CHAPTER II.

BOOKS OF THE HEBREW CANON.

THE books which are common to the Hebrew Bible and the Alexandrian Version⁴⁹⁸⁴⁹⁸Following 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. 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.

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.

GEN. xxxi. 46 ff. The passage is in some confusion; "vv. 45, 47, 51—54 appear to embody E's account . . . vv. 46, 48—50 the account given by J⁴⁹⁹⁴⁹⁹Driver, Intr. p. 15.." is loosely put together, and v. 50^b, which omits, is hardly consistent with vv. 48, 52. In the materials seem to have been re-arranged with the view of giving greater consistency to the narrative.

GEN. xxxv. 16 ff. The transposition in appears to be due to a desire to locate Eder (Γάδερ;) between Bethel and Bethlehem: see art. EDER in Hastings' D. B. (i. p. 644).

EXOD. xx. 13—15. and represent here two distinct traditions with regard to the order of the Decalogue. For the order followed by ^B see Lc. xviii. 20, Rom. xiii. 9, Jas. ii. 11, Philo de x. orac. 10, de spec. legg. iii. 2; that of ^AF is supported by Mt., Mc., and Josephus. In Deut. v. 17—19 cod. B wavers between the two, but cod. A consistently agrees with ⁵⁰⁰⁵⁰⁰The 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..

EXOD. xxxv.—xl. is "the sequel to c. xxv.-xxxi., relating the execution of the instructions there communicated to Moses," the correspondence being so close that "in the main, the narrative is repeated verbatim—with the single substitution of past tenses for future⁵⁰¹⁵⁰¹Driver, Intr. pp. 37, 38.." But whilst in c. xxv. ff. the LXX. generally follows the Massoretic order, in the corresponding sections at the end of the book "extraordinary variations occur in the Greek, some verses being omitted altogether, while others are transposed and knocked about with a freedom very unlike the usual manner of the translators of the Pentateuch⁵⁰²⁵⁰²Robertson Smith, O. T. in the J. Ch. p. 124 f.."

The passage deals with the building and furniture of the Tabernacle, and the attire of the Priesthood: The following rough table will enable the student to see how the detail are arranged in the LXX. and Heb. severally.

Ornaments of the Ministers.	Structure of the Tabernacle.
Ephod (xxxvi. 9—12).	Hangings (xxxvi. 8—19).
Onyx stones (xxxvi. 13—14).	Boards (xxxvi. 20—34).
Breastplate (xxxvi. 15—29).	Veils (xxxvi. 35—38).
Robe of Ephod (xxxvi. 30—34)
Linen vestments (xxxvi. 35—37).	Furniture of the Tabernacle and its Court.
Crown plate (xxxvi. 38—40).	Ark (xxxvii. 1—9).
	Table (xxxvii. 10—16).
Structure of the Tabernacle, and Court.	Candlestick (xxxvii. 17—24).
Hangings (xxxvii. 1—2).	Altar of incense (xxxvii. 25—29).
Veils (xxxvii. 3—6).	Altar of Burnt-offering (xxxviii. 1—7).
Court (xxxvii. 7—18).	Laver (xxxviii. 8).
	Court (xxxviii. 9-20).
Furniture of the Tabernacle, &c.	Ornaments of the Ministers.
Ark (xxxviii. 1—8).	Ephod (xxxix. 2—5).
Table (xxxviii. 9—12).	Onyx stones (xxxix. 6—7).
Candlestick (xxxviii. 13—17).	Breastplate (xxxix. 8—21).
Altar of Burnt-offering (xxxviii. 22—24).	Robe of the Ephod (xxxix. 22—26).
Oil and Incense (xxxviii. 25—26).	Linen vestments (xxxix. 27—29).
Laver (xxxviii. 17).	Crown plate (xxxix. 30—31.

It is clear from this comparison that both and follow a system, i.e. that the difference of sequence is due to a deliberate rearrangement of the groups. Either the Alexandrian translator has purposely changed their relative order, giving precedence to the ornaments of the priesthood which are subordinated in the M. T. of cc. xxxv.—xl., as well as in both texts of cc. xxv.—xxx.; or he had before him in c. xxxv. ff. another Hebrew text in which the present Greek order was observed. Many O. T. scholars (e.g. Kuenen, Wellhausen, Dillmann) regard cc. xxxv.—xl. as belonging to a "secondary 236and posterior stratum of P⁵⁰³⁵⁰³See Driver, Intr. pp. 35, 39; Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, ii. p. 276 f.." 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 contexts⁵⁰⁴⁵⁰⁴Robertson 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.".

NUMBERS i. 24 ff., xxvi. 15 ff. Each of these passages contains a census of the tribes, and in each the order of the tribes is slightly different in and . In both lists places Gad third, and Asher eleventh; whereas according to Gad is ninth in the first of the two lists, and sixth in the second, and in the second Asher is seventh. The effect of the sequence presented by is to bring Gad into close proximity to Asher, a position which this tribe occupies in i. 5—15 ( and ). For this there may have been genealogical reasons; see Gen. xxx. 10 ff., xlix. 19.

C. vi. 22 ff. Here obviously has the simpler and more natural order, and λέγοντες αὐτοῖς at the end of v. 23 seems to shew that the Greek order, though supported by BAא*, is the result of an early accidental displacement in the Greek text.

JOSHUA ix. 3 ff. In the present Hebrew text the ceremony at Ebal and Gerizim follows immediately upon the taking of Ai, but in it is separated from the latter incident by the hostile gathering of the western kings (ix. 1, 2) and placed immediately before the story of the Gibeonites. "involves a geographical difficulty, for Ebal lies considerably to the north 237of Ai, and until the intervening territory was conquered . . . it is difficult to understand how Joshua could have advanced thither⁵⁰⁵⁵⁰⁵Driver, Intr. p. 100.." The situation however is scarcely improved if we adopt the order of , unless the gathering of the kings is taken to imply a further victory on the Israelite side which opened the way to central Palestine. Dillmann suggests that ix. 2 was once followed by the details of a battle. If so, it is possible that still preserves the original order, though in common with it has lost this record.

