HOME | Introductions: Vol.I | Vol II | Vol.3 | Printed Editions | About the text | MSS Used: Vaticanus | Sinaiticus | Alexandrinus | Cottonianus Geneseos | Bodleianus Geneseos | Ambrosianus | acknowledgements | Codices | LXX BOOKS | Top
ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ| ΕΞΟΔΟΣ | ΛΕΥΕΙΤΙΚΟΝ | ΑΡΙΘΜΟΙ | ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΝΟΜΙΟΝ | ΙΗΣΟΥΣ | ΚΡΙΤΑΙ | ΡΟΥΘ | ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΩΝ Α | ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΩΝ Β | ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΩΝ Γ | ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΩΝ Δ
IT is not the purpose
of these pages to supply a general Introduction to the Septuagint.
To repeat
here the history of that Version, the legend of its birth, the destinies it
fulfilled and the handling it received in the centuries that followed; to state
the problems which it still offers for solution, and to furnish descriptive
lists of its MSS. and printed editions, would be either to exceed the limits of
a portable volume, or uselessly to epitomize the work of previous writers.
At a
future time the subject will claim the full consideration and careful treatment
which a larger experience may render possible
[Since this paragraph was written an attempt has been made
to supply the immediate wants of students in An Introduction to the Old
Testament in Greek -(Cambridge, 1900).].
For the
present it may suffice to recall only so many of the facts as are necessary to
illustrate the relation which this edition bears towards those which have
preceded it, and to describe the method pursued and the materials employed in
its preparation.
Top
Since the
invention of printing four primary editions of the Septuagint have issued from
the press—
the Complutensian, the Aldine, the Roman, and the Oxford
representation of the Alexandrine text.
1. The
Greek text of the OT in the Complutensian Polyglott (1514-1517)
[The title begins: "Vetus testamentu
multiplici lingua nuc | prime impressum."
The OT is contained in four volumes: and the colophon to vol.
iv. states that the book was printed "Anno Domini milles l imo qngetesimo
decimo se | ptimo. Mesis l ulii die | decimo."]
claims
to be drawn partly from MSS. collected by Cardinal Ximenez himself, partly
from others borrowed from the Vatican.
"Testari possumus (so the Cardinal
writes in the dedication of his work to Leo X.)... maximam laboris nostri
partem in eo praecipue fuisse versatam ut… castigatissima omni ex parte
vetustissimaque exemplaria pro archetypis haberemus; quorum quidem tam Hebraeorum quam Graecorum... multiplicem copiam variis ex locis non sine summo
labore conquisivimus. Atque ex ipsis
quidem Graeca Sanctitati tuae debemus, qui ex ista apostolica bibliotheca antiquissimos tum V. tum N. Testamenti codices perquam humane ad nos misisti,
qui nobis in hoc negocio maximo fuerunt adiumento." Documentary evidence
has been produced by Vercellone
[V.
et N. T. ed. Mai (Rom. 1857), t. i. p. v, n.
He adds: " Horum
[codicum] prior condnet ipsum fere complutensem textum, neque valde abludit
alter."
Holmes had previously noticed the agreement.
Comp. also
Vercellone, varr. lectiones ii. 436 (Rom. 1864).]
that the Vatican MSS. 330, 346 (= Holmes 108, 248) were lent to
Ximenez, and a comparison of the Complutensian text with these MSS. shews an
extensive and in places almost absolute agreement which suggests that they were
largely used.
Both MSS. are comparatively late.
It is uncertain to what extent
the Cardinal availed himself of other materials;
[His MSS. at Madrid include only-two Greek MSS. of portions
of the OT. (Judges—Mace.,
Psalter);
cf. Tregelles, Printed Text of the G. N. T., p. 6 f;
Catalogo
de los MSS. existences en la Bibl. del Noviciado de la Univ. Central (Madrid, 1878).]
but there is no
ground for supposing that he had access to the great Vatican MS. or to any of
our uncial codices.
[Gr. Cod. Vat.
t. vi. prolegg. p. ix:
"constat profecto inter Vaticanos
libros mss. ad principem illam Complutensem polyglottam a Leone X concessos...fuisse solummodo codd. insignitos numeris 3966, 330, 346, non
autem, nostrum maximo in pretio habitum et maiori forte cautela
ser-vandum."]
2. The
Greek Bible which came from the Aldine Press a year and eight months after the
completion of the Complutensian Polyglot!
[Title: πάντα τὰ κατ'ἐξπχὴν καλούμενα | βιβλία θείας δηλαδὴ | γραφῆς παλαιᾶς τε, | καὶ νέας. | sacrae scripturae veretis novaeque
omnia. The colophon is: Venetiis in
aedib. | Aldi et Andreae | soceri. mdxviii | mense Februa|rio. The dedication
by Andreas professes: "ego multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collalis,
adhibita etiam quorundam eruditissimorum hominum cura, Biblia (ut vulgo
appellant) Graece cuncta descripsii atque in unum volumen reponenda curavi.'']
sets up a similar claim to MS. authority, without affording any clue
to the MSS. employed.
But it is probably safe to hazard the conjecture that
they came from the immediate neighbourhood. Holmes found a remarkable agreement
amongst all the Venice MSS. of the Pentateuch which were examined for his
work;
and one of these when reexamined by Lagarde for Genesis proved to be so
far in the closest harmony with the Aldine text. [Holmes i. praef. ad Pentateuch, c. iii. Lagarde, Genesis
graece, p. 6.]
