖς ὑπηρέταις Wilcken, Actenstücke Pap. VIII.), the phrase ἐὰν φαίνηται, the correct use of εὐτύχει at the close of a petition from a subordinate to a higher official, the words ἑκατοντάρουρος and παρεύρεσις, the phrase παραγενέσθαι εἰς τοὺς τόπους.
[1013]Cf. especially 3 Maccabees iii. 25—28 (προστετάχαμεν—διειλήφαμεν—μηνύειν δὲ τὸν βουλόμενον) with Ar. p. 523. 23 ff. (προστετάχαμεν―διειλήφαμεν—τὸν δὲ βουλόμενον προσαγγέλλειν).
[1014]Aristeae quae fertur ad Philocratem epistulae initium, ed. L. Mendelssohn et M. Krascheninnikov (Dorpat, 1897).
[1015]Aristeae ad Philocratem Epistola etc. Ludovici Mendelssohn schedis usus edidit Paulus Wendland (Leipzig, Teubner, 1900).
[1016]Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs des Bibliothèques de Suisse (Leipzig, 1886).
[1017]Atti della R. Accad. di Torino, vol. IV. 1869.
[1018]It should be noted, however, that in 572. 20 L reads ποιητικως with HK as against A.
[1019]See Montfaucon, Diar. Ital. (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.
[1020]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 III. à Paul V. (Paris, 1890), pp. 57—59.
[1021]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.
[1022]S omits (1), (3), and (7). It has not been tested for the other passages.
[1023]The divergence of the two subdivisions of the B group is seen in the difficult passage (531. 6) where BT omit the words ωστε και την των κυματων θεσιν, while CSZ retain them and add πεποιησθαι καθ ο αν μερος.
[1024]De Praeparationis Evangelicae Eusebii edendae ratiοne (Helsingforsiae, 1888).
[1025]Hellenistische Studien, Alexander Polyhistor (Breslau, 1875) p. 7 f. See also the note on p. 203 on Eusebius and Pseudo-Aristeas.
[1026]Wendland suggests that the words are an interpolation from Plato, Legg. 715 E, ὁ μὲν δὴ θεός, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ παλαιὸς λόγος, ἀρχήν τε καὶ τελευτὴν καὶ μέσα τῶν ὄντων ἀπάντων ἔχων κ.τ.λ.
[1027]Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς ἐθν. βιβλ. τῆς Ἐλλάδος ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου Σακκελίωνος καὶ Ἀλκ. Ι. Σακκελίωνος (Athens, 1892).
[1028]E. Miller, Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs de la Bib1. de l’Éscurial (Paris, 1848). An examination of a few pages of this MS. which the Rev. P. M. Barnard, B.D., kindly made for the writer in 1894 shows that it agrees most often with the GI group. Passages where it stands alone are 548. 15 om του, 549. 8 ποσεων, 549. 21 μια φωνη (for υπο μ. φ.), 550. 14 προσκελευσαμενος, 572. 20 om των ιστορικων, 573. 19 κυλινδιον.