C. xix. 47—48. On these verses, which exchange places in the Greek, see under (B)⁵⁰⁶⁵⁰⁶Cf. infra, p. 244..

3 REGN. iv. 17 ff.

The change of order in vv. 17—19 needs no discussion; the transposition may be due to an accident of transcription in the archetype of Cod. B, or, like the variations in Num. i., xxvi., to some consideration connected with the placing of the tribes. The real problem of the passage begins at iv. 20. Its nature may best be understood from a table of the contents. These consist of the details of Solomon's personal greatness and public works; the facts are arranged by ^B and respectively as follows:

Provision for the royal table (iv. 20—23).	Solomon's marriage (iii. 1).
Solomon's power (iv. 24).	Provision for the royal table (v. 2f., 7f.)
His wisdom (iv. 25—30).	The King's power (v. 4).
His marriage (iv. 31).	His wisdom (v. 9—14).
His wife's dowry (iv. 32 ff.).	His negociations with King Hiram (v. 15—25).
His negociations with King Hiram (v. 1—12).	His corvée of workmen (v. 27—32).
His corvée of workmen (v. 13—17).	Foundations of the Temple laid (vi. 1).
Foundations of the Temple laid (vi. 1—5).	Dimensions of the Temple (vi. 6).
Dimensions of the Temple (vi. 6 f.).	Details of the building (vi. 2, 7, 36)

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 text⁵⁰⁷⁵⁰⁷Cf. Driver, Intr. p. 182, and note; C. F. Burney, in Hastings' D. B. p. 862 ff..

C. x. 23—33. The text of ^{B, Luc.} here admits two passages which it had passed over in the earlier contexts, where they stand in (c. ix. 15, 17—22, v. 1). Of ix. 10—28 Prof. Driver remarks that it "consists of a series of notices imperfectly connected together," and that its "literary form . . . is, for same reason, less complete than that of any other portion of the Books of Kings⁵⁰⁸⁵⁰⁸Intr. p 181.." Under these circumstances it is not surprising that some of these notices occupied another 239place in the text which was before the Alexandrian translator. C. v. 1^a, which in the Greek order is x. 30, belongs in to another similar collection of loosely-connected paragraphs. The arrangement followed by ^B is perhaps not materially better, but it probably represents an earlier stage in the formation of the book.

C. xi. 3-8. Here ^{B, Luc.} presents a text which differs from ^A and both in order and in form. A comparison of ^B with ^A and will be found to be instructive; the latter is diffuse and repeats itself unnecessarily (3 ἔκλιναν γυναῖκες αὐτοῦ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ . . . 4 αἱ γυναῖκες αὐτοῦ ἐξέκλιναν τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ . . . 5 ἐπορεύθη Σαλωμὼν ὀπίσω τῆς Ἀστάρτης . . . 7 τότε ᾠκοδόμησεν Σ. ὑψηλὸν . . . τῇ Ἀστάρτῃ); former presents the facts⁵⁰⁹⁵⁰⁹B however omits the important statement of v. 3a, which comes from the older narrative (Driver). briefly and in a logical sequence. Here as elsewhere in this book Cod. A represents the Hexaplaric Greek, and not the original LXX.⁵¹⁰⁵¹⁰See Field ad loc., and cf. Silberstein, über den Ursprung der im cod. Alex. u. Vat. des dritten Königsbuches . . . überlieferten Textgestalt (Giessen, 1893).

Cc. xx., xxi. The relative order of these chapters is reversed in which justifies the change by prefacing the story of Naboth with the words וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה. "The dislocation may have been due to the desire to bring the prophecy of Ahab's death nearer to the account of its occurrence⁵¹¹⁵¹¹C. F. Burney, l.c.." Obviously wrong as the present Hebrew order is, Cod. A has adopted it, interpolating the inapposite ἐγένετο μετὰ τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα, which Origen had borrowed from Aquila; and even Lucian (if he is here rightly represented by Lagarde) has been led into the same error, though he seems to retain the true sequence of the chapters.

PSALMS ix.—cxlvii.

Throughout the greater part of the Psalter and 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. Psalms ix. and x. there are traces of an acrostic system which have been taken to indicate that the two Psalms were originally one⁵¹²⁵¹²See Cheyne, Book of Psalms, p. 228; Bleek-Wellhausen, p. 471. Prof. Kirkpatrick (Psalms, l. p. 41) speaks with less confidence.. Many Hebrew MSS. join Psalms cxiv., cxv.⁵¹³⁵¹³See Kennicott, ii. p. 410. It should be added that in the MSS. Pss. cxvi., cxvii., cxviii. are also often written continuously., as in the LXX. For the division of Psalms cxvi. and cxlvii. it is less easy to account, but it may have been due to a desire to make up the number of the Psalms to 150⁵¹⁴⁵¹⁴"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..

PROVERBS xxiv.—xxxi.

In the first great section of this book (cc. i.—ix.) there is no important difference of order, nor does the second section (x.—xxii. 1^b) or the third (xxii. 17—xxiv. 22) offer more than an occasional variation in the grouping of proverbs, combined with omissions and additions on either side. But at c. xxiv. 23 we enter upon a series of collections which seem at one time to have formed distinct books or cycles of proverbial teaching, and here and differ widely, as a comparison of the contents will shew.

Words of Agur (xxiv. 24—37).	Sayings of the Wise (xxiv. 23—34).
Sayings of the Wise (xxiv. 38—49).	Proverbs of Solomon (xxv. 1—xxix. 21).
Rest of the Words of Agur (xxiv. 50—68).	Words of Agur (xxx. 1—33).

Evidently the order of this portion of the book had not been finally settled when the Alexandrian translator did his work⁵¹⁵⁵¹⁵Cf. Robertson Smith, O. T. in J. Ch. p. 111; Toy, Proverbs, p. xxxiii.. Moreover he has failed to understand the headings of the two sections attributed to Agur and Lemuel⁵¹⁶⁵¹⁶See Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griech. Übersetzung d. Proverbien, pp. 90, 91., and has broken up Agur's collection, the unity of which he seems not to have recognised, placing the Sayings of the Wise between the fragments; unless, indeed, he found them divided in his Hebrew archetype.