Moreover the language of the Aldine
editor is consistent with the belief that he was content to use the MS.
treasures which were close at hand;
there is not a word of any labour or cost
incurred in the collection of the documents.
3. The
Roman Edition of 1587 is the first which professes to be directly based upon a
single uncial codex.
[The volume
bears the title: η παλαια διαθηκη | κατα τους εβδομηκοντα | δι αυθεντιας | Συστου ε. Ακπου αρχιερεως | εκδοθεισα || Vetvs Testamentvm | ivxta SeptVaginta | ex avctoritate | Sixti V. Pont. Max. | editvmii || Romae, | ex
Typographia Francisci Zannetti. m.d. Ixxxvii. At the end of 3 Mace. we have: τελος
της παλαιας
διαθηκης κατα
τους
εβδομηκοντα.
The
dedication is: "Sixto Qvinto | Pontif. Max.
Antonivs Carafa Cardinalis | sanctae sedis apostolicae | Bibliothecarivs."]
The words
of Petrus Morinus in the Praefatio ad lectorem are explicit: “liber ipse
ad litteram, quoad fieri potuit per antiquam orthographiam, aut per librarii
lapsus, est expressus. nam vetus illa et iam obsoleta eius aetatis scriptura,
aliquibus locis repraesentata non est; cum tamen in aliis omnibus, nisi ubi
manifestus apparebat librarii lapsus, ne latum quidem unguem, ut aiunt, ab
huius libri auctoritate discessum sit, ne in iis quidem, quae si minus mendo,
certe suspicione mendi videbantur non carere."
These assurances, supported
by the authority of the Pope and the names of responsible editors, chief among
whom was Cardinal A. Carafa, Librarian of the Vatican, seem to promise a
satisfactory
edition of the Vatican text;
and it would be thankless to disparage labours
which have yielded excellent fruit for three centuries.
But it is not now
contended that the Sixtine edition supplies a critical or even a wholly
trustworthy representation of the great Vatican MS.
[Thus the Editors of the recent facsimile admit (prolegg.
p. x): "non ita pressim Vaticano libro institisse praeclarissimos editores
dicendum, ut aliorum codicum nulla penitus ratio haberetur, saltem in locis in
Vaticano libro superstitious, non potuit enim tantos viros fugere, aut ipsum
Pontificem, non posse unum aliquem ex amanuensibus etsi doctum atque satis
attentum virum ita scribere, ut nullatenus correctione indigeret et arte
critica, cuius omnes alii codices et plura diversorum generum. monumenta
appellandi sunt fontes."]
The considerable lacunae of B in Genesis and in the Psalter and the whole of the first three books of
the Maccabees are supplied from sources which the Sixtine Editors do not sTop
to identify, merely remarking: "haec ex aliorum codicum collatione
emendata sunt."
[Other MSS. are mentioned in the Sixtine preface
("Venetus ex bibliotheca Bessarionis...alter qui ex Magna Graecia advectus
nunc est Carafae Cardinalis... etiam usui fuerunt libri ex Medicea bibliotheca
Florentiae collati"), but only as having served to confirm the testimony
of the Vatican Codex.]
In the remainder of their work,
where B supplies the text, there are few chapters in which they have not
departed from the MS. upon points which cannot be referred to the correction of
the scribe's orthography, or of his obvious blunders.
A cursory comparison of
the Roman Edition of 1587 with the Roman facsimile of 1869-81, or a glance at
Dr E. Nestle's excellent collation, will enable the student to judge for
himself.
[Nestle, Septuagintastudien (in a School Programme "Ulm, 1886, kindly forwarded by the
writer), p. 8: "wie wenig dies der Fall war (the professedly close
adherence of the Sixtine text to B) zeigt jetzt am deutlichsten meine Kollation." He rightly adds:
"Ihnen daraus einen Vorwurf zu machen, ware eine vollstandige Verkennung
ihrer Aufgabe, und des damaligen Standes philologischer Wissenschaft."]
The corrections
which were made by the Sixtine Editors with the pen before publication scarcely
touch the fringe of this widespread and continual divergence from their
archetype.
4. What
the Sixtine Edition had endeavoured to do for the Codex Vaticanus the Oxford
Press accomplished with better success for its great rival the Alexandrine MS.
The four magnificent volumes which issued from the Sheldonian between 1707 and
1720 did not indeed profess to adhere exclusively to the text of Codex A.
The
title of the first volume sufficiently tells its tale:
"Septuaginta
interpretum tomus I. Continens Octateuchum; quem ex antiquissimo MS. Codice
Alexandrino accurate descriptum, et ope aliorum Exemplarium, ac priscorum
Scriptorum, praesertim vero Hexaplaris Editionis Origenianae, emendatum atque
suppletum, additis saepe asteriscorum et obelorum signis, summa cura edidit
Joannes Ernestus Grabe S.T.P."
For the accuracy of his collation of A the
name of the Editor might have been considered a sufficient safeguard;
but his
work was to some extent verified by Humphrey Wanley, who attests its general excellence.
With the Roman Editors Grabe regarded
himself at liberty to depart freely from the orthography of the scribe, and to
correct his blunders;
but he has carefully noted the more important of these
departures either in his prolegomena or in the margin of his pages.
A
comparison of his text with the recent autotype of the MS. yields but a small
proportion of substantial readings which had altogether escaped the vigilance
of Grabe.
He makes no attempt however to distinguish the hands of the various
correctors from each other or from the original scribe; nor does he notice the
numerous erasures or the occasional lacunae.
