« Prev Additional Notes. Next »


P. 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 Gen. i. 1—5, Aquila as well as LXX. The Rainer fragments of Ps. lxviii. 13, 14, 30—33, lxxx. 11—15 (C. Wessely in Mélanges Chatelain, 1910) have been shown by P. Capelle (Revue Benedictine, 1911, p. 64 ff.) to be certainly not Aquila, and most probably Symmachus. Dr Nestle (Exp. Times, May 1911) also pronounced for Symmachus.

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.'


Lietzmann, 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 Ps. cxxxi. 4 . . . ἐν δὲ τῷ ὀκτασελίδῳ παρὰ μόνοις τοῖς οʹ ἔκειτο ὠβελισμένον—which appears to support Field; but it would be scarcely safe to assert that no more are forthcoming. (4) Origen's motives, and his judgement, can scarcely be determined. Collection of information was then thought more of than a pure text as we should now consider it, and he may have aimed at massing all the facts he could in his great work. The suggestion that the Tetrapla, or an extracted LXX. text, should have received Origen's critical 502treatment, and not the Hexapla, whether right or not, appears arbitrary. (6) The varying number of columns mentioned can be simply explained as on pp. 66, 67: 'Hexapla' was the standing number, and the normal name; the others might be applied when more, or fewer, columns were used. The Psalms can hardly be taken, in any case, as a normal specimen of the O.T. (7) If the Milan fragment is not an exact copy, it affords less certain ground for argument.

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 (Ep. cvi. 2) are:


'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 Dan. i. 17, 18, in Theod.'s version. The leaves have been rubbed, making the text illegible in places. The editor considers that Deuteronomy is a copy made for private use; the text of Jonah, apparently by the same hand, agrees in some small points with AQ. Dr Budge assigns the papyrus to the fourth century; but it is possibly a century later than this. Out of 133 leaves, 24 are missing. The papyrus was acquired by the British Museum in April 1911, and published barely a twelvemonth after.

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 Dan. iii. 2—15. Lucianic.


The MSS. are named from Zunīn, 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 v. 16 ὁ θεός σου to vi. 18 τὴν γῆν τὴν ἀγαθήν, and in Joshua from iii. 3 τῷ λαῷ λέγοντες to iv. 10λατο Κύριος. Deut. i. 3-5, 17 are fragmentary. There are 102 leaves, with 3 blank pages: two columns on the page, with 31 lines, of 13 to 14 letters in each. The text of Deuteronomy seems to resemble that of the cursives 54 and 75 (see p. 493); in Joshua it is somewhat akin to A. There is a small Hexaplaric 507element. Professor Sanders assigns the MS. to the fifth century, probably the first half; Mr Brooke (in J. Th. Stud. XIII. 458 ff.) perhaps to the sixth century, at any rate not later. Professor Sanders suggests that this and the three companion MSS. 'perhaps originated in a Greek monastery, were united in a Coptic one, and found in the ruins of one.' Dr A. S. Hunt (The Year's Work in Class. Studies, 1908) says that 'in all probability they belong to a group of Greek and Coptic MSS., proceeding eventually from the White Monastery near Sohag, of which another portion has been obtained for Berlin by C. Schmidt. Of the Berlin section the most valuable item seems to be an early copy on papyrus of part of the Book of Genesis. . . .'

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 Ps. xxx. 5—xxxi. 1, xxxii. 18—lv., with gaps in the earlier part. Rahlfs dates it later than A.D. 338, but within the fourth century. It may be compared with U [B.M. Pap. 37], see p. 142. It must not be confused with the Munich MS., Gr. 251, of the Psalter, called L by Lagarde, in his Novae Psalt. gr. editionis specimen, which is assigned to the tenth century: Rahlfs, op. cit. p. 14; see p. 164, note. Rahlfs mentions some other uncial Psalters, still awaiting complete collation: Paris, Arsenal 8407; Jerusalem, Patr. Lib. 96, containing Ps. xx. 10—cxlviii. 6, six leaves at St Petersburg; Berlin, Royal Lib. Harn. 552 (Graeco-Latin); one at Moscow (Rumjantzowski Museum), see Tischendorf V. T. Gr. proleg. 45; and one at Uspenskoe, dated A.D. 862, described by Amphilochius (Amfilokhy, Archimandrite) in his critical edition of the Slavonic Psalter. All these are of the ninth century; later are Trier 7, a Latin text with interlinear Greek version of Ps. i.—liv.; and incomplete Graeco-Latin MSS. at Würzburg, Cues, St Gall, and Essen.