JEREMIAH xxv.-li. A glance at the table which stands near the beginning of this chapter will shew that the section c. xxv. 15—xlv. 5 () answers in a general way to c. xxxii. 1—li. 35 (), whilst c. xlvi. 1—li. 64 () is represented, though not without considerable interruptions of the present Hebrew order, by c. xxv. 14—xxxi. 44 (). Speaking roughly these two sections have exchanged places in the Greek text⁵¹⁷⁵¹⁷Cf. Origen ad Afric. 4 πολλὰ δὲ τοιαῦτα καὶ ἐν τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ κατενοήσαμεν, ἐν ᾦ καὶ πολλὴω μετάθεσιν ἐναλλαγὴν τῆς λέξεως τῶν προφητευομένων εὕρομεν.. In the prophecies against the nations precede the parable of the intoxicating cup (xxv. 15 ff. = xxxii. 1 ff.); in they form the final section of the book, coming immediately before the historical appendix (c. lii.). If these prophecies were circulated in a separate form, the words of c. xxv. 13 might naturally have led an Alexandrian collector to place them where they stand in the LXX., whereas in Palestine they were treated as a postscript to the earlier collections and placed 242after xlv. 5. The two texts differ however not only in regard to the place which they assign to the section as a whole, but in the relative order of the prophecies. The order of the nations denounced is in Elam, Egypt, Babylon, Philistia, Edom, Ammon, Kedar, Damascus, Moab; but in , Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, Elam, Babylon. The prophecies had apparently been grouped in the Alexandrian collection after one manner, and after another in the collection which was current in Palestine.

EZEKIEL vii. 3-9. Here the divergence of the LXX. from the Hebrew text was noticed by Jerome, who writes: "in hoc capitulo iuxta LXX. interpretes ordo mutatus est et confusus, ita ut prima novissima sint et novissima vel prima vel media, ipsaque media nunc ad extrema nunc ad principia transferantur." The transposition, to whichever side it is to be ascribed, may be explained by the genius of the passage which is in "a lyric strain such as is unwonted in Ezekiel⁵¹⁸⁵¹⁸Driver, Intr. p. 263.." A full examination of the context may be seen in Cornill⁵¹⁹⁵¹⁹Ezechiel, p. 212., who justly describes it as "eine stark verderbte Stelle," and finds a solution in the hypothesis of a doublet (cf. vv. 3—4, 7—8).

(B) DIFFERENCES OF SUBJECT-MATTER.

1. A further comparison of the LXX. with the Massoretic Hebrew reveals the presence in each text of a considerable number of passages which are not to be found in the other. This fact was known to Origen, and frankly recognised by him (ep. ad African. § 3 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 seen⁵²⁰⁵²⁰Pt. I. c. iii., 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 Gen. iv 8 the LXX. supplies the words of Cain (διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πεδίον), which are wanting in the Hebrew Bible. The supplementary chapters of Exodus are on the whole shorter in than in ; the former has nothing to answer to c. xxxv. 8, xxxvii. 25—28, xl. 6—8, 11, and exhibits c. xxxvi. 8-34 in an abridged form. In the Song of Moses the last four distichs are expanded in into eight, thus:

[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 Ps. xcvi. (xcvii.) 7.

JOSHUA.. Besides innumerable smaller variations in this book which shew that it was not regarded by the translators as sharing the peculiar sanctity of the Torah⁵²¹⁵²¹See G. A. Smith in Hastings' D. B. ii. p. 784., there are in the last four chapters several important contexts in which and differ by defect or excess⁵²²⁵²²Op. cit., p. 781 ff..

C. xix. 47—48 . The order of these verses is reversed in , so as to bring the words αὕτη ἡ κληρονομία κτλ. into juxtaposition with the list of the Danite towns (vv. 41—46); and to each of the verses which have thus exchanged places the LXX. attaches a rider, based apparently upon Judges ii. 34 f., and describing the relations between the new settlers and the Amorites.

C. xx. 4—6. Omitted in . "It is probable that the ch. in its original form (P) has been enlarged by additions from the law of homicide in Dt. (c. 19) at a comparatively late date, so that they were still wanting in the MSS. used by the LXX. translators⁵²³⁵²³Driver, Intr. p. 105.."

C. xxi. 36-37, 42 a—d. The printed Hebrew Bibles omit vv. 36-37, which contain the names of the Levitical cities in the territory of Reuben, and they seem to have been obelised in the Greek by Origen. They are found, however, in the majority of Hebrew MSS.⁵²⁴⁵²⁴See 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., and are necessary to the completeness of the narrative. Vv. 42 a—c are little more than a doublet of c. xix. 50, 51b; 42 d appears to be based upon c. v. 3.

C. xxiv. 30—33. V. 30a continues the story of the flint knives (v. 7, xxi. 42 d). , which omits v. 31, a doublet of Judges ii. 7, adds to the book a postscript, v. 33 a—b, based on v. 33, 1 Sam. iv. 3 ff., Judges ii. 6, 11 ff., iii. 14⁵²⁵⁵²⁵See Knobel in Kurzgef. exeg. Handbuch zum A.T., p. 488..

1 SAMUEL (1 REGN.).

C. ii. 9, 10. The closing stanza of this hymn, like that of the Song of Moses, is presented by in a modified and expanded form. Vv. 8 c, 9 a are omitted in , which substitutes διδοὺς εὐχὴν . . . δικαίου ("apparently an attempt to accommodate the Song more closely to Hannah's position⁵²⁶⁵²⁶Driver, Samuel, p. 20."), and inserts in the heart of v. 10 a passage from Jerem. ix. 23, 24, taken from the Greek version, but with variations which form an instructive study:—

It has been noticed that 1 Regn. ii. 11 a (καὶ κατέλιπεν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ ἐνώπιον Κυρίου) probably corresponds to 1 Sam. i. 28 b (וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ שָׁם לַיהוָֹה). If so, the Song has been inserted in and at different points in the narrative⁵²⁷⁵²⁷See Wellhausen, der Text d. B. Samuelis, p. 42; Driver, op. cit., pp. 17, 18, 21; H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 13.; and it seems to be a reasonable inference that it was not in the original draft of the book. Such a hypothesis will account for the freedom with which it has been treated in .