But the great blemish of his work,
if it be considered as an edition of Codex A, lies in the endeavour to supply
from external sources the deficiencies of the Alexandrine text.
This is done in
perfectly good faith, and every change of the kind is indicated by the use of
the Origenic signs, or of a different type;
yet the result remains that the
Oxford Edition of the eighteenth century does not, as it stands, convey to the
reader's eye a true representation of the MS. on which it is based.
To obtain
from it the testimony of Codex A, he must not only change much of the
orthography, distinguish the hands of correctors, and occasionally revise the
text; but he must strike out words verses and here and there whole paragraphs
entirely foreign to his MS. and which in some cases have displaced its genuine
reading.
[The matter is fairly
stated by Holmes, praef. ad Pentat. c. iv:
"de hac Editione dicam
tantum, eam in libris Pentateuchi aliquando ex ipso textu Vaticano, saepius
vero e Complutensi, suppletam fuisse, atque adeo Editorem cum textu familiae
unius, textum duarum recensionum aliarum im-miscuisse videri; sed quidem sine
iniuria, quoniam nulla supplementa nisi in charactere minore induxit."
Grabs's edition was recast by Dr Field in 1859.]
It is no
part of our plan to notice the numerous secondary editions which are founded more or less entirely upon
one or other of these four primary printed texts.
[For bibliographical information of this kind the student
will turn to Fabricius, ed. Harles, iii. p. 673 f.; Le Long, ed. Masch (Halae 1781), II. a p. 262 f.; the Bible Dictionaries
and Introductions; or the summaries in Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 242 f.;
Van Ess, Epilegomena.; Nestle, Urtext, p. 62 ff.; Introduction,
to the OT. in Greek, p. 171 ff.]
An exception
however must be made in favour of two descendants of the Roman Edition, one of
which supplies our fullest apparatus crificus, and the other the most carefully
emended text.
a. The
great work of R. Holmes and his continuator J. Parsons (Oxford, 1798-1827)
offers in its text merely a reprint of the Sixtine edition in which even the
obvious errors of the latter are not always corrected.
[Holmes indeed professes to have corrected these (praef.
Ad Genesin § I):
"Imprimitur per hunc librum, et per alios omnes
imprimetur, Textus Graecus secundum Ed. Vaticanam in fol. 1587, absque ulla
consulto facta sive vocis sive literae mutatione, nisi in manifestis typothetarum
erroribus, quorum plerosque et ipsi Editores Vaticani calamo
suocorrexerunt."
Tischendorf however challenges the statement (prolegg.
§ xxi: ''Holmesius passim manifestos editionis Romanae errores
repetiit").]
But the vast stores which are accumulated
in the textual notes promise materials upon which a critical revision of the
text may ultimately be based.
Unhappily this part of the work has proved to be
of uncertain value.
The use and arrangement of the materials leave something to
be desired, and the materials themselves are far from being in all cases worthy
of trust.
[Ceriani (Mon. sacr. et
prof. t. iii., p. vii): “deprehensa brevi usu collationum Holmesiani operis
magna earum imperfectione, coepi investigare, si ita esset etiam de codicibus
Ambrosianis ibi collatis. Quod timebam inveni… Holmesianum enim opus tanta
negligentia curatum fuit, ut parum adiumenti inde sperandum sit in curiosam
textus LXX investigationem... evidenter mihi apparuit errasse saepe Holmes
eiusque continuatorem, errasse saepe collatores assumptos, et tot tantaque esse
sphalmata, plura interdum in uno versu, ut licet varietatem LXX fere totam
summatim inde desumere liceat, exigua tamen sit fides singulorum testium, et ex
malo habitu totius collationis dubii et incerti ex illo opere semper procedere
debeamus in critica textus eiusque recensionum tractatione."]
It is not surprising that among so large a body of collators some should have
been found careless or incompetent, whilst the printed texts of fathers and
versions were at the beginning of the century (as indeed many of them are now)
in a very unsatisfactory state.
Still this vast undertaking will always remain
not only a monument of scholarship and enterprise, but a storehouse of
suggestive facts.
No other edition affords or possibly will ever afford the
student of the Greek Old Testament so wide an outlook over the whole field of
documentary and patristic evidence.
The verdict of Lagarde upon Holmes and
Parsons is substantially just [Libr.
V. T. canon, t. i., praef, p. xv.]:
"qui indicium neque in seligendis laboris sodalibus neque in disponenda
scripturarum sibi traditarum farragine probaverunt... satis multa in publicam
lucem protulerunt, quibus adiutus verum inveniret qui venun sedulo
quaereret."
b. The
editions of Tischendorf proceed upon less ambitious lines, with results more
directly satisfactory.
Nearly fifty years have passed since the great editor of
the N. T. turned his thoughts to an edition of the Septuagint.
[Prolegg. § viii. (ed. 1875):
"quidfaciundum erat anno 1847 novam editionem cogitanti?"
For later
plans, cf. the pref. to his fourth edition.]
It was
plain to him that the time had not come for the construction of a critical
text; and he resolved upon a revision of the Sixtine text in which the obvious
faults of the Roman work might be corrected, and its evidence balanced by
variants from the three oldest MSS. which had then been edited (Codd. Alex.,
Friderico-Aug., Ephraemi).
His first issue appeared in 1850;
the second, with
the full prolegomena and an appendix containing the Chigi Daniel, in 1856;
other and enriched editions followed in 1860, 1869;
a fifth edition was
published in 1875, after Tischendorf's death.