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).



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:


Gen. i. 1—5, Lxx. and Aquila: Amh. Pap. I. iii c. U2. See p. 148, note 2.

Gen. ii. iii. (fragm.). Late third century, fragment of vellum leaf. Oxyrh. 1007. See p. 39, note 4.

Old Latin of Gen. v. 4-13, v. 29—vi. 2. Fourth century, uncial, portion of vellum leaf, with interesting text. Oxyrh. 1073.

Gen. xiv. xv. xix. xx. xxiv. xxvii. About forty-five verses, mostly fragmentary. Parts of four leaves from a papyrus codex. Late second or early third century. Oxyrh. 656. U4.

Gen. xvi. 8—12. Part of a column of a roll. Third cent. Oxyrh. 1166.

Gen. xxi. xxii. xxiv. Vellum fragments from the binding of Paris, Bibl. Nat. 1397. Δ2.

Gen. xxv. 19-22, xxvi. 3, 4. Vellum fragments. Strassburg, Pap. 748. Δ3. An early papyrus, of the time of Constantine, containing parts of the Book of Genesis, in an early cursive hand. Berlin, Royal Library. See C. Schmidt in Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1908, No. 12, col. 360; also above, p. 507.

Gen. xxxi. 42-46, 48-54. Papyrus leaf of book. Fourth cent. Oxyrh. 1167.

Gen. xxxvii. 3, 4, 9. Geneva, 99. See Archiv II. p. 224 ff. Δ4.

Exod. xv. Heidelberg.

Exod. xix. 1, 2, 5, 6. Large round uncials, a fragment of a handsome MS. Sixth century? Amh. Pap. 191 (see below). U5.

Exod. xxxi. 13, 14, xxxii. 7, 8. Fragments, third century. Oxyrh. 1074.

Exod. xl. 26-32. Third century. Oxyrh. 1075.

Deut. ii. 37—iii. 1, iii. 3, 4, 5, 8—10, 12, 13. Lower part of leaf of papyrus book, large rough round uncials, fourth century. Text generally with B against AF. Rylands Pap. 1.


Deut. xxxii. 3—10. Amh. Pap. 192. U6.

Josh. iv. 23—v. 1. Vellum leaf, fourth century. Oxyrh. 1168.

1 Sam. (1 Regn.) ii. Heidelberg.

2 Sam. (2 Regn.) xv. xvi., fragm. Strassburg. See Deissmann, Licht vom Osten . . .

Psalms (Lxx. numbering): information largely derived from A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, II.

Ps. xiv. White marble slab. Lapethus, in Cyprus. See Rahlfs, Sept.-Studien, II. p. 16. Perdrizet, Bulletin de correspondance helénique 20, 1896. Fourth century.

Ps. xxvi. Parchment roll. Rahlfs, p. 18. Wessely, Wiener Studien 4 (1882), p. 214 ff. Vienna.

Ps. lxxvii. 20—31, 51-61. Greek text with Arabic translation. Eighth or ninth century. Rahlfs, p. 19. Damascus.

Ps. lxviii. 30-37, lxx. 3-8. Cursive, late fourth or fifth century. Oxyrh. 845.

Ps. lxviii., lxxx. fragm. Wessely's fragments, see above, on p. 34. Vienna, Rainer Pap.