Cc. xvii—xviii. This is the most important of the contexts in which ^B differs from ^A in the way of defect. The omitted verses contain the story of David's visit to the camp of Israel (xvii. 12—31); David's interview with Saul and Jonathan (xvii. 55—xviii. 5); Saul's attempts upon David's life (xviii. 10—11, 17—19); besides occasional details of less importance (xvii. 41, 50; xviii. 30).

These omissions have been variously explained. According to Wellhausen and Kuenen⁵²⁸⁵²⁸Driver, Intr., p. 170; Samuel, p. 116 f., 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. xvi. 14 ff., which represents David as an experienced warrior with whose reputation Saul is already acquainted, and cc. xvii., xviii., where on a later occasion he appears as a shepherd lad of whom the king has as yet heard nothing. But, as Robertson Smith has pointed out, it is difficult to believe that simple omissions made without changing a word of what was left could produce a complete and consecutive narrative such as we find in . He concludes that the verses omitted by are "interpolations in the Hebrew text, extracts from a lost biography of David . . . not found in the text which lay before the LXX. translators⁵²⁹⁵²⁹0. T. in J. Ch., pp. 121, 431 ff.; Cf. Kirkpatrick, 1 Samuel, p. 241 ff.." Driver⁵³⁰⁵³⁰1 Samuel, p. 117. doubts whether the verses can have been interpolated in a strict sense, "for an interpolation would not insert anything at variance with the narrative interpolated." "We seem therefore (he adds) shut up to the conclusion that the verses omitted in the Vat. MS. belong to an independent narrative, which was in parts incorporated with the older account, but not in all MSS. existing when the LXX. translated the book."

The omissions are supplied in ^A, ^Luc., but probably from a non-Septuagintal source; the passages are marked with an asterisk in the Hexaplaric MSS. 64, 92⁵³¹⁵³¹Cf. Field ad loc..

C. xxiii. 11—12. Here ^B omits by homoeoteleuton the Heb. from יֵרֵד (v. 11) to יַסְגִּירוּ (v. 12). But it also omits קְעִילָה בְיָדוֹ בַּעֲלֵי, (v. 11), and Wellhausen conjectures with probability that εἰ ἀποκλεισθήσεται was wanting in the original form of the LXX.⁵³²⁵³²See H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 212.

1 KINGS (3 REGN.). In this book ^B contains a large quantity of additional matter, of varying character and worth⁵³³⁵³³See C. F. Burney, Notes on Heb. Text of Books of Kings, esp. pp. xix—xxx..

C. ii. 35 a—n, 46 a—l, are summaries of Solomon's personal history, which have been attached, probably by the accidents of transcription, to the verses which they severally follow. On examination each of these passages proves to be made up partly of translations from verses which are not represented in the true LXX., partly of fragments of the LXX. which occur elsewhere in their true order, partly of brief descriptions gathered from other parts of the book.

Thus ii. 35 a—b = iv. 25—26, c = iv. 31, d = v. 15, e = vii. 10 ff., f—g = ix. 24—25 (), h = v. 16, i—k = x. 23 ff., l—o = ii. 8—9. Similarly, ii. 46 a = iv. 20 (), b = v. 2 (), c = iii. 1 (), d = ix. 18 (), e = iv. 22—23, f = iv. 24, g = v. 5 (), h = 2 ff., i—k = x. 29—30.

C. viii. 53 a is an addition of quite another character and of the highest interest. The true LXX. (^B) omits viii. 12, 13, which in cod. A are thus supplied from Aquila⁵³⁴⁵³⁴Cf. Field ad loc.: τὸτε εἶπεν Σαλωμών Κύριος εἶπεν τοῦ σκηνῶσαι ἐν γνὸφῳ. οἰκοδόμησα οἶκον κατοικητηρίου σοι, ἕδρσμα τῆς καθέδρας σου αἰῶνος. But after v. 53 gives the substance of these words in a poetical form which is expressly attributed to an older source:

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. column⁵³⁵⁵³⁵See Field ad loc., who quotes from cod. 243, ταῦτα ἐν τῷ ἐξαπλῷ παρὰ μόνοις φέρεται τοῖς οʹ. . 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)⁵³⁶⁵³⁶Cf. Driver, Intr., p. 182. See Appendix on Thackeray's examination of this passage in J. Th. St. xi. 44.. Here has preserved 248for us a precious relic, which in has been first misplaced and then partly lost⁵³⁷⁵³⁷See the passage discussed in Robertson Smith, O. T. in J. Ch., p. 433..

C. xii. 24 a—z. The longest interpolation in the book, partly similar to the Greek additions in c. ii., but presenting greater difficulties. After rehearsing the facts connected with the death of Solomon, and summarising the reign of Rehoboam, the interpolator tells the story of the rise of Jeroboam and the revolt of Israel, going over the ground already covered in cc. xi—xii., and anticipating c. xiv. ().

The parallels are xii. 24 a = xi. 43, xiv. 21—22; b = xi. 26—28; c = xi. 40; d—f = xi. 43^b; xii. 2—5 (); g—n^a = xiv. 1—20 (); n^b—z = xii. 3—24.

But the passage is no mere cento of verses to be found elsewhere either in or ; it is a second and distinct recension of the story, resting equally with the first upon a Hebrew original. So different and indeed in some respects contradictory are the accounts that they "cannot possibly have stood from the first in the same volume." The same action is ascribed in the one "to Shemaiah, at Shechem, in the days of Rehoboam"; and in the other "to Ahijah, at Jerusalem, in the days of Solomon⁵³⁸⁵³⁸Robertson Smith, op. cit., p. 118.." In fact, the present Greek version of 1 Kings has preserved two ancient accounts of the dismemberment of the Kingdom of David and Solomon, and though one of these survives also in there is no a priori ground for deciding which of the two is the more trustworthy. It is worthy of notice that cod. B omits the reference to Jeroboam's residence in Egypt in xii. 2, and the visit of Jeroboam's wife to Ahijah as it is told in c. xiv. 1—20, though it gives the two irreconcilable accounts of the meeting of Jeroboam with the prophet (xi. 29 ff., xii. 24 o). The whole of the narrative, so far as it exists only in the Greek, is omitted by A and 249the Syro-hexaplar, but it seems to have been retained by Lucian⁵³⁹⁵³⁹Lagarde, 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..

