I. No question can arise as to the greatness of the place occupied by the Alexandrian Version in the religious life of the first six centuries of its history. The Septuagint was the Bible of the Hellenistic Jew, not only in Egypt and Palestine, but throughout Western Asia and Europe. It created a language of religion which lent itself readily to the service of Christianity and became one of the most important allies of the Gospel. It provided the Greek-speaking Church with an authorised translation of the Old Testament, and when Christian missions advanced beyond the limits of Hellenism, it served as a basis for fresh translations into the vernacular [886] . The Septuagint has long ceased to fulfil these or any similar functions. In the West, after the fourth century, its influence receded before the spread of the Latin Vulgate; in the East, where it is still recited by the Orthodox Church in the ecclesiastical offices, it lost much of its influence over the thought and life of the people. On the other hand, this most ancient of Biblical versions possesses a new and increasing importance in the field of Biblical study. It is seen to be valuable alike to the textual critic and to the expositor, and its services are welcomed by students both of the Old Testament and of the New. A. As the oldest version of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint claims especial attention from Old Testament scholars. It represents a text and, to some extent, an interpretation earlier than any which can be obtained from other sources. 1. (a) The printed Hebrew Bibles give on the whole the Massoretic text, i.e. a text which has passed through the hands of the Massorets, a succession of Jewish scholars who endeavoured to give permanence to the traditional type. Massora (msvrt, msvrh, traditio) is already mentioned in the saying of R. Akiba, Pirqe Aboth, iii.20 msvrh syyg ltvrh, 'tradition is a fence to the Law' [887] ; but the word is used there in reference to halachic rather than to textual tradition. It is probable, however, that Akiba and his contemporaries were concerned with the settling of the text which later generations protected by the 'Massora' technically so called. The work of the Massorets (vlyhmsrt), who flourished from the sixth century to the tenth, consisted chiefly in reducing to a system of rules the pronunciation of the text which had been fixed by their predecessors. The Massora [888] embodies the readings which tradition substituted for the written text (ktyv ,qry), the corrections known as the svphrym tqvn? [889] , and observations on the text tending to stereotype its interpretation in minute points. To the Massorets we also owe the perfecting of the system of vowel-points and accents. The labours of the Massorets culminated in the Western text of R. Ben Asher (cent. x.), and that which appeared about the same time in the East under the auspices of R. Ben Naphtali. The former has been repeated with minor variations in all Western MSS. The attitude of Christian scholars towards the Jewish traditional text has varied with the progress of Biblical learning. The question of its relation to the text presupposed by the Septuagint was scarcely present to the minds of Christian writers before the time of Origen [890] . Origen, when the problem forced itself upon him, adopted, as we have seen [891] , a middle course between the alternatives of rejecting the LXX. and refusing to accept the testimony of his Jewish teachers. Jerome took a bolder line; his new Latin version was based on the 'original Hebrew,' and on textual questions he appealed with confidence to the verdict of contemporary Jewish opinion: prol. gal. "quanquam mihi omnino conscius non sim mutasse me quidpiam me Hebraica veritate . . . interroga quemlibet Hebraeorum cui magis accommodare debeas fidem." Like Origen he indignantly, and on the whole doubtless with justice, repudiated the charge which was laid by some Christians against the Jews of having falsified their MSS. [892] But neither Origen nor Jerome entertained a suspicion that the Jewish official text had, whether by accident or design, departed from the archetype. Mediaeval Europe knew the Old Testament almost exclusively through Jerome's Latin, as the Ancient Church had known it through the LXX. [893] When at length the long reign of the Vulgate in Western Europe was broken by the forces of the Renaissance and the Reformation, the attention of scholars was once more drawn to that which purported to be the original text of the Old Testament. The printing of the Hebrew text commenced among the Jews with the Psalter of 1477; the editio princeps of the Hebrew Bible as a whole appeared in 1488, and three editions followed before the end of the fifteenth century [894] . Meanwhile Christian scholars had once more begun to learn the Hebrew language from Jewish teachers, and in 1506 the publication of John Reuchlin's Rudiments placed the elements of Hebrew learning within the reach of the theologians of Europe. Under the circumstances it was not strange that the earlier Reformers, who owed their Hebrew Bible and their knowledge of the language to the Rabbis, should have, like Jerome, regarded the traditional text as a faithful reproduction of the inspired original. In the next century a beginning was made in the criticism of the Hebrew text by the Protestant divine Louis Cappelle (L. Cappellus, 1658), and the Oratorian Jean Morin (J. Morinus, 1659), who pressed the claims of the LXX. and the Samaritan Pentateuch. A furious controversy ensued, in the course of which the Swiss Reformed Churches committed themselves to an absolute acceptance not only of the consonantal text, but of the vowel points. This extreme position was occupied not only by theologians, but by experts such as the two Buxtorfs of Basle ( 1629, 1664), who maintained that the Massoretic text in its present state had come down unchanged from the days of Ezra and the 'Great Synagogue.' The views of Louis Cappelle were set forth in Arcanum punctuationis revelatum, Amsterdam, 1624; Critica sacra, Paris, 1650; those of J. Morin in Exercitationes ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum (Paris, 1631), and Exercitationes de hebraici graecique textus sinceritate (Paris, 1633). The younger Buxtorf answered Cappelle in his treatises De punctorum origine (1648) and Anticritica (1653): see Schnedemann, Die Controverse des L. Cappellus mit den Buxtorfen (Leipzig, 1879), Loisy, Histoire critique, p.167 ff. The formula consensus ecclesiarum Helveticarum (1675) declared (can. ii., iii.): "Hebraicus Veteris Testamenti codex quem ex traditione ecclesiae Iudaicae, cui olim oracula Dei commissa sunt, accepimus hodieque retinemus, turn quoad consonas tum quoad vocalia, sive puncta ipsa sive punctorum saltem potestatem, et tum quoad res tum quoad verba theopneustos . . . ad cuius normam . . . universae quae extant versiones . . . exigendae et, sicubi deflectunt, revocandae sunt. Eorum proinde sententiam probare neutiquam possumus, qui lectionem quam Hebraicus codex exhibet humano tantum arbitrio constitutam esse definiunt, quique lectionem Hebraicam quam minus commodam indicant configere eamque ex LXX. seniorum aliorumque versionibus Graecis . . . emendare religioni neutiquam ducunt [895] ." Reference has been made to the place occupied by the Samaritan Pentateuch in this