The work was subsequently
entrusted to Dr E. Nestle, under whose care it reappeared in 1880, and again at
the beginning of 1887.
Dr Nestle added a Supplementum editionum quae
Sixtinam sequuntur omnium in primis Tischendorfianarum—
a nearly full and
remarkably accurate collation of the Sixtine text with the facsimiles of SB, to
which he subjoins the readings of AC, as collected from the British Museum
autotype of the former and from Tischendorf's edition of the latter, wherever
they support B or א or both against the Sixtine text.
The second
edition of this Supplement (1887) turns to good account the information
supplied by the concluding volume of the Roman facsimile.
Thus the tercentenary
year of the great Edition of 1587 witnessed the collection of the materials
available for its revision.
[Nestle, Septuagintastudien. (1886), p. i; "am kommenden 8.
Oktober werden es 300 Jahre, dass Papst Sixtus v....die jetzt nach ihm benannte
editio Sixtina des griechischen Alten Testaments sanktionierte." Ib, p. 4:
"im Jahre 1586, oder richtiger gesagt 1587, erschien die vom romischen
Stuhl veranstaltete editio Romana oder Sixtina."
It has been observed that the last stroke of mdlxxxvii on
the title-page of all copies bearing that date is added with the pen. The
publication was probably delayed by the discovery of errors which called for
correction (ib. p. 16, note 12).]
One
other edition of the Septuagint remains to be mentioned, distinct in kind from
any of the preceding.
In an often cited passage of his preface to the Books of
Chronicles
[Migne, xxviii. 1324 f.:
"Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem,
Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat, mediae
inter has provinciae Palaestinae codices legunt quos ab Origene elaborates
Eusebius et Pamphiius vulga-verunt: totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate
compugnat."]
Jerome reckons three recensions of
the Septuagint which at the end of the fourth century divided the Christian
world—
the recension of Hesychius which prevailed at Alexandria and in Egypt;
the recension of Lucian, accepted at Antioch and at Constantinople;
the
recension of Pamphilus and Eusebius of Caesarea, grounded on the work of Origen
and followed in Palestine.
Dr Paul de Lagarde saw that a comparative view of
these recensions would be of the first importance to the critical reconstruction
of the text.
His Librortim V. T. canonicorum pars prior Graece (Gottingae, 1883) was the first instalment of an attempt to restore the
Lucianic recension.
His scheme included the recovery of the text of Hesychius
and the printing of the two recensions on opposite pages with a collation of
the fragments of the Hexaplaric Septuagint.
The untimely death of this great
scholar and indefatigable worker has for the time suspended the progress of the
work, but every one will hope for the fulfilment of the triumphant prediction
which concludes his preface to the text of Lucian:
"verum vincet causa
mea, et quae ego volui perficere, procul dubio perficientur aliquando."
[The first two principles upon which Lagarde
desired the reconstruction of the text to proceed may be noticed in passing:
(1) "editionem veteris testamenti Graeci Curari non posse ad unius
alicuius codicis auctoritatem sed conlatis integris codicum fanilliis esse
curandam; (2) unius alicuius familiae editionem nihil esse nisi procedendi ulterius
adminiculum."]
The
foregoing succinct account of the existing editions of the Septuagint which
claim to be based more or less directly upon the testimony of its MSS. may
suffice to justify the appearance of an accession to their ranks.
There was
still room for an edition which should endeavour to exhibit the text of one of
the great uncial codices with a precision corresponding to our present
knowledge, together with a full apparatus of the variants of the other MSS., or
at least of those which have been critically edited.
The need was still felt of
a text which might serve as a satisfactory standard of comparison, accompanied
by textual notes which would enable the student at a glance to compare with his
text the results to be gleaned from sources of information already securely
within our reach.
So far
back as 1875 the necessity for such a work was represented to the Syndics of
the Cambridge University Press by Dr Scrivener, who at the same time submitted
a scheme for its accomplishment.
Until the beginning of 1883 it was still hoped
that the author of the scheme might have been able to devote to the work his
ripe experience and unwearied energy.
Increasing years and preoccupations
compelled him at length to decline the editorship; and in the spring of the same
year the present Editor was appointed to carry out Dr Scrivener's proposals in
a slightly modified form, with the cooperation of a Committee nominated by the
Syndics of the Press.
[The Committee
nominated in 1883 consisted of the Regius Professor of Divinity (Dr Westcott),
the Hulsean Professor of Divinity (Dr Hort), the Regius Professor of Hebrew (Dr
Kirkpatrick), and the Lord Almoner's Reader in Arabic (Professor Bensly).]
The Committee continued to exercise a general superintendence
during the progress of the work;
and the Editor, while personally responsible
for the execution of his task, desires heartily to acknowledge not only the
value of its formal directions, but yet more the unfailing kindness with which
his requests for counsel and assistance were met from time to time by
individual members of that body.
Without such sympathetic help, he is free to
confess, he might at times have been tempted to abandon a work which,
especially in its earlier stages, was beset by difficulties of no ordinary kind.
The plan
ultimately adopted by the Syndics included the preparation of two editions with
a common text.
The text of the Vatican MS. was selected as that "which on
the whole presents the version of the Septuagint in its relatively oldest
form."
Where the Vatican MS. is defective, its defects are supplied from
the Alexandrine MS., or in the very few instances where both these MSS. fail
us, from the uncial MS. which occupies the next place in point of age or
importance.
The editions will differ in the extent of the apparatus criticus.