C. xvi. 28 a—h consists of another recension of the summary of Jehoshaphat's reign which occurs in c. xxii. 41—44, 47-50, where the last four verses are omitted altogether in ^B. Lucian, who agrees with ^B in the interpolation at xvi. 28, omits xxii. 40 b—52.

2 KINGS (4 REGN.).

C. i. 18 a—d. An addition similar in character to that which follows 3 Regn. xvi. 28. The summary of Joram's reign has attached itself to the beginning as well as to the end of the story of Elijah's ascension, whilst in it finds a place only at the end (iii. 1—3). In this instance, however, ^{A, Luc.} agrees with ^B in repeating the summary, though with some variations. The student will find a comparison instructive.

1 CHRONICLES i. 10—16, 17b—23 are wanting in ^B, which thus shortens the genealogy by omitting (1) the posterity of Ham, except the Cushites, (2) the longer of two lists of the posterity of Shem. Both passages are supplied (from Gen. x. 13—18, 22—29) by cod. A, in a version which came from Hexaplaric sources (see Field, i. p. 704).

2 CHRONICLES xxxv. 19 a—d, xxxvi. 2 a—c, 5 a—d, are versions of 2 Kings xxiii. 24—27, 31b—33, xxiv. 1—4, based apparently upon a recension of the Hebrew which differs from , and only in part assimilated to .

2 ESDRAS xxi, xxii. (Neh. xi, xii.). The lists of princes and Levites are much shortened in ^B, which omits altogether xxi. 16, 20, 21, 28, 29, 32—35; xxii. 4—6, 9, 15—21, 38, 40, 41.

PSALMS.

In many of the Psalms receive titles, or additions to their titles, which are wanting in . The following is a list of those which occur in the uncial MSS.

Ps. xiii. (xiv.) 3 a—c. This, the only long interpolation in the Greek Psalter, is found upon examination to be made up of Pss. v. 10 b, cxxxix. (cxl.) 4 b, ix. (x.) 17 a, Isa. lix. 7, 8, Ps. xxxv. (xxxvi.) 1 a, all taken or abridged from the LXX. version with slight variations. That it never formed a part of the 252Hebrew Psalm may be safely affirmed, yet it is quoted continuously in Rom. iii. 13—18, where it follows without break upon an abridgement of Ps. xiii. (xiv.) 1—3.

The Greek addition had a place in the κοινή, according to Jerome praef. in Isa.; cf. Field, ad loc. Whether it was brought into the text of the LXX. from the Epistle⁵⁴¹⁵⁴¹Cf. Hatch, Essays, p. 209 ff., or was already in the Greek Psalm as known to St Paul, cannot perhaps now be ascertained. But it doubtless had its origin in the Rabbinical practice of stringing together passages excerpted from various books of the Old Testament (Sanday and Headlam on Romans, l.c.), and it may have existed under this form in a collection of testimonia used by the Apostle (on such collections see Hatch, Essays, p. 203, Westcott, Hebrews, p. 476 ff.).

Ps. cli. ψαλμὸς ἰδιόγραφος)⁵⁴²⁵⁴²Cf. Oeconomus, iii. p. 634 f.. The MSS. of the LXX. contain after Ps. cl. a Psalm which bears the title Οὗτος ὁ ψαλμὸς ἰδ͕όγραφος εἰς Δαυεὶδ καὶ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, ὅτε ἐμονομάχησεν τῷ Γολιάδ, O. L. hic psalmus sibi proprie scriptus est David, extra numerum, cum pugnavit cum Golia[th]. The letter of Athanasius to Marcellinus, which is incorporated in cod. A, speaks freely of this Psalm as the work of David, and as Ps. cli. (§ 14 οἱ μὲν καυχήσεως τῆς ἐν Κυρίῳ ἀπαγγέλλοντες λόγους εἰσὶ κβʹ καὶ κςʹ, ληʹ . . . ρναʹ: § 25 τῷ ἐκλεξαμένῳ κυρίῳ διδοὺς δόξαν ψάλλε καὶ σὺ τὸν ρναʹ ἴδιον ὄντα τοῦ Δαυείδ); and it is quoted as a Psalm of David by the author of the pseudonymous letter of Mary to Ignatius (cent. iv.; Lightfoot, Ignatius, iii. 144, φησὶν γάρ που αὐτὸς ὅτι Μικρὸς ἤμην, κτλ.). Moreover the scribe of Cod. א regarded it as a part of the Psalter, for his subscription runs . In cod. A, however, it is carefully excluded from the Psalter proper (subscr. ; and the judgement of the Laodicene canon (βίβλος ψαλμῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα) is upheld by the title which in all the MSS. 253pronounces this 'autograph' (ἰδιόγραφος work of David to be ἔξωθεν or ἐκτὸς τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, i.e. τῶν ρνʹ ψαλμῶν.

This Psalm is clearly based on 1 Kings xvi. 7, 11, 26, 43, 51; 2 Kings vi. 5; 2 Chron. xxix. 26; Ps. lxxviii. 70, lxxxix. 20. Its resemblance to the LXX. of those passages is not so close as to suggest a Greek original, but on the other hand there is no evidence that it ever existed in Hebrew. Whether it had a Hebrew or a Greek original, it was probably added to the Greek Psalter after the translation of the fifth book was complete.

For the literature of Ps. cli. see Fabricius-Harles, iii. p. 749, and Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. v. 7², p. 905 ff.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL CANTICLES.

In certain uncial MSS. and a large proportion of the cursives the Psalms are followed by a collection of liturgical ᾠδαί (cantica). The following table shews the sources and order of those which are given by codd. A, R, T.

The nine Odes now sung at Lauds in the Orthodox Church are (following the order of cod. A) nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 + 13; the Roman Church uses at Lauds on successive days of the week 10, Isa. xii., Isa. xxxviii. 10—20, 3, 1, 6, 2, whilst 13, 11, 12 are recited daily at Lauds, Vespers, and Compline respectively⁵⁴⁵⁵⁴⁵For some other orders see Dom Morin in Revue Bénédictine (cited by A. E. Burn, Creeds, p. 262).. The Mozarabic Breviary, as printed, provides no fewer than 76 scriptural canticles. Little has been done as yet to examine either the Greek or the Latin Psalters with the view of determining the local distribution of these canticles; but the student may refer to art. Canticles in DCA., and also to Martene, de ant. rit. eccl., p. 25, Neale, Hist. of the H. Eastern Church, ii. p. 834 f., Freeman, Principles of Divine Service, i. p. 124 f.; on the Canticles of the Latin Church he may consult with advantage Thomasius, opp. ii. pp. xv. sqq., 295 sqq.