controversy. A Samaritan recension of the Law was known to Origen, who quoted it in the Hexapla (Num. xiii.1 ha kai auta ek tou ton Samareiton Ebraikou metebalomen, xxi.13 ha en monois ton Samareiton heuromen: see Field, Hex.1. p. lxxxii. f.), and Jerome (prol. gal., comm. in Gal. iii.10); reference is made to it also by Eusebius (Chron.1. xvi.7 ff.), and by so late a writer as Georgius Syncellus (cent. viii.), who attaches a high value to its testimony (Chronogr. p.83 diaphonousi ta Ebraika antigrapha pros to Samareiton archaiotaton kai charaktersi diallatton; ho kai alethes einai kai proton Ebraioi kathomologousin). In the seventeenth century, after a long oblivion, this recension was recovered by a traveller in the East and published in the Paris Polyglott of 1645. The rising school of textual criticism represented by Morin at once recognised its importance as concurring with the Septuagint in its witness against the originality of the Massoretic text. Few questions, however, have been more hotly discussed than the relation of the Samaritan to the Alexandrian Pentateuch. Scholars such as Selden, Hottinger, and Eichhorn contended that the Greek Pentateuch was based upon Samaritan MSS. Samaritans were undoubtedly to be found among the early Palestinian settlers in Egypt. Of the first Ptolemy Josephus writes: pollous aichmalotous labon apo tes Samareitidos kai ton en Garizein, katokisen hapantas eis Aigupton agagon. It is significant that Samareia occurs among the names of villages in the Fayûm [896] , and a letter ascribed to Hadrian, and certainly not earlier than his reign, mentions Samaritans as resident at Alexandria. On the other hand the traditional account of the origin of the LXX. directly contradicts this hypothesis, nor is it probable that the Jews of Alexandria would have had recourse to the Samaritans for MSS. of the Law, or that they would have accepted a version which had originated in this manner. Moreover the agreement of the Greek and Samaritan Pentateuchs is very far from being complete. A careful analysis of the Samaritan text led Gesenius to the conclusion, which is now generally accepted, that the fact of the two Pentateuchs often making common cause against the printed Hebrew Bibles indicates a common origin earlier than the fixing of the Massoretic text, whilst their dissensions shew that the text of the Law existed in more than one recension before it had been reduced to a rigid uniformity. On the Samaritan Pentateuch the reader may consult J. Morinus, Exercitationes ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum; L. Cappellus, Critica sacra, iii. c.20; Walton, prolegg: (ed. Wrangham, Camb.1828), ii. p.280 ff.; R. Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, i. c.12; Eichhorn, Einleitung, ii. § 383 ff.; Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine indole et auctoritate comm. (Halle, 1815); S. Kohn, De Pentateucho Samaritano eiusque cum versionibus antiquis nexu (Leipzig, 1865); Samareitikon u. Septuaginta, in MGJS., 1893; E. Deutsch, Samaritan Pentateuch, in Smith's D. B. iii.1106 ff.; E. König, art. Sam. Pentateuch, Hastings' D. B. suppl. vol. p.71; J. W. Nutt, Introduction to Fragments of a Sam. Targum (London, 1872); J. Skinner in J. Q. R. xiv.26; P. Glaue and A. Rahlfs, Mitteilungen des Sept. Unternehmens, ii. (Berlin, 1911), for fragments of Gr. transl. of Sam. Pentateuch. The prevalent belief in the originality of the Massoretic text appeared to receive confirmation from the researches of Kennicott [897] and De Rossi [898] , which revealed an extraordinary agreement in all existing MSS. of the Hebrew Bible. But as no MS. of the Hebrew Bible has come down to us which is earlier than the beginning of the tenth century [899] , this evidence merely shews the complete success of the Massorets and the Sopherim who preceded them in preserving the traditional text, and the question remains to be answered at what period the tradition was created. It may be traced in the fourth century, when Jerome received substantially the same text from his Jewish teachers in Palestine; and in the third, for Origen's Hebrew text did not differ materially from that of Jerome or of the Massorets. We can go yet another step further back; the version of Aquila, of which considerable fragments have now been recovered, reveals very few points in which the consonantal text of the second century differed from that of our printed Bibles [900] . Other witnesses can be produced to shew that, even if Hebrew MSS. of a much earlier date had been preserved, they would have thrown but little light on textual questions [901] . On the whole, modern research has left no room for doubting that the printed Hebrew Bible represents a textus receptus which was already practically fixed before the middle of the second century. But it is equally clear that no official text held undisputed possession in the first century, or was recognised by the writers of the New Testament. Thus we are driven to the conclusion that the transition from a fluctuating to a relatively fixed text took effect during the interval between the Fall of Jerusalem and the completion of Aquila's version. The time was one of great activity in Palestinian Jewish circles. In the last days of Jerusalem a school had been founded at Jamnia (Jabneh, Yebna) [902] , near the Philistine seaboard, by R. Jochanan ben Zaccai. To this centre the representatives of Judaism flocked after the destruction of the city, and here, until the fresh troubles of the war of Bar-Cochba (A.D.132 -- 5), Biblical studies were prosecuted with new ardour under a succession of eminent Rabbis. At Jamnia about A.D.90 a synod was held which discussed various questions connected with the settlement of the Canon. At Jamnia also traditionalism reached its zenith under the teaching of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, R. Joshua ben Chananya, and their more famous pupil R. Akiba ben Joseph, the author of the dogma that every word, particle and letter in the Hebrew Bible has a meaning, and serves some purpose which can be expressed by hermeneutical methods. From this canon of interpretation to the establishment of an official text is but a single step; a book of which the very letters possess a divine authority cannot be left to the unauthorised revision of scribes or editors. Whether the result was reached by a selection of approved readings, or by the suppression of MSS. which were not in agreement with an official copy, or whether it was due to an individual Rabbi or the work of a generation, is matter of conjecture. But it seems to be clear that in one way or another the age which followed the fall of Jerusalem witnessed the creation of a standard text not materially different from that which the Massorets stereotyped and which all MSS. and editions have reproduced [903] . (b) It is the business of the textual critic to get behind this official text, and to recover so far as he can the various recensions which it has displaced. In this work he is aided by the Ancient Versions, but especially by the Septuagint. Of the Versions the Septuagint alone is actually earlier than the fixing of the Hebrew text. In point of age, indeed, it must yield to the Samaritan Pentateuch, the archetype of which may have been in the hands of the Samaritans in the days of Nehemiah (c. B.C.432) [904] ; but the polemical