In the larger edition, which must necessarily be the labour of many years and
of a variety of hands, "it is proposed to give the variations of all the
Greek uncial MSS., of select Greek cursive MSS., of the more important versions,
and of the quotations made by Philo and the earlier and more important
ecclesiastical writers."
[For
further particulars see Introduction to the O.T. in Greek, p. 188 ff.]
The smaller or manual edition, of which the first volume is in the
reader's hands, confines itself to the variations of a few of the most
important uncial codices already edited in letterpress, facsimile, or
photograph.
Since the first step was to ascertain the common text and the next
to compare with it the texts of these earliest and most accessible witnesses,
it was possible to begin with the portable edition; and the urgent need of a
revised text for ordinary use recommended this as the more convenient order.
Top
It is necessary briefly to explain the arrangements which have been adopted in the manual edition with regard to orthography, accentuation, and the divisions of the text.
1. On
the whole the orthography of the MS. upon which the text is based has been
closely followed.
Hence in Genesis i.1—xlvi.28 the spellings are mainly those
of A;
throughout the remainder of the volume B is responsible.
A few
inconsistencies result from this system;
thus in Gen. xli.51, xlvi.20 the text
gives Μαννασσή, according to the almost invariable spelling of A;
but in Gen.
xlviii.1, where B has taken the lead, Μανασσή.
But
serious divergences are rare;
and since there must be more than one witness
employed, it has seemed better to leave each MS. to tell its own tale in the
way which it prefers.
Nor has
it been thought desirable in all cases to reduce to an uniform orthography the
text supplied by the same MS.
It is premature to enter upon a detailed
examination of the principles which direct the judgement in the acceptance or
rejection of particular forms;
and it is possible that not a few of the results
to which the Editor has been led may be modified by further consideration.
For
the present it is enough to premise that the MS. or first hand of the MS. upon
which the text is based has been followed in the spellings of all proper names
and transliterations of Hebrew words, unless there was an obvious clerical
error; in the assimilation or non-assimilation of consonants in compounded
verbs and nouns;
and for the most part also in the choice of a particular mode of
spelling where two or more spellings are found in good MSS. or other ancient
authorities.
On the other hand the orthography of the MS. has not been
represented in the printed text when it appeared to rest upon itacistic error
or upon some habit inveterate in the scribe (as the ascertained tendency of the
scribe or scribes of B to write ει for ι), or when its
adoption would have involved repeated changes of a revolutionary kind
unsuitable to the character of a manual edition (such as the continual use of γείνεσθαι and γεινώσκειν).
The moveable ν final and
the ς in οϋτως are printed or withheld in strict obedience to the MS. or its first
hand.
2. Accentuation presents grave difficulties in the
case of proper names transliterated from Hebrew forms or Intended to represent
them.
Our oldest MSS. fail us here altogether; the testimony of the later MSS.
is at once uncertain, and appears, except in isolated cases, to be of little
value as a guide to any tradition but that by which grammarians strove to
regulate the accents of 'barbarous' words.
Under these circumstances
Tischendorf contented himself with correcting the inconsistencies of the
Sixtine Editors; [Prolegg. § xv.: "nec nihil in eo positum
est studii ut nomina propria eodem Constanter et accentu et spiritu
ederentur... in his vero omnibus dici non potest quanta sit Romanae
ceterarumque inconstantia."]
whilst Lagarde, in
his Lucianic text, has abandoned the accentuation of the proper names altogether,
except in the case of a Greek termination.
In the present edition, which is
designed for ordinary use, some accentuation appeared desirable;
on the other
hand it was felt that the editor of an unaccentuated MS. was under no
obligation to follow in these words the unsatisfactory method which has become
conventional.
It has therefore been decided to fall back upon the accentuation
of the Massoretic text, which, whatever its age, may at least be taken to
represent a real and to a great extent trustworthy tradition.
The result will
doubtless be startling at first sight, at all events in some familiar names;
the eye will not immediately accustom itself to Βηθλέεμ, Ἐφράιμ, Γέσεμ, Κόρε, Χανάαν.
But it is hoped that
the change, which has been made at the cost of considerable labour, will not be
unwelcome to those who use the Septuagint in connexion with the Hebrew Bible,
nor altogether fruitless in calling attention to important distinctions which
occasionally lurk under the use of an identical Greek form.
It must not be
concealed, however, that the application of this principle is difficult or even
impracticable where the Septuagint version or the text of B is widely at issue
with the Massoretic text, as often happens in the lists of names, or where an
imaginary transliteration has grown out of a misreading of the Hebrew.
In such
cases it has sometimes become necessary to resort to the general rule which
makes 'barbarous' words oxytone [Chandler, Greek Accentuation (Oxf., 1881), p. 207.], or to
retain the conventional accentuation.
The results are therefore not entirely
satisfactory; it must suffice if the step which has been taken is on the whole
an approach to a sounder method of dealing with these anomalies.
The
breathings of proper names, whether transliterated or made to assume a Greek
form, have been brought into conformity with the system adopted by Dr Westcott
and Dr Hort in their edition of the Greek New Testament.
Initial א and ע are represented by the lenis, ה and ח by the aspirate;
words beginning with ' uniformly receive the
smooth breathing.
The first hand of B has not been followed in the very frequent use of ΟΥΧ ΙΔΟΥ, nor on the other hand in the almost equally common employment of οὐκ before certain words which begin with an aspirated vowel.