P. xc. 1, 2. Papyrus, amulet. Fourth century. Rahlfs, p. 17. Heinrici, Beiträge zur Gesch. u. Erkl. d. N. T. IV. p. 31. Vienna, Rainer Pap. 8032.

Ps. xc. 5—16. Fifth or early sixth century. Irregular semi-cursive hand. Amulet? Rylands Pap. 3.

Ps. xc. 1—13. Wax tablet, amulet? J. Nicole, Geneva.

Ps. cv. 38-45, cvi. 2-10. Parchment. Rahlfs, p. 17. Fifth century. Berlin, Egypt. Museum.

Ps. cxviii. 27-58, fragm. Rahlfs, p. 14. Heinrici, p. 35 f. Leipzig, Univ. Lib. Pap. 170.

Ps. cxliii. 1—cxliv. 6, fragmentary. Two tattered vellum leaves, palimpsest, uncial, sixth century. J. Th. Stud. IV. C. Taylor, p. 130, J. H. A. Hart, p. 215 ff. From the Taylor-Schechter collection.

Prov. x. 11—19. Amh. Pap. 193.

Job i. 15—21, v. 24—vi. 9. Remains of two leaves of a papyrus book, large upright uncial. Sixth or seventh century. There seems no doubt that Amh. Pap. iv. (see page 148, note 2) is the continuation from the first leaf. Rylands Pap. 2.

Tobit ii. 2, 3, 4, 8. Oxyrh. Pap. 1076.

Isai. vi. 10 as quoted in N.T. (Matt. xiii. 15, Acts xxviii. 27). Oxyrh. 405, 406.

Isai. lviii. 11—14. The under side of Amh. Pap. 191 (see above). Archiv II. p. 382.

Amos ii. 6-8, 9-12. Sixth century, large heavy uncial. Oxyrh. 846.


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 Ps. lxxvii. See Holmes and Parsons on Ps. lxxviii.

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 Ps. lxxvi. (H.-P. give readings to verse 17), and 287 begins with the following Psalm.

P. 165. To list (C) add Psalms, Rome, Vat. Gr. 754, from Rahlfs, II. p. 23. Also:

Leipzig, Univ. Lib. Tisch. V, complete from Ps. xvii. 35 onward: and five Psalters with Greek text in Roman letters: viz.,

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 Habak. iii.; see on p. 247, below.

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.



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. Gen. 1—5, LXX. and Aq.: p. 148, note 2.

U3 = Brit. Mus. Pap ccxii. Gen. xiv. 17: p. 146 (1).

U4 = Oxyrh. Pap. 656. Gen. xiv. xv. xix. xx. xxiv. fragm.: parts of four leaves of a codex.

U5 = Amh. Pap. cxci. Exod. xix. 1, 2, 5, 6.

U6 = Amh. Pap. cxcii. Deut. xxxii. 3—6 , 8—10.

Δ2 = Vellum fragments in binding of Paris, Bibl. Nat. Gr. 1397. Gen. xxi. xxii. xxiv.

Δ3 = Strassburg, Pap. Gr. 748: vellum fragm. of Gen. xxv. xxvi.

Δ4 = Geneva, 99 vellum fragm. of Gen. xxxvii.

Δ5 = Palimpsest fragm. Gen. xl. 3, 4, 7: p. 148, note 2.

Δ6 = Vellum fragm. Levit. xxii. 3—xxiii. 22: p. 146 (3).

Δ7 = Vellum fragm. from Sinai, Numb. xxxii. 29: p. 147 (3).


V. Versions:


  = Armenian: Zohrab's edition, Venice, 1805: p. 119.

-ed. = Z.'s text, -cod or -codd variants in his notes.


= 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 Ausar 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.