bias of that people, and the relatively late date of the MSS. on which the printed text depends, detract largely from the value of its evidence, which is moreover limited to the Torah. Some of the difficulties which beset the use of the LXX. as a guide to the criticism of the text have been stated already when its character as a version was discussed [905] ; others, arising out of the present condition of the version, will be noticed in the last chapter of this book. "The use of the Ancient Versions (as Prof. Driver writes [906] ) is not . . . always such a simple matter as might be inferred . . . . In the use of an Ancient Version for the purposes of textual criticism, there are three precautions which must always be observed: we must reasonably assure ourselves that we possess the Version itself in its original integrity: we must eliminate such variants as have the appearance of originating merely with the translator; the remainder, which will be those that are due to a difference of text in the MS. (or MSS.) used by the translator, we must then compare carefully, in the light of the considerations just stated, with the existing Hebrew text, in order to determine on which side the superiority lies." "In dealing with the LXX. (Prof. Kirkpatrick reminds us) we have to remember . . . that the LXX. is not a homogeneous work, but differs very considerably in its character in different books, if not in parts of books [907] ." Moreover in the case of the LXX. the task of the textual critic is complicated by the existence of more than one distinct recension of the Greek. He has before him in many contexts a choice of readings which represent a plurality of Hebrew archetypes [908] . The following list of passages in which the LXX. reflects a Hebrew text different from will enable the student to practise himself in the critical use of the Version. Gen. iv.8 does not give the words of Cain, though vy'mr leads the reader to expect them. supplies Dielthomen eis to pedion (nlkh hsdh), and this is supported by Sam., Targ. Jer., Pesh., Vulg. xxxi.29 'vykm, ? 'vyk (tou patros sou); so Sam., cf. v.30. xli.56 'tkl'sr bhm, pantas tous sitobolonas 'tsrt br? [909] , cf. Sam., 't kl 'sr vhm vr). xlix.10 heos an elthe ta apokeimena auto, perhaps reading 'sr lv =) slv) for sylh; but see Ball in Haupt, Sacred Books, ad loc., and cf. the Greek variant ho apokeitai. Exod. v.9 vysv . . . ysv merimnatosan . . . merimnatosan vysv . . . ysv. xiv.25 ? vysr, kai sunedesen (vy'sr). xxx.6 . . . lphny hprkt . . . lphny hkprt. omits the second clause: so Sam. Lev. xiii.31 sr schr, thrix xanthizousa (sr schr). Num. xxiv.23 prefixes kai idon ton Og ('tvg vyr'); cf. vv.20, 21. Deut. iv.37 bzrv 'chryv, i.e. Abraham's posterity (Driver, ad loc.); to sperma auton met' autous humas, i.e. vzrm 'chrykm; so Sam. Josh. xv.59 + Theko . . . poleis hendeka kai hai komai auton. The omission of these names in is doubtless due to homoioteleuton. Jud. xiv.15 byvm hsvyy , as the context seems to require, en te hemera te tetarte (hrvyy); but see Moore in Haupt, Sacred Books, ad loc. xvi.13 f.6 supplies a long lacuna in (kai enkrouses . . . tes kephales aupou) caused by homoioteleuton; on the two Greek renderings of the passage see Moore in Haupt, ad loc. xix.18 eis ton oikon mou ego poreuomai ( (c) In dealing with such differences between the Greek version and the traditional Hebrew text the student will not start with the assumption that the version has preserved the true reading. It may have been preserved by the official Hebrew or its archetype, and lost in the MSS. which were followed by the translators: or it may have been lost by both. Nor will he assume that the Greek, when it differs from the Hebrew, represents in all cases another Hebrew text; for the difference may be due to the failure of the translators to understand their Hebrew, or to interpret it aright. His first business is to decide whether the Greek variant involves a different Hebrew text, or is simply another expression for the text which lies before him in the printed Hebrew Bible. If the former of these alternatives is accepted, he has still to consider whether the text represented by the LXX. is preferable to that of the Hebrew Bible and probably original. There is a presumption in favour of readings in which and agree, but, as we have said, not an absolute certainty that they are correct, since they may both be affected by a deep-seated corruption which goes back to the age of the Ptolemies. When they differ, will usually deserve to be preferred when it (a) fills up a lacuna which can be traced to homoioteleuton in the Hebrew, or (b) removes an apparent interpolation, or (c) appears to represent a bona fide variant in the original, which makes better sense than the existing text. Its claims in these cases are strengthened if it has the support of other early and probably independent witnesses such as the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Targum, or of Hebrew variants which survive in existing MSS. of the Massoretic text, or in the Q'ri [910] . For guidance as to the principles on which the LXX. may be employed in the criticism of the Hebrew Text the student may consult Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griech. Übersetzung der Proverbien, p.1 ff.; Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis, p.1 ff.; Robertson Smith, O. T. in the Jewish Church², p.76 ff.; Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, p. xlviii. f.; H. P. Smith, Comm. on Samuel, pp. xxix. ff., 395 ff.; Toy, Comm. on Proverbs, p. xxxii. f. See also below, c. vi. 2. In the field of O.T. interpretation the witness of the LXX. must be received with even greater caution. It is evident that Greek-speaking Jews, whose knowledge of Hebrew was probably acquired at Alexandria from teachers of very moderate attainments, possess no prescriptive right to act as guides to the meaning of obscure Hebrew words or sentences. Transliterations, doublets, confused and scarcely intelligible renderings, reveal the fact that in difficult passages they were often reduced to mere conjecture. But their guesses may at times be right; and in much that seems to be guesswork they may have been led by gleams of a true tradition. Thus it is never safe to neglect their interpretation, even if in the harder contexts it is seldom to be trusted. Indirectly at least much may be learned from them; and their wildest exegesis belongs to the history of hermeneutics, and has influenced thought and language to a remarkable degree. (a) The following specimens will serve to illustrate the exegesis of the LXX. in the historical books. Gen. iv.1 ektesamen anthropon dia tou theou. iv.7 ouk ean orthos prosenenkes orthos de me dieles, hemartes; hesuchason. vi.3 ou me katameine to pneuma mou en tois anthropois toutois eis ton aiona dia to einai autous sarkas xxx.11 kai eipen Leia En tuche; kai eponomasen to onoma autou Gad. xxxvii.3 epoiesen de auto chitona poikilon (cf.2 Regn. xiii. i8). xli.43 ekeruxen emprosthen autou kerux. xlvii.31 prosekunesen Israel epi to akron tes rhabdou autou. xlviii.14 enallax [D enallaxas] tas cheiras xlix.6 eneurokopesan tauron 19 Gad, peiraterion peirateusei auton; autos de peirateusei auton kata podas Exod. i.16 kai osin pros to tiktein iii.14 ego eimi ho on xvi.15 eipan heteros to hetero Ti estin touto; xvii.15 eponomasen to onoma autou Kurios kataphuge mou. xxi.6 pros to kriterion tou theou xxxii.32 kai nun ei men apheis autois ten hamartian auton, aphes Lev. xxiii.3 te hemera te hebdome sabbata anapausis klete hagia to kurio. Num. xxiii.10^ b apothanoi he psuche mou en psuchais dikaion, kai genoito to sperma mou hos to sperma touton. xxiv.24 kai kakosousin Ebraious. Deut. xx.19 me anthropos to xulon to en to agro eiselthein . . . eis ton charaka; xxxii.8 estesen horia ethnon kata arithmon angelon theou. 