The text of the O. T. canticles in the Psalter of cod. A differs in places from that which is given by the same MS. where the canticles appear with their context in the books to which they severally belong. Thus we find the following variants: Exod. xv. 14 ὠργίσθησαν cant. ἐφοβήθησαν: Deut. xxxii. 7 γενεῶν γενεαῖς cant. γενεᾶς γενεῶν: 18 γεννήσαντα, cant. ποιήσαντα: 1 Regn. ii. 10^a φρονήσει, cant. σοφίᾳ: 10^b ἄκρα γῆς, cant. + δίκαιος ὥν. But the deviations are not numerous, and the text of the canticles appears on the whole to belong to the same family as that of the body of the MS.

The division of the Psalter into books⁵⁴⁶⁵⁴⁶A 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.). 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. (Ps. xl. (xli.) 14, lxxi. (lxxii.) 18—20, lxxxviii. (lxxxix.) 5, cv. (cvi.) 48).

PROVERBS. The variations of and in this book are treated by Lagarde in his early book Anmerkungen zur griech. Übersetzung der Proverbien. There is a considerable number of Greek verses for which offers no Hebrew equivalent, and there are some Hebrew verses or half-verses for which there is no Greek. Of the Greek verses not in some (e.g. iv. 27a—b, vi. 8a—c) appear to be of Greek, perhaps early Christian, origin; others have been collected from various contexts (e.g. iii. 16 = Isa. xlv. 23a + Prov. xxxi. 26; xxvi. 1 = Sir. iv. 21), or are fragments of the book which have been accidentally inserted twice (iii. 22a = iii. 8, 28c = xxvii. 1); others, again, seem to have arisen from the fusion of two renderings (xv. 18a, xvi. 17); but there remain not a few which probably represent genuine portions of the original collections, though wanting in the present Hebrew text, e.g. vii. 1a, viii. 21a, ix. 12a—c, 18a—c, xii. 11 a, 13 a, xvii. 6 a, xviii. 22 a, xxii. 8 a (cited in 2 Cor. ix. 7), xxiv. 22a—e, xxvii. 20a, 21 a.

JOB. The LXX. text of Job current in Origen's time is known to have been very much shorter than the Greek text preserved in extant MSS. and the M.T.

Ad African. 4 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 ἕξ⁵⁴⁷⁵⁴⁷For this correction see a note by Dr Nestle in Exp. Times, Aug. 1899 (p. 523).). 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 Job⁵⁴⁸⁵⁴⁸Cf. Hatch, Essays, p. 216; Field, Hexapla, ii. p. 1 f.; E. Klostermann, Analecta, p. 63 f. 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 ⁵⁴⁹⁵⁴⁹Burkitt, O. L. and Itala, p. 8..

Dr Hatch⁵⁵⁰⁵⁵⁰Essays, p. 214 ff. 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 Hellenist⁵⁵¹⁵⁵¹On the translator's date cf. Schürer³, iii. pp. 311, 356 f. who intended his version for general reading, rather than for use in the synagogue⁵⁵²⁵⁵²Cf. 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).. 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.)⁵⁵³⁵⁵³Cf. Testament of Job (ed. M. R. James, Apocr. anecd. ii. p. 117)..

The two notes at the end of the Greek Job (xlii. 17a, b—e) scarcely profess to belong to the book. The first (γέγραπται δὲ αὐτὸν πάλιν ἀναστήσεσθαι μεθ᾿ ὧν ὁ κύριος ἀνίστησιν may be either a Pharisaic or a Christian gloss, intended to balance the ἐτελεύτησεν Ἰώβ of the previous hemistich, and arising out of 257xix. 26 ἐπὶ γῆς ἀναστήσαι(v. l. ἀναστέσει) τὸ δέρμα μου to which passage γέγραπται seems to refer. The second note, which professes to come from an Aramaic source οὗτος ἑρμηνεύεται ἐκ τῆς Συριακῆς βίβλου⁵⁵⁴⁵⁵⁴"Ἐκ τῆς Σ, β. weist doch auf einen Midrasch oder ein Targum hin" (Dillmann, Hiob, p. 361).), confuses Job (אִיּוֹב) with the Edomite king Jobab (יוֹבָב) (Gen. xxxvi. 33 f. = 1 Chron. i. 44 f.), and bases on this identification a pedigree of the patriarch, according to which he was 'fifth from Abraham,' and a descendant of Esau. Similar statements occur in a fragment of the Hellenistic writer Aristeas quoted by Polyhistor, and from Polyhistor by Eusebius (praep. ev. ix. 25). From a comparison of this extract with the note attached to Job, Freudenthal was led to ascribe the note to Aristeas⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵Schürer³, iii. p. 311.. Beyond the geographical description of Uz (ἐπὶ τοῖς ὁρίοις τῆς Ἰδουμαίας καὶ Ἀραβίας), and the statements that Job's wife was an Arab woman and that her son's name was Ennon or Enon (v. l.), the note contains nothing new: 17c—d rests upon Gen. xxxvi. 32—35 (LXX.), and 17 e on Job ii. 11 (LXX.).

ESTHER. In the Greek Esther we reach the maximum of interpolation. Of 270 verses, 107 are wanting in the present Hebrew text, and probably at no time formed a part of the Hebrew book⁵⁵⁶⁵⁵⁶Cf. 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.. The Greek additions are distributed through the book in contexts as long as average chapters⁵⁵⁷⁵⁵⁷In the Cambridge LXX. they are distinguished by the Roman capitals A—F, a notation suggested by Dr Hort.. 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.⁵⁵⁸⁵⁵⁸See Ryle, Canon, p. 139 f., 203 ff.; and cf. supra, p. 228 f..