3. The
Roman Editors of 1587 applied to their text the mediaeval system of
chapter-divisions, which, first employed in Latin Bibles of the thirteenth
century, had been pressed into the service of the Hebrew Bible in the
Concordance of R. Isaac Nathan about the middle of the fifteenth.
On the other
hand they declined to follow the example of R. Nathan in adding a
verse-numeration, although his system had been accepted by Pagninus in the
Latin Bible of 1528 and imitated by Robert Stephen in the Greek New Testament
of 1551
[Cf. C. R. Gregory, Prolegg,
p. 164 f., and Dr W. Wright's article 'Verse' in Kitto's Cyclopaedia,
cited by Dr Gregory (P.167).].
In the
present edition the Sixtlne chapters are retained with a few exceptions which
are noted in the margin of the text.
The verse-numeration which became
traditional in later editions is added;
or where there is more than one
tradition, that is preferred which agrees with the verse-divisions of the Massoretic text.
Where the chapters or verses of the Hebrew Bible differ from
those which are accepted in the Greek, the numbers of the Hebrew verses are
placed in the margin within brackets, outside the numbers of the Greek, the
text being usually in such cases indented to leave space for the double
numeration.
Finally, where the verse begins in the Hebrew at a different word
from that at which it begins in the Greek, the beginning of the Hebrew verse is
denoted by a bracketed numeral inserted in the Greek.
Additional matter which
is peculiar to the Greek text, unless already traditionally divided, has been
provisionally broken up into verses by means of the letters of the Latin
alphabet attached to the arable numeral which marks the last preceding verse of
the original.
Omissions, when coextensive with a Hebrew verse, are marked by
the dropping of a number in the verse-numeration of the Greek.
Besides
the conventional division of the text into chapters and verses, retained for
the convenience of reference, it has been thrown into paragraphs,
subparagraphs and groups of paragraphs, with reference to the sense, the order
of the narrative or the plan of the book.
The commencement of a group of
paragraphs, marking the beginning of a large or distinct section of a book, is
denoted by the omission of an entire line of type;
the commencement of a
subparagraph, by a short break in the course of a line, and by the use of a
capital letter to begin the first word.
In these arrangements the Editor has
been largely aided by the precedent of the Revised English Bible;
and a further
acknowledgement is due to the Old Testament Company for the indulgence by which
he was permitted to obtain access to their method of paragraphing the first two
or three Books at a time when the text of the revision was not yet out of the
Revisers' hands.
Their example has been also followed in the metrical form
which has been given to poetical passages;
although it has often been
impossible to adhere to their arrangement of particular lines, the parallelisms
having either disappeared in the Greek or having been replaced by others.
From the
text it is time to turn to the textual notes.
These will be found in this
manual edition to contain
the more important clerical errors of the MS. on which the text is based, and the rejected readings of its various hands; and
the variants of other uncial MSS. selected for comparison with the text.
This selection includes the other three great uncial Bibles;
and thus at every
opening the reader is presented with the entire evidence of BאAC, so far as it is now accessible.
In view of the lamentably defective condition of אC and the serious lacunae of B it has been thought well to
add the testimony of such other uncial MSS. as could be reached at once through
photographs, facsimiles or trustworthy editions, excepting those which are
merely fragmentary, and those which offer a Hexaplaric text.
In Genesis, where
for the greater part of the book B is wanting as well as א and C, we are fortunate in having three other important MSS. (DEF) which fulfil
these conditions, one of which (F) goes on with us through the rest of the
Pentateuch and to the middle of Joshua.
From that point to the end of the
volume only A is left to be compared with B;
but its variants are here so
numerous and important that the absence of other witnesses is less to be
regretted than if it had occurred in the earlier Books.
The
Appendix at the end of each volume is intended to receive such unsubstantial
variants as seemed unworthy of a place at the foot of the text—
errors of the
scribe, frequently recurring itacisms, rejected spellings of an ordinary type,
minute discrepancies between the MSS. and the printed text.
But departures from
the accepted orthography which appeared to possess any special interest or in
words which are of rare occurrence in the Septuagint, and itacisms or apparent
errors of the scribe under which a true variant may possibly lurk, or which are
characteristic of the MS. or of its palaeography, have been allowed to retain
their place among the textual notes.
Moreover, a rejected spelling has usually
been exhibited at the foot of the page when it affects a word which for some
other reason had found a place there, or when it occurs in the course of a
substantial variant.
In permitting these exceptions it has been difficult to be consistent, but care has been taken to secure that all the substantial
variations are included in the textual notes, while on the other hand
unimportant variations which have been given in the notes are not repeated in
the Appendix.
The use of the textual notes alone will enable the reader to
judge of all questions which affect the text, so far as they are touched by the
MSS. employed:
the Appendix - will, if he chooses to refer to it, complete the
testimony of the MSS. by adding their minuter disagreements with the standard
of the printed text.
The letter exterior to the first line of text on each page is the symbol of the MS. upon which the text of that page is based. In the rare instances where the text of a single page is supplied partly by one MS. partly by another, the symbols of both MSS. are placed in this position side by side but enclosed in separate pairs of brackets.
Similarly, the letter or letters exterior to the first line of textual notes on each page must be taken to represent the MS. or MSS. from which variants have been collected for that page or for some part of it.
The
point in the text at which any MS. begins or breaks off is marked by the sign §
or ¶, which is repeated in the margin together with the symbol of the
particular MS.
When the beginning or the break occurs in the middle of a word,
the first or last letter which the MS. exhibits is to be gathered from the
textual notes.