15 apelaktisen ho egapemenos Jos. v.2 Poieson seauto machairas petrinas ek petras akrotomou. Jud. i.35 erxato ho Amorraios katoikein en to orei to ostrakodei (A tou mursinonos), en ho hai arkoi kai en ho hai alopekes, en to mursinoni kai en Thalabein (A om. en. to m. k. en Th.). viii.13 epestrepsen Gedeon . . . apo epanothen tes parataxeos Hares (A ek tou polemou apo anaeaseos Hares). xii.6 kai eipan auto Eipon de Stachus (A Sunthema). xv.14 ff. elthon heos Siagonos . . . kai heuren siagona onou . . . kai errexen ho theos ton lakkon ton en te Siagoni . . . dia touto eklethe to onoma autes Pege tou epikaloumenou, he estin en Siagoni. xviii.30 huios Gersom huios (A huiou) Manasse bnm^ nsh: on the n suspensum see Moore in comm. on Sacred Books, ad loc.).1 Regn. x.5 hou estin ekei to anastema ton allophulon; ekei Naseib ho allophulos xiii.21 kai en ho trugetos hetoimos tou therizein; ta de skeue en treis sikloi eis ton odonta, kai te axine, kai to drepano hupostasis en he aute xx.30 huie korasion automolounton (Luc. + gunaikotraphe). xxvii.1O kata noton tes Ioudaias. xxxi.10 anethekan ta skeue autou eis to Astarteion 2 Regn. i.21 thureos Saoul ouk echristhe en elaio. xii.31 diegagen (A apegagen) autous dia tou plintheiou (Luc. teriegagen autous en madebba). xx.6 me pote . . . skiasei tous ophthalmous hemon. xxiv.15 apo proithen [kai] heos horas aristou. 3 Regn. xiii. kai deiknuousin auto hoi huioi autou ten hodon 4 Regn. i.2 f. epizetesate en to Baal muian theon Akkaron (Luc. eperotesate dia tou Baal muian prosochthisma theon Akkaron). viii.13 tis estin ho doulos sou, ho kuon ho tethnekos, hoti poiesei to rhema touto xxiii.22 f. ouk egenethe [kata] to pascha touto aph' hemeron ton kriton . . . hoti all e to oktokaidekato etei tou basileos Ioseia egenethe to pascha [touto] (cf.2 Chr. xxxv.18). (b) The translated titles of the Psalms form a special and interesting study. The details are collected below, and can be studied with the help of the commentaries, or of Neubauer's article in Studia Biblica ii. p.1 ff. [911] Psalmos, mzmvr passim (sgyvn in Ps. vii., syr in Ps. xlv. (xlvi.)). Ode, syr passim (mzmvr in Ps. iv., hgyvn in Ps. ix.17. Psalmos odes, mzmvr syr Pss. xxix., xlvii., lxvii., lxxiv., lxxxii., lxxxvi., xci., xciii. (A); ode psalmou, m syr or s mzmvr (lxv., lxxxii., lxxxvii. , cvii.) Proseuche, tphlh (Pss. xvi., lxxxv., lxxxix., ci., cxli.). Allelouia, hllvyh (Pss. civ. -- cvi., cx. -- cxiv., cxvi., cxvii., cxxxiv., cxxxv., cxlv., cxlvi., cxlviii. -- cl.). Ainesis, thlh (Ps. cxliv.). Stelographia, eis stelographian, mktm (Pss. xv., lv. -- lix.). Aq. tou tapeinophronos kai haplou, Th. tou tap. kai amomou. Eis to telos, lmntsch (Pss. iv. -- xiii., xvii., xviii., xxi., xxix., xxx., xxxv. -- lxi., lxiii. -- lxix., lxxiv. -- lxxvi., lxxix., lxxx., lxxxiii., lxxxiv., lxxxvii., cii., cviii., cxxxviii., cxxxix.). Cf. Aq. to nikopoio, Symm. epinikios, Th. eis to nikos. En humnois, bngynvt (Pss. vi., liii., liv., lx., lxvi., lxxv.). En psalmois, bngynvt (Ps. iv.). Huper tes kleronomouses, (?) 'lhnchylvt (Ps. v.). Aq. apo klerodosion, Symm. huper klerouchion. Huper tes ogdoes, lhsmynyt (Pss. vi., xi.). Huper tes lo gon Chousei huiou Iemenei, ldvrykvs bnymyny (Ps. vii.). Aq., Symm., Th. peri, ktl. Huper ton lenon, lhgtyt (Pss. viii., lxxx., lxxxiii.). Aq., Th. huper tes getthidos. Huper ton kruphion tou huiou, lmvt lbn (Ps. ix.; Cf. xlv.). Aq. huper neaniotetos tou huiou, Th. huper akmes tou huiou, Symm. peri tou thanatou tou huiou. Huper tou antilempseos tes heothines, l'ylt hschr (Ps. xxi.). Aq. huper tes elaphou tes orthrines. Symm. huper tes boetheias tes orthr. Huper ton alloiothesomenon, lssnym (Pss. xliv., lix., lxvii., lxxix.). Aq. epi tois krinois, Symm. huper ton anthon, Th. huper ton krinon. Huper tou agapetou (ode), syr) ydydvt) (Ps. xliv.). Aq. asma prosphilias, Symm. asma eis ton agapeton, Th. tois egaremenois. Huper tou laou tou apo ton hagion memakrummenou, lyvnt 'lm rchqym (Ps. lv.). Aq. huper peristeras alalou makrusmon. Symm. huper tes peristeras hupo tou philou autou aposmenou. E'. huper tes p. tes mongilalou kekrummenon. Huper Idithoun, lydvtvy (Pss. xxxviii., lxi., lxxvi.). Huper maeleth (tou apokrithenai), (lmchlt (lnvt (Pss.lii., lxxxvii.). Aq. epi choreia (Symm. dia chorou) tou exarchein. Eis ana?mnesin, lhzkyr (Pss. xxxvii., lxix.). Eis exomologesin ltvdh (Ps. xcix.). Aq. eis eucharistian. Eis sunesin, suneseos, mskyl (Pss. xxxi., xli. -- xliv., li. -- liii., lxxiii., lxxxvii., lxxxviii., cxli.). Aq. epistemonos, epistemes, epistemosunes. Me diaphtheires, 'ltscht (Pss. lvi. -- lviii., lxxiv.). Symm. (Ps. lxxiv.) peri aphtharsias. Tou enkainismou tou oikou, chnkthbyt (Ps. xxix.). Ton anabathmon, hmlvt (Pss. cxix. -- cxxxiii.). Aq., Symm., Th. ton anaraseon, eis tas anabaseis. It may be added that slh? [912] (Pss. iii.3, 5, iv.3, 5, vii.6, &c., &c.) is uniformly diapsalma in the LXX.; Aq. renders it aei, Symm. and Th. agree with the LXX. except that in Ps. ix.17 aei is attributed to Th. In the Psalm of Habakkuk (Hab. iii.3) Symm. renders eis ton aiona, Th. eis telos, and in v.13 eis telos has found its way into copies of the LXX. (cf. '^ c.a, and Jerome: "ipsi LXX. rerum necessitate compulsi . . . nunc transtulerunt in finem"). (c) Exegetical help is sometimes to be obtained from a guarded use of the interpretation affixed by the LXX. (1) to obscure words, especially hapax legomena, and (2) to certain proper names. Some examples of both are given below. (1) Gen. i.2 aoratos kai akataskeuastos. 6 stereoma. iii.8 to deilinon. 15 teresei . . . tereseis. vi.2 hoi angeloi tou theou (cf. Deut. xxxii.8, Job i.6, ii.1). 4 hoi gigantes. viii.21 dianoetheis. xxii.2 ton agapeton. xlix.10 hegoumenos. Exod. vi.12 alogos. viii.21 kunomuia. xii.22 hussopos. xxv.29 artoi enopioi (cf. a. prokeimenoi xxxix.18 = 36, a. tou prosopou 1 Regn. xxi.6). xxviii.15 logion, Vulg. rationale. Exod. xxxiv.13 ta alse Vulg. luci, A.V. groves. Lev. xvi.8 ff. ho apopompaios, he apopompe. Deut. x.16 sklerokardia. Jud. xix.22 huioi peranomon (cf. huioi loimoi 1 Regn. ii.12, and other renderings, which employ anomia, anomema, apostasia, asebes, aphron). 2 Regn. i.18 to biblion tou euthous. 