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 Purim⁵⁵⁹⁵⁵⁹Φρουραί (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., as they called it, which had been translated (so they said) by one Lysimachus, son of Ptolemy, a resident at Jerusalem." As Fritzsche remarks⁵⁶⁰⁵⁶⁰Handbuch zu d. Apocrypha, i. p. 73., 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 Philometor⁵⁶¹⁵⁶¹Ryssel (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.. But the historical value of the note is more than doubtful⁵⁶²⁵⁶²See above, p. 25..

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 elsewhere⁵⁶³⁵⁶³P. 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."; and concludes that "the 'omissions' to be observed in the LXX. of Jeremiah, speaking generally, exist only in consequence of its nearer approximation to the original form of the Hebrew text."

The Greek additions, in Jeremiah, rarely exceed a few words in a verse (see the list in Streane, p. 19). Omissions are more numerous, and sometimes extend over several consecutive verses of ; the following are the most noteworthy: viii. 10b—12, x. 6, 8, 10, xvii. 1—5^a, xxix. (xxxvi., LXX.) 16—20, xxxiii. (xl., LXX.) 14—26, xxxix. (= xlvi., LXX.) 4—13, lii. 28—30. Of these passages viii. l0b—12 seems to be based on vi. 12—15, and xxix. 16—20 on xxiv. 8—10; x. 6, 8, 10, xxxix. 4-13 and lii. 28—30 are probably interpolations in the M.T. On the other hand it is possible that the omission of xvii. 1—l5^a was due to homœoteleuton, the eye of the translator or the scribe of his archetype having passed from יהוה (xvi. 21) to יהוה (xvii. 5^a). It is more difficult to account for the absence from of the Messianic passage xxxiii. 14—26. Dr Streane thinks that it must have been wanting in the Hebrew text which lay before the translators. Possibly the Messianic hope which it emphasises had less interest for a subject of the Ptolemies than for the Jews of Palestine.

LAMENTATIONS. The Greek translator has prefixed a heading which connects the book with Jeremiah (καὶ ἐγένετο . . . ἐκάθισεν Ἰερεμίας κλαίων κτλ.),

DANIEL. Like Esther the Book of Daniel in both its Greek forms⁵⁶⁴⁵⁶⁴Vide supra, p. 46 ff. 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 Theodotion⁵⁶⁵⁵⁶⁵On Theodotion's Bel, see Gaster in J. of Bibl. Archaeology, xvi. 289, 290, 312 ff., xvii. 71 ff. as given by the great uncials precedes Dan. i. 1; (2) the story of Bel and the Dragon (Βὴλ καὶ Δράκωη) which follows Dan. xii. 13; (3) after Dan. iii. 23 a digression of 67 verses (iii. 24—90, LXX., Th.), consisting of (a) the prayer of Azarias (24—45), (b) details as to the heating of the furnace and the preservation of Azarias and his friends (46—51), (c) the Song of the Three (52—90). In the Greek MSS. no break or separate title divides these Greek additions from the rest of the text, except that when Daniel is divided into "visions," the first vision is made to begin at i. 1, Susanna being thus excluded from the number; Bel, on the other hand, is treated as the last of the visions (ὅρασις ιβʹ AQ). Internal evidence appears to shew that both these stories originally had a separate circulation; Susanna does not form a suitable prologue to Dan. i.⁵⁶⁶⁵⁶⁶Susanna 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.). , for v. 6 introduces Daniel as a person hitherto unknown to the reader; and the position of Bel as an epilogue to the prophetic portion of the book is still less appropriate. From the Fathers, however, it is clear that in the earliest Christian copies of the LXX. both Susanna and Bel formed a part of Daniel, to which they are ascribed by Irenaeus and Tertullian, and implicitly by Hippolytus. The remarkable letter of Julius Africanus to Origen which throws doubt on the genuineness of Susanna, calling attention to indications of its Greek origin, forms a solitary exception to the general view; even Origen labours to maintain their canonicity.

Iren. iv. 26. 3 "et audient eas quae sunt a Daniele propheta voces" (Sus. 56, 52 f.), iv. 5. 2 "quem et Daniel propheta . . . annuntiavit" (Bel 4f., 25). Tert. de idololatria, 18 (Bel 4 f.). Hippol. in 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 original⁵⁶⁷⁵⁶⁷Cf. 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.. 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 Dan. iii. 23 is clearly Midrashic and probably had a Semitic original⁵⁶⁸⁵⁶⁸Ball, l. c., p. 308. See Nestle, Exp. T. xii. 527, and Daubney, Exp. T. xviii. 287.. The two hymns contained in it found a place, as we have seen, among the Greek ecclesiastical Canticles, where they appear as the προσευχὴ Ἀζαρίου and the ὕμνος τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν (cod. A) or ὕ. τῶν τριῶν παίδων (cod. T).

Besides these additions, which are common to both texts of Daniel, the text of the LXX. contains a large number of shorter interpolations, especially in c. iii.—vi. where "the original thread of the narrative is often lost in a chaos of accretions, alterations, and displacements⁵⁶⁹⁵⁶⁹Bevan, Daniel, p. 46.." The student can easily test this statement by comparing the two versions as they stand face to face in the Cambridge LXX., especially in c. iii. i—3, 46, iv. 14 (17), 19 (22), 29—34 (32—37), v. 13—23, vi. 2—5 (3—6), 12—14 (13—15), 22 (23). But the whole of this section of the book in the LXX. may be regarded as a paraphrase rather than a translation of a Hebrew text. In Susanna Theodotion has here and there a much longer text than the LXX. (cf. Sus. 14—27, 42—50), and both in Susanna and Bel the two Greek versions sometimes diverge so widely as to exhibit the story in distinct forms which appear to represent different traditions.

LITERATURE upon the canonical books (considered separately or in groups).

PENTATEUCH. Amersfoordt, Dissert. philol. de variis lectionibus Holmes. Pentateuchi (1815). Hug, de Pentateuchi vers. Alexandrina commentatio (1818). Töpler, de Pentateuchi interpretationis Alexandrinae indole (1830). Thiersch, de Pentateuchi versione A1exandrina, libri iii (1841). Frankel, über den Einfluss der paläst. Exegese auf die alex. Hermeneutik (1851). Howorth, the LXX. and Samaritan v. the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch (Academy, 1894).

GENESIS. Lagarde, Genesis Graece (1868). Deutsch, exeg. Analecten zur Genesisübersetzung der LXX. (in Jüd. Litt. Blatt, 1879). Spurrell, Genesis, ed. 2 (1898).