P. 247. Mr H. St J. Thackeray (in J. Th. Stud. XI. 44, July 1910) has closely examined the passage 3 Regn. viii. 53a, and has reconstructed the underlying Hebrew text. Professor Burkitt had already (J. Th. Stud. X. 39, April 1909) surveyed it with a like object m view, and decided that Luc. ἔστησεν was an attempt to correct LXX. ἐγνώρισεν, not, as had generally been said, reading הכין for הבין, but without reference to the Hebrew, which must almost certainly be הודיע. Mr Thackeray, taking this evidence to the letters of the original Hebrew, proposes to divide them differently, and instead of

  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 Josh. x. 12 from a sun-staying incantation. Further links of connexion appear between these passages, as in the reference in each to the Book of Jashar; referred to also in the lament of David over Saul and Jonathan, 2 Regn. i. 19 ff., where 'nature allusions' again appear. These references, however, are differently attested; in Joshua it is a Hexaplar addition to the Greek; probably also in 2 Regn., where it is read by AB, etc. but not, according to H.-P., by N, 64, 71, 92, 106, 119, 242. In 3 Regn. it stands in LXX., but not in M.T. (probably excised, Mr Thackeray thinks).

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 v. 13 (Cf. 2 Chron. vi. 2), namely עולמים 'for ever,' is found in עלומים, 'youth'; ἐπί is על; τοῦ κατοικεῖν is לשבת, which can better be rendered 'for the Sabbath'; and emending עלומים to עלמות, in the light of such titles to the Psalms as those of ix. and xlvi. (cf. also the end of xlviii. and 1 Chron. vi. 20), and taking account of renderings by Aquila and other versions, we get, instead of the puzzling close to the stanza, a liturgical or musical direction, לשבת על־עלמות; i.e.:

For the Sabbath. On Alamoth ('for soprano voices').


Mr 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 Exod. xv., Numb. xxi. 17; this, however, is not material to his general argument.

Another illuminating discovery, by the same writer, on a kindred matter, concerns the difficult 'Psalm of Habakkuk' (Hab. iii.), and appeared in J. Th. Stud. XII. 46, Jan. 1911. This is the chapter where alone, outside the Psalter, the word 'Selah,' LXX. διάψαλμα, occurs. Four MSS., namely V(= H.-P. 23), 86 (Rome, Barber. V. 45), and the Oxford MSS. 62 and 147, have in this single chapter a widely different Greek version from that contained in the other MSS. (On 62 and 147 see above, on p. 166.) This text has been commented on by Dr Sinker (The Psalm of Habakkuk, Cambridge, 1890) and by Dr E. Klostermann, who prints the texts of the Barberini MS. with variants in his Analecta (Leipzig, 1895), p. 50 ff.

In v. 9 of the 'Psalm' occurs a clause so difficult that, it is commonly said, more than a hundred renderings have been proposed: שבעות מטות אמר, A.V. 'According to the oaths of the tribes, even thy word,' R.V. 'The oaths to the tribes were a sure word,' Sinker, Gesenius and others, 'Sworn were the chastisements (rods) of thy word,' etc. The difficulty lies in the shortness of the clause, the absence of construction, and the variety of possible renderings of the three unpointed words. The first word may be 'oaths,' 'seven,' 'weeks,' etc.; the second, 'tribes' or 'rods' (not, properly, 'shafts' or 'arrows'); and the third 'saith' (verb) or 'word' (noun). The ordinary text of the LXX. has ἐπὶ [τὰ] σκῆπτρα λέγει [κύριος, a gloss]: Sinker, and Nestle (ZATW. 1900, p. 167 f.), suggested ἑπτά for ἐπὶ τά. But the Barberini text, which Mr Thackeray believes to be the oldest Greek version, has ἐχόρτασας [τὰς] βολίδας τῆς φαρέτρας αὐτοῦ.