3 Regn. x.11 xula peleketa (cf.2 Chr. ii.8, ix.10 f. x. peukina). Ps. viii.6 par angelous. xv.9 e glossa mou. xvi.8 koran ophthalmou. l.14 pneuma hegemonikon. cxxxviii.15 he hupostasis mou. 16 o akatergaston mou. Prov. ii.18 para to hade meta ton gegenon (a doublet). Job ix.9 Pleiada kai Hesperon kai Arktouron (cf. xxxviii.31). Zeph. i.10 apo tes deuteras (cf.4 Regn. xxii.14). Isa. xxxviii.8 (4 Regn. xxii.) tous deka anabathmous. Ezech. xiii.18 proskephalaia, epibolaia. (2) Abarim, mountains of, hrhvrym to oros to en to peran, Num. xxvii.12 (cf. xxi.11, xxxiii.44). Agagite, Bougaios, Esth. iii.1, A 17 (xii.6); Makedon, E (xvi.) 10. Ararat, land of, 'rts'rrt, Armenia, Isa. xxxvii.38. Astoreth strt, Astarte (the Phoenician 'Ashtart), Jud. ii.13, 4 Regn. xxiii.13. Baca, valley of, mq hbk', he koilas tou klauthmonos Ps. lxxxiii.7 (cf. Jud. ii.5, 2 Regn. v.24, 1 Chr. xiv.14). Caphtor, Caphtorim, Kappadokia, Kappadokes, Deut. ii.23, Am. ix.7. Cherethites, krtym, Kretes, Zeph. ii.5, Ezech. xxv.16. Dodanim, ddnym, Rhodioi (rdnym), Gen. x.4. Enhakkore ynhqvr', Pege tou epikaloumenou, Jud. xv.19. Ichabod, 'ykvvd, ouai barchaboth (? = 'vy vrchvvt, Wellh.), 1 Regn. iv.21. Javan, he Hellas, Isa. lxvi.19 (cf. Joel iii.6). Jehovah-nissi, Kurios kataphuge mou, Exod. xvii.15. Keren-happuch, qrn hpvk, Amaltheias keras, Job xlii.14. Kiriath-sepher, qryt sphr, polis grammaton, Jos. xv.15 f., Macpelah, hmkplh, to spelaion to diploun, Gen. xxiii.17, 19 (xxv.9, xlix.30, l.13). Moriah, land of, 'rts hmryh, he ge he hupsele Gen. xxii.2. Pisgah, hpsgh, to lelaxeumenou, Num. xxi.20, xxiii.14, Deut. iii.27 (cf. Deut. iv.49). Zaanaim, plain of, 'lvn btsn(n)ym, drus pleonektounton (B), dr. anapauomenon (A>, Jud. iv.11 (cf. Moore, ad loc.). Zaphnath-paaneah, pnch tsphnt, Psonthomphanech, Gen. xli.45 (Ball, ad loc. compares Egypt. sut' a en pa-anch). Pharaoh-Hophra, p chphr, ho Ouaphre, Jer. li. (xliv.) 30 (cf. W. E. Crum in Hastings, D. B. ii. p.413). B. The Septuagint is not less indispensable to the study of the New Testament than to that of the Old. But its importance in the former field is more often overlooked, since its connexion with the N.T. is less direct and obvious, except in the case of express quotations from the Alexandrian version [913] . These, as we have seen, are so numerous that in the Synoptic Gospels and in some of the Pauline Epistles they form a considerable part of the text. But the New Testament has been yet more widely and more deeply influenced by the version through the subtler forces which shew themselves in countless allusions, lying oftentimes below the surface of the words, and in the use of a vocabulary derived from it, and in many cases prepared by it for the higher service of the Gospel. 1. The influence of the LXX. over the writings of the N.T. is continually shewn in combinations of words or in trains of thought which point to the presence of the version in the background of the writer's mind, even when he may not consciously allude to it. This occurs frequently (a) in the sayings of our Lord, where, if He spoke in Aramaic, the reference to the LXX. is due to the translator: e.g. Mt. v.3 ff. makarioi hoi ptochoi . . . hoi penthountes . . . hoi praeis (Isa. lxi. i ff., Ps. xxxvi.11). vi.6 eiselthe eis to tameion sou (Isa. xxvi.20). x.21, 35 epanastesontai tekna epi goneis . . . elthon gar dichasai . . . thugatera kata tes metros autes? ?kai numphen ktl. (Mic. vii.6). xxi.33 anthropos ephuteusen ampelona kai phragmon auto perietheken ktl. (Isa. v.2). Mc. ix.48 blethenai eis geennan hopou ho skolex auton ou teleuta kai to pur ou sbennutai. (Isa. lxvi.24). Jo. i.51 opsesthe ton ouranon aneogota kai tous angelous tou theou anabainontas kai katabainontas (Gen. xxviii.12); (b) in the translated evangelical record: Mc. vii.32 pherousin auto kophon kai mogilalon . . . kai eluthe ho desmos ktl. (Isa. xxxv.5 f., xlii.7). xv.29 hoi paraporeuomenoi eblasphemoun auton kinountes tas kephalas: cf. Lc. xxiii.35 histekei ho laos theoron; exemukterizon de ktl. (Ps. xxi.8, Isa. li.23, Lam. ii.15); (c) in the original Greek writings of the N.T., where allusions of this kind are even more abundant; 1 Pet. ii.9 meis de genos eklekton, basileion hierateuma, ethnos hagion, laos eis peripoiesin, hopos tas aretas exangeilete ktl. (Exod. xix.5 f., xxiii.22 f., Isa. xliii.20). iii.14 ton de phobon auton me phobethete mede tarachthete, kurion de ton christon hagiasate en tais kardiais humon (Isa. viii.12 f.). Rom. xii.17 pronooumenoi kala enopion panton anthropon; cf.2 Cor. viii.21 pronooumen gar kala ou monon enopion Kuriou alla kai enopion anthropon (Prov. iii.4; in Rom. l. c. this allusion is preceded by another to Prov. iii.7).2 Cor. iii.3 ff.: Exod. xxxi., xxxiv. (LXX.) are in view throughout this context. Eph. ii.17 euengelisato eirenen humin tois makran kai eirenen tois engus (Isa. lvii.19, cf. lii.7, lxi.1). Phil. i.19 ?oida gar hoti touto moi apobesetai eis soterian (Job xiii.16). Heb. vi.8 ge . . . ekpherousa . . . akanthas kai tribolous . . . kataras engus ((Gen. iii.17). These are but a few illustrations of a mental habit everywhere to be observed in the writers of the N.T., which shews them to have been not only familiar with the LXX., but saturated with its language. They used it as Englishmen use the Authorised Version of the Bible, working it into the texture of their thoughts and utterances. It is impossible to do justice to their writings unless this fact is recognised, i.e., unless the reader is on the watch for unsuspected references to the Greek O.T., and able to appreciate its influence upon his author's mind. 2. To what extent the vocabulary of the N.T. has been influenced by the LXX. is matter of keen controversy. In a weighty essay On the Value and Use of the Septuagint Dr Hatch has maintained that "the great majority of N.T. words are words which, though for the most part common to Biblical and to contemporary secular Greek, express in their Biblical use the conceptions of a Semitic race, and which must consequently be examined by the light of the cognate documents which form the LXX. [914] " This statement, which has been hotly contested, may conveniently form the basis of our discussion of the subject. (a) "The great majority of N.T. words are . . . common to Biblical and contemporary secular Greek." This is certainly true. Thus Dr H. A. A. Kennedy [915] enumerates about 150 words out of over 4800 in the N. T. which are "strictly peculiar to the LXX. and N.T." The list is as follows: agathopoiein, agathosune, agalliasthai, agalliasis, hagiazein, hagiasmos, hagiosune, ainesis, akrogoniaios, aichmaloteuein, alisgema, hallelouia, allogenes, amethustos, amen, amphiazein, anazonnuein, anathematizein, anexichniastos, anthropareskos, antapodoma, apodekatoin, apokalupsis, apokephalizein, apophthengesthai, batos, bdelugma, bebeloun, broche, geenna, gnostes, gonguzein, gumnotes, dekatoun, dektos, diagonguzein, dolioun, dotes, dunamoun, hebdomekontakis, eirenopoiein, ekzetein, ekmukterizein, ekpeirazein, ekporneuein, ekrizoun, elegmos, elenxis, empaigmos, empaiktes, enanti, endiduskein, endoxazein, endunamoun, eneulogein, enkainizein, entalma, entaphiazein, enopion, enotizesthai, exapina, exastraptein, exolethreuein, exoudenoun, exupnizein, epaurion, episkope, epanapauein, epigambreuein, epiphauskein, eremosis, eudokia, ephemeria, hettema, thelesis, hierateuein, hierateuma, katharizein, katharismos, katakauchasthai, katakleronomein, katanuxis, katanussein, katenopion, katoiketerion, kauson, kauchesis, kludonizesthai, koros, krataioun, laxeutos, leitourgikos, lutrosis, makrothumein, manna, mataiotes, mataioun, megaleiotes, megalosune, metoikein, misthios, mogilalos, moichalis, nikos, olethreuein, oligopsuchos, holokleria, optanein, optasia, orthotomein, orthrizein, horkomosia, ouai, pagideuein, parazeloun, parapikrasmos, paroikia, parorgismos, patriarches, peirasmos, perikatharma, periousios, perisseia, plerophorein, proskomma, prosochthizein, proinos, rhantizein, rhantismos, sabaoth, sabbaton, sagene, satanas, saton, setobrotos, sikera, skandalon, sklerokardia, sklerotrachelos, stekein, stugnazein, sunegeirein, tapeinophron, hupakoe, hupantesis, hupolenion, huperopsoun, husterema, phoster, cheroubeim, psithurismos, otion. Since