EXODUS. Selwyn, Notae criticae in Versionem LXXviralem, Exod. i—xxiv (1856).

NUMBERS. Selwyn, Notae, &c., Liber Numerorum (1857). Howard, Numbers and Deuteronomy acc. to the LXX. translated into English (1887).

DEUTERONOMY. Selwyn, Notae, &c., Liber Deuteronomii (1858). Howard, op. cit. (1887). Driver, critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deut. (1895).

JOSHUA. Hollenberg, Der Charakter der alex. Übersetzung des Buches Josua (1876).

JUDGES. Fritzsche, Liber Iudicum sec. LXX. interpretes (1867). Schulte, de restitutione atque indole genuinae versionis graece Iudicum (1889). Lagarde, Septuagintast. i. (1891), (Jud. i—v., texts of A and B). Moore, critical and Exegetical Comm. on Judges (1895).

RUTH. Fritzsche, Ῥοὺθ κατὰ τοὺς οʹ (1867).

1, 2 KINGDOMS. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis untersucht (1871). Woods, the light thrown by the LXX. on the Books of Samuel (in Studia Biblica, i. 21, 1885). Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (1890). Steinthal, zur Geschichte Sauls u. Davids (1891). Kerber, Syrohex. Fragmente zu den beiden Samuelisbüchern (ZATW., 1898). J. Méritan, la Version Grecque des livres de Samuel, précédée d’une introduction sur la critique textuelle (1898). H. P. Smith, Critical and exeg. comm. on the Books of Samuel (1899).

3, 4 KINGDOMS. Silberstein, Über den Ursprung der im Codex Alex. u. Vat. des dritten Königsbuches der Alex. Übersetzung überlieferten Textsgestalt (in ZATW., 1893). C. F. Burney, Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Kings (1903).

1, 2 CHRONICLES, EZRA-NEHEMIAH. Howorth, The true LXX. version of Chr.-Ezra-Neh. (in Academy, 1893). Nestle, Marginalien (1893), p. 29 ff.

PSALMS. Sinker, Some remarks on the LXX. version of the Psalms (1879). Baethgen, der text-kritisches Werth des alten Übersetz. zu d. Psalmen (1882). Lagarde, psalteri graeci specimen (1887); psalmorum quinquagena prima (1892). Mercati, un palimpsesto Ambrosiano dei Salmi Esapli (1896). Jacob, Beiträge zu einer Einleitung in die Psalmen (I. Exc. v.), (1896).

PROVERBS. Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griech. Übersetz. der Proverbien (1863). Pinkuss, die syr. Übersetzung des Proverbien . . . in ihrem Verhältniss zu dem Mass. Text, den LXX. u. dem Targ. untersucht (ZATW., 1894).

ECCLESIASTES. Wright, The book of Koheleth (1883). Grätz, Koheleth (1884). Klostermann (E.), de libri Coheleth. versione Alexandrina (1892). Dillmann, über die Gr. Übersetzung des Koheleth (1892). Köhl, observ. ad interpr. Gr. et Lat. vet. libri Job (1834).

JOB. Bickell, De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae Jobi (1862); der ursprüngliche Septuaginta-text des Buches Hiob (1886). Hatch, on Origen's revision of the Book of Job (in Essays, 1889). Dillmann, Text-kritisches zum B. Ijob (1890). Maude, die Peschittha zu Hiob nebst einem Anhang über ihr Verhältniss zu LXX. u. Targ. (1892). Beer, der Text des B. Hiob (1895). Driver, in Cont. Review (Feb. 1896). Cheyne, in Exc. Bibl., 2489 f. (1901).

ESTHER. Jacob, Esther bei dem LXX. (ZATW., (1890). On the Greek additions see Ryssel in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 193 ff.

DODECAPROPHETON. Vollers, Das Dod. der Alexandriner (1880), continued in ZATW., 1883–4. Stekhoven, de alex. Vertaling van het Dod. (1887).

HOSEA. Treitel, Die alex. Übersetzung des Buches Hosea (1888).

MICAH. Ryssel, Untersuchungen über die Textgestalt des B. Micha (1887). Taylor, the Mass. text and the ancient versions of Micah (1891).

OBADIAH. Seydel, Vaticinium Obadiae . . . . . . ratione habita transl. Alex. (1869).

NAHUM. Reinke, Zur Kritik der ält. Vers. d. Proph. Nahum (1867).

HABAKKUK. Sinker, Psalm of Habakkuk (1890).

ZECHARIAH. Lowe, Comm. on Zech. (1882).

ISAIAH. Scholz, Die Masor. Text u. alex. Übersetzung des B. Jesaias (1880). Weiss, Peschitta zu Deuterojesaia u. ihr Verhältniss zu M. T., LXX. u. Targ. (1893).

JEREMIAH. Movers, De utriusque recens. Jeremiae indole et origine (1837). Wichelhaus, de Jeremiae vers. Alexandr. indole (1847). Schulz, de Ieremiae textus Hebr. et Gr. discrepantia (1861). Scholz, der Masor. Text u. die LXX. Übersetz. des B. Jeremias (1875). Kühl, das Verhältniss der Massora zur Septuaginta in Jeremia (1882). Workman, the text of Jeremiah (1889). Coste, die Weissagungen der Propheten Ieremias (1895). Streane, the double text of Jeremiah (1896). The question of the two recensions is dealt with at length in Bleek-Wellhausen, Einleitung, § 158 ff.

LAMENTATIONS. Goldwitzer, Übersetzung mit Vergleichung d. LXX. (1828).

EZEKIEL. Merx, Der Werth der LXX. für die Textkritik der AT am Ezechiel aufgezeigt (Jb. pr. Th., 1883). Cornill, das Buch des Proph. Ezechiel (1886); cf. Lagarde in Gött. gelehrte Anzeigen (1 June, 1886).

DANIEL. Bludau, De alex. interprete libri Daniel indole (1891); die alex. Übersetzung des B. Daniel (1897). Bevan, the Book of Daniel (1892). Löhr, textkrit. Vorarbeiten zu einer Erklärung des Buches Daniel (ZATW., 1895). On the Greek additions see Rothstein in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 172 ff.