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 Hab. iii. was the Haphtarah or Prophetical lesson, namely, Deut. xvi. 9 ff.; 'Rods' similarly directs to Numb. xvii. or 'Tribes' to Numb. xxx. 2; and 'saith' to Gen. xii. Again, τῆς φαρέτρας αὐτοῦ stands for יִתְרוֹ, Job xxx. 11; but it should be Jethro, indicating Exod. xviii.—xx. For the Primitive Lessons from the Law, the Triennial Cycle, and the later, Babylonian, annual Cycle of Lessons, see the paper by Dr Adolf Büchler in J. Q. R., V. 424, and Jewish Encycl., vol. XII. 516The variety of lessons provided by the catchwords, and the varying length of the lesson from Habakkuk, are thus explained. Having dealt with other readings, and with the Selahs, v. 3, 13, 19, Mr Thackeray arrives at the conclusion that Hab. iii., or part of it, besides being used as a canticle, was read from very early times as a lesson at Pentecost, being an integral part of the book perhaps by the third century B.C. The Babylonian cycle had it for a lesson on the second day of the extended Pentecost festival (see the note in printed Hebrew Bibles at Hab. ii. 20). The 'Director of Music,' whose date must be about 250 B.C., adopted it as a canticle, adding the Selahs. In something like this state the text found its way to Egypt, about 200 B.C., and the Barberini version was made from it not long after; but the lectionary notes were not understood by the translator, whose version was intended for use as lesson at Alexandria. Later, when Ezekiel and the minor Prophets as a whole were translated, the Barberini version was ignored; but as a short lesson, ending v. 3, continued to be read in some districts, a conflate text of these verses arose for synagogue interpretation. The result, among other things, is to show that here, at any rate, the consonantal text has come down almost uncorrupted.

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 xxviii. 21 ff.; cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 6 (673).

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.


Judges 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 Hab. iii., in A. J. Sem. Lit., 24, p. 76 ff.

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 Tobit ii. 2, 3, 4, 8, appears to give a third recension. Dr J. Rendel Harris points out a connexion between Tobit and the Book of Jubilees; he holds that whichever borrowed from the other did so in Hebrew or Aramaic. The א text seems to show traces of Aramaic influence in the forms of proper names.

P. 275. Baruch α (i. 1—iii. 8) is 'beyond a doubt,' Thackeray thinks, 'the production of the translator of Jeremiah β' (J. Th. Stud. IV. p. 261 ff.; Gramm. of O. T. G. p. 12; cf. p. 276, note 1). Schürer thinks this part was composed in Hebrew, and later translated, 519and the second part added. Thus he dates iii. 9—iv. 4 about 70 A.D., while Marshall places it, in its original form, nearly 400 years earlier.

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 Aiar (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.


Wisdom 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 Aiar, 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 Aiar; 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).



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.



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 Isa. xxv. 1, where the Hebrew word has presumably been taken for אָמֵן by LXX., though M.T. points it differently.

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 4 Regn. v. 19, where כִּבְרַת is transliterated δεβραθά.

ר and ו, Isai. xxviii. 10, 13, θλίψις (ער) for צו.

ר and ה, Isai. viii. 12, σκληρόν = קשׁה for קשׁה 'conspiracy.'

ם and מ, Isai. iii. 10, δήσωμεν, root אסר for אמר.


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 1 Regn. i. 26, cf. ἐπ᾿ ἐμοί, Isai. xxi. 2, for עֲלִי, "Go up.'

(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, v. 2, is possibly a proper name; while νεχωθά, xxxix. 2, is in a passage that runs parallel with 4 Kingdoms; the transliteration occurs in both places in the Greek, and in Isaiah is not impossibly a doublet.

P. 327. The LXX. appear to avoid the familiar metaphor of a 'Rock' in nearly all cases;


See Deut. xxxii. 5, 15, 18, 30, 31, 37; 2 Regn. xxiii. 3; Ps. xvii. 2, 32 (= 2 Regn. xxii. 2, 32), xxx. 3, lx. 2, lxi. 6; Habak. i. 12; Isai. xvii. 10, xxx. 29, xxxii. 2, xliv. 8; but not xxxi. 9. Gen. xlix. 24 is hardly a certain instance, Heb. being different.


P. 330. Gen. xv. 1—6.


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 xxv. 32; Eccles. v. 15; Isai. xxxviii. 10; Ps. xxxviii. 14.