the publication of Dr Kennedy's book some of these words (e.g. gonguzein, leitourgikos [916] ) have been detected in early papyri, and as fresh documents are discovered and examined, the number of 'Biblical' Greek words will doubtless be still further diminished. Indeed the existence of such a class of words may be almost entirely due to accidental causes, such as the loss of contemporary Hellenistic literature. (b) On the other hand it must not be forgotten that the Greek vocabulary of Palestinian Greek-speaking Jews in the first century A.D. was probably derived in great part from their use of the Greek Old Testament. Even in the case of writers such as St Luke, St Paul, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the LXX. has no doubt largely regulated the choice of words. A very considerable number of the words of the N.T. seem to have been suggested by that version, or in any case may be elucidated from it. E.g.: agathosune, agalliasthai, hagnizein, agrupnein, hainigma, hairetizein, alazoneuesthai, allogenes, adialeiptos, amarantos, amerimnos, amphiblestron, amphodon, apelpizein, aperitmetos, haplotes, apokruphos, bdelugma, glossokomon, gnorizein, diadema, didrachma, distomos, diulizein, dorean, enankalizesthai, entaphiazein, enotizesthai, heortazein, exephnes, exoudenoun, eukolos, euodoun, theosebeia, hikanousthai, hikanos, ikmas, historein, kammuein, katagelos, katadunasteuein, kataklusmos, katakurieuein, katapontizein, kataphilein, kauchasthai, klasma, korasion, kophinos, lithostrotos, likman, mesonuktion, mogilalos, mukterizein, neomenia, nikos, nustazein, oikoumene (he), homothumadon, ostrakinos, pagideuein, paidarion, paradeigmatizein, parakouein, parepidemos, paroikos, perikephalaia, perilupos, perichoros, peripsema, pera, pleonazein, polulogia, polupragmonein, proselutos, proskephalaion, rhapisma, rhume, sagene, sikera, sindon, skolops, stenochoria, sullogizesthai, sumbibazein, sumphutos, tam(i)eion, tetradrachmon, trumalia, tumpanizein, hupogrammos, phimoun, chortazein, chrematizein, pseudoprophetes. To these may be added a considerable class of words which are based on LXX. words though they do not occur in the LXX.; e.g.: aprosopolemptos, baptisma (-mos), daimonizesthai, pneumatikos, sarkikos, pseudochrostos. (c) The influence of the LXX. is still more clearly seen in the N.T. employment of religious words and phrases which occur in the LXX. at an earlier stage in the history of their use. The following list will supply illustrations of these: agape, agapetos, hagiazein, hagiasmos, adelphos, adokimos, hairesis, aistheterion, akrogoniaios, anathema, anazopurein, anakainizein, anastrophe, anatole, anexichniastos, aparche, apaugasma, aphesis, aphorizein, baptizein, bebaiosis, blasphemein, gazophulakion, geenna, grammateus, gregorein, daimonion, diatheke, dogma, ethne, eirenikos, eirenopoiein, ekklesia, ekstasis, eleemosune, energeia, exomologeisthai, exousia, eperotema, episkopos, episunagein, epiphaneia, epichoregein, hetoimasia, euangelizesthai, euarestein, eudokia, eulabeia, zelotes, zogrein, zoogonein, thelema, threskeia, hilasmos, hilasterion, Ioudaismos, katallage, katanuxis, kerugma, kubernesis, Kurios, leitourgein, logos, loimos, lutrousthai, megaleiotes, megalosune, metameleia, meeorizesthai, monogenes, morphe, musterion, neophutos, holokleros, orthotomein, hosiotes, parabole, paradeisos, paroikos, peirasmos, periousios, perioche, peripoieisthai, pistis, plerophoreisthai, pleroma, pneuma, presbuteros, prosagein, rhuesthai, sarx, skandalon, sklerotrachelos, semnos, suneidesis, sphragizein, soteria, tartaros, hupostasis, husterema, Hupsistos, philanthropos, phos, charakter, cheirographon, christos. Many of the characteristic phrases of the N.T. also have their roots in the LXX., e.g. eikon theou (Gen. i.26), osme euodias (viii.21), paroikos kai parepidemos (xxiii.4), prosopon pros prosopon (xxxii.30), laos periousios (Exod. xix.5), dopsxa Kuriou (xl.29), thusia aineseos (Lev. vii.2), lambanein prosopon (xix.15), he diaspora (Deut. xxx.4), genea diestrammene, skolia (xxxii.5), me genoito(Jos. xxii.29), hileos soi (2 Regn. xx.20), mikron hoson hoson (xxvi.20), diabolos (1 Chron. xxi.1), to soterion tou theou(Ps. xcvii.3), ode kaine, onoma kainon, and the like (Ps. cxliii.9, Isa. lxii.2, &c.), Kurios ho pantokrator (Am. ix.5), doulos Kuriou (Jon. i.9), trapeza Kuriou (Mal. i.7), hemera episkopes (Isa. x.3), hemera Kuriou (xiii.6, 9), ho pais [tou theou] (xli.8, &c.), ego eimi (xliii.10), ek koilias metros (xlix.1), ta peteina tou ouranou (Ezech. xxxi.6), ho Gog kai Magog (xxxviii.2). The non-canonical books have their full share in the contribution which the Septuagint makes to the vocabulary of the N.T. Many Biblical words either occur for the first time in the O.T. 'Apocrypha,' or reach there a further stage in the history of their use, or appear in new combinations. The following examples will repay examination: aion, apaugasma, apokalupsis, apostole, asunetos, aphesis, baptizein, basileia (tou theou), daimonion, diakonia, diaponeisthai, dikaioun, ekbasis, eklektos, embateuein, episkopos, epistrophe, epitimia, epiphaneia, eusplanchnos, eucharostia, idios, hilasmos, hilasterion, kanon, kleros, kleroun, koinos, koinoun, kosmos, ktisis, leitourgia, leitourgos, musterion (tou theou), nomos, parousia, pentekoste, semeia kai terata, skandalizein, sumpatheia, sumpathein, soter, charis kai eleos, christos. (d) "The great majority of N.T. words and phrases express . . . the conceptions of a Semitic race, and . . . must consequently be examined by the light of . . . the LXX." But the connotation will usually be found to have undergone considerable changes, both in ordinary words and in those which are used in a religious sense. In order to trace the process by which the transition has been effected the N. T. student must begin with an investigation into the practice of the LXX. Such an enquiry may be of service in determining the precise meaning which is to be given to the word in the N.T., but it will more frequently illustrate the growth of religious thought or of social life which has led to a change of signification. Dr Hatch indeed laid down as "almost self-evident" canons the two propositions (1) that "a word which is used uniformly, or with few and intelligible exceptions, as the translation of the same Hebrew word, must be held to have in Biblical Greek the same meaning as that Hebrew word"; and (2) that "words which are used interchangeably as translations of the same Hebrew word, or group of cognate words, must be held to have in Biblical Greek an allied or virtually identical meaning [917] ." These principles led him to some remarkable departures from the traditional interpretation of N.T. words (e.g. arete = hvd or thlh = doxa, epainos; diabolos = stn = 'enemy'; homothumadon = ychd ,ychdv = 'together'; ptochoi = penetes = praeis = tapeinoi = 'fellahin'; poneros, malicious, mischievous; hupokrites, the equivalent of poneros, panourgos, and the like). A searching examination of these views will be found in Dr T. K. Abbott's essay On N. T. Lexicography [918] . The proton pseudos of Dr Hatch's canons lies in his use of the term 'Biblical Greek' as inclusive of the pre-Christian Greek