All the lacunae are noted in this way, as well as the
starting point of each MS. and the place at which its testimony ceases
altogether.
In
distinguishing the 'hands', a 'superior' 1 has been used to denote corrections
of the original scribe (*) by himself or by a contemporary whose writing is not
distinguishable from his own; a, b, c, are the
second, third and fourth hands respectively; ab represents the
testimony of the secondhand confirmed by the third, whilst a? b? must be taken to mean that it is doubtful to which of the two the correction is
to be assigned, and a?b implies that the correction is made
certainly by the third hand, possibly also by the second.
Of the two
expressions a(vid), a vid, the former is the symbol of a
reading probably attributable to the second hand, the latter of one to which
some uncertainty attaches, but which is due to the second hand if it be a bona
fide correction at all.
It
remains to add a brief description of the MSS. used for the text and notes of
this volume, together with some account of the editions through which their
contents have been reached.
Top
Written
in an uncial hand of the fourth century on leaves of the finest vellum made up
in quires of five;
the lines, which are of 16 to 18 letters, being arranged in
three columns containing 42—44 lines each, excepting the poetical Books, where
the lines being stichometrical the columns are only two.
There are no initial
letters, although the first letter of a section occasionally projects into the
margin;
no breathings or accents occur prima manu, the punctuation if by
the first hand is rare and simple.
Of the 759 leaves which compose the present
quarto volume, 617 belong to the OT. The first 31 leaves of the text of the
original Codex have been torn away [Cf.
Nestle, Th. L. Z.., 16 Mar. 1895.], and there
are lacunae also at f. 178 (part of a leaf) and at f. 348 (10 leaves of
the original missing); these gaps involve the loss of Gen. i.1—xlvi.28, 2 Kings
ii.5—7, 10—13, Ps.cv.27—cxxxvii.6;
the missing passages in Gen. and Pss. have
been supplied by a recent hand.
The Prayer of Manasses and the Books of the
Maccabees were never included in this Codex.
The other Books are in the
following order: Genesis to 2 Chron., Esdras i, 2, Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of the son of Sirach,
Esther, Judith, Tobit, Hosea and the other Minor Prophets to Malachi, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, and Ep. of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel (the
version ascribed to Theodotion).
The
great importance of this MS., now the chief glory of the Vatican Library, was
recognized almost from the first;
a description of the Codex was communicated
to Erasmus in 1533, in which his attention was drawn both to its age and to the
value of its text;
the appreciative language in which it is described by the
Sixtine Editors is all that can be desired.
Yet no effort was made by its
custodians to publish the actual text of the MS. before the present century.
Within the last seventy years the work has been attempted thrice.
The edition
of Ang. Mai, printed between 1828 and 1838, appears to have been so little
satisfactory to that great scholar himself that it did not see the light till
after his death.
Mai died in 1854;
his five volumes appeared in 1857,
introduced to the reader by the pen of C. Vercellone.
But even under such auspices
the work failed from the first to satisfy the requirements of Biblical
criticism.
"Forma editi
longe apparet remota ab ea codicis pressissima forma, quam sequi A. Maium
aliqui forte critici... concupivissent."
Such is
the candid admission of Mai's successors, who in 1881 brought to a completion
the first endeavour to represent the MS. in facsimile type.
Their work is
entitled, Bibliorum Sacrorum Graeciis Codex Vaticaniis, and occupies six
volumes of the same size and magnificence as Tischendorfs Codex Sinaiticus.
This facsimile edition was undertaken by C. Vercellone and J. Cozza, but on the
death of the former in 1869 before the publication of any part of the OT., his
place was filled by his pupil C. Sergio, who was in turn succeeded by H.
Fabiani assisted by two coadjutors U. Ubaldi and A. Rocchi; to the last three
it appears we owe in great part the prolegomena and commentary which fill the
concluding volume.
[Prolegg. p. xv.
The
prolegomena are brief (pp. xxxvi) and touch but lightly oil the many questions
of history and palaography upon which information was desired.
They are
followed by 170 pages of Commentary, of which 142 belong to the OT.;
at the end
of the volume are four admirable photographs representing Ps.i.—iv. inc.,
Jer.xvi.17—xvii.21, Ezek.xlvii.32—Dan.(Sus.)15, Dan.ix.16—x.]
Even
this splendid effort left much to be desired.
[ See two articles by Dr E. Nestle (Literarisches
Centralblatt, 21 Jan. 1882; Theol. Literaturzeitung;, 25 Mar. 1882).
On the other hand the Roman tract De Editione Romana had the courage to
assert (p. 24): “codex typis ita repraesen. tatur ut fere haud amplius
archetype studia biblica indigere videantur."]
But
it is unnecessary and would be invidious to recount its imperfections here,
because since 1890 the facsimile has been superseded by a photographic
representation worthy of the Vatican Press and of the enlightened Pontiff under
whose auspices it has been executed.
[H παλαια διαθηκη | vetus testamentum I iuxta lxx. interpretum uersloneni ] e
codice omnium antiquissimo | graeco vaticano 1209 [ phototypice repraesentatum
| auspice | Leone i. pont. max. | curante | Josepho Cozza-Luzi Abate
Basiliano | S. Rom. ecclesiae vicebibliothecario | Romae | e bibliotheca
vaticana [ agente photographo Danesi | mdccclxxxx. A description of the work
and estimate of its merits by Dr Nestle may be seen in Th.L. Z., 16Mar.
1895.]
In
preparing the first edition of this volume, during the years 1883-7, the Editor
was dependent on the facsimile, and the reader was warned in the Preface that
the results could not be regarded as final.