3. κληρονομήσει. This sense is found also in the later literary Greek.

4. Ἐκ σοῦ. Cf. Exod. i. 5.

P. 333. Josh. x. 13. H.-P. give G.'s reading wrongly as ἔθνους.

P. 336. 4 Regn. ii. 14. καὶ διερράγησαν, Luc. καὶ οὐ διῃρέθη, Vulg. et non sunt divisae.

Consult throughout this passage Burney's Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings.

Ps. cix. (cx.) 1—4. See Mozley, Psalter of the Church, p. 164.


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).


P. 360. It was pointed out by the late Dr C. Taylor that in Lam. ii.—iv., whereas in the Hebrew פ precedes ע, the Greek uncials (except Qmg and sometimes Q*), while preserving the order of the verses, prefix αιν and φη in the order now usual. Conversely, in Prov. xxix. 43, 44 (= Heb. xxxi. 26, 25) אB have the פ verse before the ע verse.

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, Mark vi. 39, is curious. It is not given by Westcott and Hort as a reference to the Old Testament; but, whereas it is peculiar to Mark's account, it is found in the LXX., Gen. i. 30, Isa. xv. 6, xxxvii. 27 A.

P. 398. In Zech. xii. 10 the LXX. verb is κατωρχήσαντο, i.e. רקדו for דקרו (see Bp Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 136).

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 Ps. xcv. 10, though widely current in Christian literature, has practically almost no support in MSS. of the LXX.; and the reading ἄρωμεν in Isa. iii. 10 has actually none, occurring as it does in Justin, D. 136, 137. Clem. Alex. Strom. V. 14, auferamus Tert. adv. Marc. III. 22. All existing MSS. give what Justin calls the Jewish reading, δήσωμεν; while, as Hatch, Essays, p. 197, points out, neither reading corresponds with the Hebrew as we have it. In Josh. xv. again, the LXX. text after v. 59 appears to represent an accidental, and very natural, omission in the Hebrew; cf. xxi. 36, 37. It is not even necessary to suppose that the words αὕτη ἐστὶν Βαιθλεέμ are a Greek interpolation,


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.:

Prov. ii. 21. ὅτι εὐθεῖς κατασκηνώσουσι γῆν]

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.

vi. 23 b. καὶ ἔλεγχος καὶ παιδεία]

Strom. I. 29, 247p

ὁδοὺς γὰρ βιότητος ἐλέγχει παιδεία,

? orig. παιδεία γὰρ ὁδοὺς βιότητος ἐλέγχει.

βιότης = βιὸς is else a ἅπαξ λεγ. in Prov. v. 23.

Similarly Chrysostom is possibly right in reading, in Prov. xv. 17b:

ἢ παράθεσις μόσχων μετὰ ἔχθρας

ἢ βοῦς ἀπὸ φάτνης.᾽


P. 432. Literature: add Constantinus Oikonomus, vol. IV.

P. 442. There is an excursus on Gen. xlix. 10 in the earlier editions (previous to the fourth) of Cheyne's Prophecies of Isaiah.

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 Psalms xxx.—ciii. and at the beginning and end of the book. On Cod. א see Professor Kirsopp Lake's Introduction to the photograph of the N.T. (cf. above, on p. 130). On the text of the Prophets see O. Procksch, Stud. z. Geschichte der Sept. (below). His verdict is in favour of A's text, with Q near to it; א he places next, and B akin to it. This latter text, though inferior to AQ, he considers to be that on which Origen worked. The text underlying the hexaplaric cursives comes, he thinks, between AQ and אB, but nearer to the latter. The pre-hexaplar cursives approximate to A. The history of the Septuagint is 'the story of its removal from the maximum to the minimum distance from the M.T.' This account is mainly based on an excellent survey in A. J. Th. XIV. p. 493.

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.


M. 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.

« Prev Additional Notes. Next »
VIEWNAME is workSection