of the Alexandrian translators, and the Palestinian Greek of the Apostolic age. While it is evident that the writers of the N.T. were largely indebted to the Alexandrian version for their Greek vocabulary, we cannot safely assume that they attached to the Greek words and phrases which they borrowed from it the precise significance that belonged to them in the older book. Allowance must be made for altered circumstances, and in particular for the influence of the Gospel, which threw new meaning into the speech as well as the life of men. One or two instances will shew the truth of this remark. Agape in the LXX. rarely rises above the lower sense of the sexual passion, or at best the affection of human friendship; the exceptions are limited to the Greek Book of Wisdom (Sap. iii.9, vi.18 [919] ). But in the N.T., where the word is far more frequent, it is used only of the love of God for men, or of men for God or Christ, or for the children of God as such. Ekklesia in the LXX. is the congregation of Israel; in the N.T., except perhaps in Mt. xviii.17, it is the new community founded by Christ [920] , viewed in different aspects and with many shades of meaning. Euangelion in the LXX. occurs only in the plural, and perhaps only in the classical sense of 'a reward for good tidings' (2 Regn. iv.10); in the N.T. it is from the first appropriated to the Messianic good tidings (Mc. i.1, 14), probably deriving this new meaning from the use of euangelizesthai in Isa. xl.9, lii.7, lx.6, lxi.1. Thus on the whole it is clear that caution must be used in employing the practice of the LXX. to determine the connotation of N.T. words. On the one hand the interpreter ought not to be led astray by visions of the solidarity of 'Biblical Greek,' for the Greek of the N.T., though in fact largely derived from the Greek of the LXX., has in not a few instances cast off the traditions of its source under the inspiration of another age. On the other hand, the student of the N.T. will make the LXX. his starting-point in examining the sense of all words and phrases which, though they may have been used in classical Greek or by the koine, passed into Palestinian use through the Greek Old Testament, and in their passage received the impress of Semitic thought and life. Bishop Pearson's judgement on this point is still fully justified: "LXX.viralis versio . . . ad Novum Instrumentum recte intelligendum et accurate explicandum perquam necessaria est . . . in illam enim omnes idiotismi veteris linguae Hebraicae erant transfusi . . . multa itaque Graeca sunt in Novo Foedere vocabula quae ex usu Graecae linguae intelligi non possunt, ex collatione autem Hebraea et ex usu LXX. interpretum facile intelliguntur [921] ." II. The Greek versions of the second century A.D. are in many respects of less importance to the Biblical student than the Septuagint. Not only are they later by two to four centuries, but they exist only in a fragmentary state, and the text of the fragments is often insecure. But there are services which they can render when rightly employed, and which the careful student will not forget to demand. 1. Each of these versions has characteristics of its own, which must be taken into account in estimating its value. (a) Aquila represents the official Hebrew text in its earliest stage, and his extreme literalness and habit of translating etumologikos [922] render it easy to recover the text which lay before him. In the large fragments of 3 and 4 Regn. published by Mr Burkitt, Aquila's Hebrew text differs from that of the printed Bibles only in thirteen readings [923] , an average of one variant in every second verse. Still more important is Aquila's reflexion of the exegetical tradition of the school of Jamnia. Here as in his text he is often in direct opposition to the LXX., and serves as a useful makeweight against the influence of the Alexandrian interpretation. Especially is this the case in regard to the meaning of obscure words, which Aquila translates with a full knowledge of both languages and of other Semitic tongues [924] , whilst the LXX. too often depended upon guess-work. This merit of Aquila was recognised by Jerome, who makes use of his interpretations in the Vulgate [925] . Moreover the influence which his work has exercised over the text of the LXX. renders it important to the textual critic of the older Greek version [926] . (b) The paraphrasing manner of Symmachus hinders the free use of his version either for textual or hermeneutical purposes. But it is often interesting as revealing the exegetical tendencies of his school, and its fulness serves to correct the extreme literalness of Aquila. Jerome used it for his Vulgate even more freely than he used Aquila; cf. Field, Hexapla i., p. xxxiv. #34;quem tam presse secutus est magnus ille interpres Latinus . . . ut aliquando nobis successerit ex Hieronymi Latinis Symmachi Graeca . . . satis probabiliter extricare." (c) Theodotion, besides contributing a whole book to the textus receptus of the Greek Old Testament, preserves in his text of the other books traces of a recension of the LXX. which seems at one time to have had a wide circulation, since Theodotionic readings occur in the LXX. quotations of the N.T. and in those of other Christian writers before A.D.150 [927] . 2. All the post-Christian translators of the O.T., but especially Aquila, Symmachus, and the author of the Quinta [928] , appear to have been not only competent Hebraists, but possessed of a more or less extensive knowledge of Greek literature. These qualifications render them valuable allies to the interpreter whether of the New or of the Old Testament. (a) In the case of the O.T. they serve to confirm or correct the LXX. renderings, or to illustrate their meaning. The renderings of the earlier version are not infrequently retained, e. g. Gen. i.2 mrchpht ?O' epephereto, A.S.Th. epipheromenon. 6 rqy, O' A.S.Th. stereoma. 10 mqvhhmym, ta sustemata (sustemata) ton hudaton. More often they are set aside in favour of other words which do not materially differ in signification, but seem to have been preferred as more exact, or as better Greek, e.g. Gen. xlix.19 gdvd O' peiraterion, A. euzonos, S. lochos. Exod. v.13 hngsym O' hoi ergodioktai, A. hoi eispraktai. Jud. v.16 chqrylv O' epsxetasmoi kardias, A. akribologiai k., S. exichniasmoi k. Ps. lxxxviii.8 'l nrts bsvd qdsym O' ho theos doxazomenos en boule hagion, A. Ischuros kaischureuomenos en aporrheto ha., S. thee aettete en homilia a. At other times their rendering lies far apart from that of the LXX., manifesting complete dissent from the Alexandrian version, e.g. Gen. xlvii.31 hmth O' tes rhabdou, A.S. tes klines. Num. xxiii.21 (trvt (mlk O' ta endoxa, A. alalagmos, S. semasia, Th. salpismos. 1 Regn. xiii.20 mchrstv, O' to theristron (A.Th. arotron, S. hunin) autou. Ps. ii.12, nsqvvr O' draxasthe paideias, A. kataphilesate eklektos, S. proskunesate katharos. To these instances may be added others where the later translators substitute a literal rendering for a paraphrase or a gloss; e.g. in Deut. x.16 A. has akrobustian kardias for the euphemistic sklerokardian of the LXX.; in Ps. xv.9 A.S.Th. restore doxa for the interpretative glossa. (b) Dr Hatch points out [929] that "in a large number of instances the word which one or other of the translators substitutes for the LXX. word is itself used in other passages of the LXX. as the translation of the same Hebrew word"; and he draws the conclusion that "the words which are so interchanged are practically synonymous." But his inference must be received with reserve, for the interchange may not be so free as appears at first sight; so careful a translator as Aquila (e.g.) has probably regulated his use of words which are generally synonymous with a view to the requirements of the particular context. (c) Many of the words of the N.T. which are not to be found in the LXX. occur in the fragments of the later Greek versions, and receive important illustration from their use of them. Indeed, in not a few instances these versions supply the only or the best explanation of rarer words or connotations. The following are examples. Ademonein, A., Job xviii.20, S. Ps. lx.3, cxv.2, Eccl. vii.17, Ezech. iii.15; apokaradokia, cf. A. Ps. xxxvi.7 (apokaradokei); daimonizein, A. Ps. xc.6. enkakein, 'to faint,' S. Gen. xxvii.46; embrimasthai, A. Ps. vii.12, S. Isa. xvii.13; enthumesis, 'thought,' S. Job xxi.27, Ezech. xi.21; epiblema, 'patch,' S. Jos. ix.5; theomachos, S. Prov. ix.18, xxi.16 , Job xxvi.5; katapheresthai, 'to drop asleep,' A. Ps. lxxv.7; morphoun, A. Isa. xliv.13 [930] . Even where the unusual word and meaning occur in the LXX., it will often be found that the later versions supply more abundant or more appropriate illustrations. Thus after the Septuagint these fragments, which are happily receiving continual additions from Hexaplaric MSS., offer the most promising field for the investigation of N.T. lexicography and one, moreover, which has been little worked. On the whole, perhaps, no sounder advice could be given to a student of the language of the N.T., than to keep continually at hand the Septuagint, the remains of the Hexapla as edited by Field, and the Oxford Concordance which forms a complete index to both. It is only when he has made some way with the evidence of the Greek versions of the Old Testament that he will be in a position to extend his researches to non-Biblical literature, such as the papyri, the remains of the Hellenistic writers, and the great monuments of the later Greek. LITERATURE (on the general subject of the chapter). J. Pearson, Praefatio Paraenetica (ed. E. Churton), p.16 sqq.; H. Hody, de Bibl. textibus orig., III. c. ii., p.293; J. F. Fischer, Prolusiones de versionibus Graecis librorum V. T. (Leipzig, 1772) ; Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zur Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841), p.263 ff.; E. W. Grinfield, N. T. Gr., editio Hellenistica (London, 1843); Scholia Hellenistica in N. T. (London, 1848); An Apology for the Septuagint (London, 1850); W. R. Churton, The Influence of the LXX. Version of the O. T. upon the progress of Christianity (Cambridge, 1861); W. Selwyn, art. Septuagint, in Smith's D.B., iii. (London, 1863); W. H. Guillemard, The Greek Testament, Hebraistic edition [St Matthew] (Cambridge, 1875); E. Hatch, Essays on Biblical Greek, i. -- iii. (Oxford, 1889); S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel, Intr., p. xxxvi. ff. (Oxford, 1890); A. f. Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the O. T., p.63 ff. (London, 1891); The Septuagint Version, in Expositor, V. iii., p.263 ff. (London, 1896); T. K. Abbott, Essays chiefly on the original texts of the O. and N. Testaments (London, 1891); A. Loisy, Histoire critique du texte et des versions de la Bible (Amiens, 1892); H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, or the Influence of the LXX. on the vocabulary of the N. T. (Edinburgh, 1895); H. L. Strack, in Hastings, D. B. iv. p.731. Footnotes: [886] See Part I., c. iv. [887] See Schürer, II. i. p. 329 n.; Dr C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, p. 54 f. [888] For the text see the great work of C. D. Ginsburg, The Massorah, compiled from MSS., alphabetically and lexically arranged, 3 vols. (London, 1880--5), or the Bible of S. Baer; and for the Massorets and their work, cf. Buxtorf, Tiberias, Ginsburg's Introduction (London, 1897), and his edition of the Massoreth ha-massoreth of Elias Levita, or the brief statements in Buhl, Kanon u. Text (p. 96 ff.), and in Urtext (p. 20 ff.); or Strack, art. Text of the O. T., in Hastings, D.B. iv. [889] On these see Dr W. E. Barnes in J. Th. St., April 1900. [890] See C. J. Elliott's art. Hebrew Learning, in D. C. B. ii., esp. the summary on p. 872 b. [891] Above, p. 6o ff. [892] See his comm. on Isaiah 6:9 (Migne, P.L. xxiv. 99). [893] A few mediaeval scholars had access to the Hebrew, e.g. the Englishmen Stephen Harding ( 1134), Robert Grosseteste ( 1253), Roger Bacon ( c. 1292), the Spaniard Raymundus Martini ( c. 1286), and especially the Norman Jew, Nicolaus de Lyra ( 1340). On Lyra see Siegfried in Merx, Archiv, i. p. 428, ii.[p. 28. [894] See De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch, p. 217 f. [895] Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum (Leipzig, 1840), p. 731. [896] As early as 255 B.C. (Thackeray); Petrie Pap. Series II. iv. (11). [897] Vetus T. Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus (Oxford, 1776--80). [898] Variae lectiones V. T. (Parma 1784--8): Supplementum (1798). [899] "The earliest MS. of which the age is certainly known bears date A.D. 90" (Pref. to the R.V. of the O.T. p. ix. 2). [900] Cf. F. C. Burkitt, Aquila, p. 16 f. [901] Cf. S. R. Driver, Samuel, p. xxxix.: "Quotations in the Mishnah and Gemara exhibit no material variants . . . the Targums also pre-suppose a text which deviates from (the M. T.) but slightly." [902] Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p. 73 f. [903] See W. Robertson-Smith, O. T. in Jewish Ch., p. 62 f.; A. F. Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of the O. T., p. 63 ff. [904] See Ryle, Canon, p. 91 f. [905] Pt. II., c. v., p. 315 ff. [906] Samuel, p. xxxix. f. [907] Expositor V. iii., p. 273. [908] See H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 397 f., and the remarks that follow. [909] Lagarde (Symmicta i., p. 57) suggests a form 'ysvvr'. [910] On the relation of the LXX. to the Q'ri, see Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 219 ff. [911] The titles which are given in the LXX. but are wanting in , have been enumerated in Pt. II. c. ii.((p. 250 ff.). [912] On this word see an article by C. A. Brigs, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1899, p. 132 ff., and art. Selah, in Hastings, D.B. iv. [913] On the quotations see above p. 392 ff. [914] Essays, p. 34. [915] Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 88. [916] Deissmann, Bibelstudien, pp. 106, 138. [917] Essays, p. 35. [918] Essays, p. 65 ff. [919] Agapesis occurs in the sense of Divine love (Hosea 11:4, Zephaniah 3:17, Jeremiah 31:3). [920] See Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, p. 9 f. [921] Praef paraen., ed. E. Churton, p. 22 f. [922] See above, p. 40. [923] Cf. Aquila, p. 16 f. [924] Field, Hexapla, i. p. xxiv. [925] Ibidem. [926] See Burkitt, Aquila, p. 18 ff. [927] See pp. 47 ff., 395 f., 403, 417 etc. [928] On the excellence of his Greek scholarship see Field, op. cit. p. xliv. [929] Essays, p. 28. [930] These instances are chiefly from Hatch (Essays, p. 25). They might easily be multiplied by an inspection of the Oxford Concordance or of the Lexicon and Hexapla at the end of Trom. |
    |