The completion of the photograph
rendered it possible satisfactorily to revise the text, and also the notes and
Appendix, so far as they represented the evidence of Cod. B.
This labour was
generously undertaken by Dr Nestle, whose well-known accuracy is a guarantee of
the soundness of his work.
Dr Nestle's corrections of the text appeared in the
corrigenda appended to Vol. III.;
the whole of his results will be found
embodied in the present edition.
Tischendorf
believed himself able to distinguish the hands of three original scribes in the
Vatican MS.;
and Dr E. Abbot found internal evidence that the first terminated
his labours at f. 167 (ending with I Kings xix.11), the second at f. 312 (the
end of 2 Esdras) [Gregory, Prolegg.
i. p. 359, note 3.].
The Editors of the facsimile
refuse to decide whether the text is due to one scribe or to many, contenting
themselves with the statement that the writing is so uniform as to convince
them that it proceeded from a single school if not from a single hand.
To the
original scribe or scribes they assign a certain number of changes made inter
scribendum, which they denote as B1.
Under the second hand (B2=Ba in this edition) they Include a series of corrections, beginning with a
possible diorthota who may have
been nearly coaeval with the scribe, and reaching in their judgement to the
fourteenth century.
Their third hand (B3=Bb) is an instaurator who has corrected the whole text, retracing
every letter which he wished to retain.
He is identified by the Editors with
the monk Clement who has scrawled his name in characters of the fourteenth or
fifteenth century at the end of the Pentateuch and of 2 Esdras (pp. 238, 624).
Lastly, a few corrections are ascribed to a fourth hand (B4=Bc),
later than the fifteenth century.
It. is
impossible to escape from provisionally accepting this grouping of the hands of
B, and equally impossible to accept it without mistrust.
The identification of
Clement the monk with the instaurator seems to rest on very slender grounds;
and the judgement of Tischendorf,
who placed the latter in the tenth or eleventh century, is scarcely to be set
aside by the discovery on which Fabiani and his colleagues so warmly
congratulate themselves.
Again, it does not appear that the Codex was touched,
in the NT. at all events, by any corrector between the diorthota and the instaurator. [Cf.
Westcott and Hort, NT., ii. p. 270.]
If this
conclusion is well founded and may be extended to the OT. portion of the MS.,
the second hand will be little later than the first, whilst the third follows
after a lapse of six centuries.
But according to our Roman guides B2=a covers
the corrections of a thousand years, and is often barely distinguishable from B3=b,
in their judgement a hand of the fourteenth or fifteenth century.
The whole
question demands a fresh investigation, which can only be successful if
conducted by experts with free access to the MS. itself.
The
Editors of the Codex do not profess to have always noted the orthographical
variations of their third hand.
[3 Prolegg. pp. xviii, xix:
"Nihil
fere igitur curavimus, utrum adderet, omitteretve ν literam paragogicam…
solet B3…inpluribus locis, quae per ει scripta sunt ε expungere.
hac ratione in commentariis omittimus singulos locos, ubi hoc recidit,"
The list which they add includes κλίνομαι, γίνομαι, γινώσκω, κρίνω, θλίβω, τρίβω, ῥίπτω, οἰκτείπω [rather its derivatives], ϊλεως, κριός, Σιών, Γαλιλαία, Ἰεριχώ, χόλιος and its derivatives.
Further, they profess to neglect the change of τέσσερες into τέσσαρες and of ὀλεθρεύω into ὀλοθρεύω.
These corrections are nevertheless repeatedly specified in the
commentary, and not always ascribed to the same hand.]
These however have
been carefully indicated in Dr Nestle's revision from the photograph, and
now appear in the Appendix, the plates of which have been recast in order to
admit the new evidence under this head.
Top
Written
in all uncial hand
["Characterized
by a squareness of formation" (Palaeographical Society's facsimiles,
I. 105).]
ascribed to the middle of the fourth century,
and in lines which when complete contain from 12 to 14 letters and which are arranged
in four columns on unusually large leaves of a very fine vellum, made from the
skin of the ass or of the antelope.
The leaves are gathered into quires of
four, excepting two which contain five.
There are no breathings or accents;
a
simple point is occasionally used.
In the NT. the MS. is complete;
of the OT.
the following portions remain:
fragments of Gen. xi. xxiv. and of Numbers v.
vi. vii.; I Chron.ix.27—xix.17, 2 Esdras ix.9 to end, Esther, Tobit, Judith, I
Mace., 4 Mace., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lam. i. 1—ii.20, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum,
Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of the son of Sirach,
Job.
The
recent history of this MS. is too well known to need repetition.
The fragments
of the OT. have been edited by Tischendorf in the following books;
(1) Codex
Friderico-Augustanus (Lips. 1846)—
a lithographed facsimile of the 43 leaves
which Tischendorf rescued during his visit to S. Catharine's in 1844.
These leaves
contain i Chronicles xi.22—xix.17, 2 Esdras ix.9 to end, Esther, Tobit
i.1—ii.2, Jeremiah x.25 to end, Lam. i.1—ii.20.
(2) Montumenta sacra ined.
nov, coll. vol. I. (Lips. 1855), pp. xxxx. 213—216—
a facsimile of Isaiah
Ixvi.12—Jer.i.7, a page copied from the MS. during the same visit;
afterwards
edited again with the rest of the MS. (infra, 4).
(3) Monumenta, &c., vol. ii. (Lips. 1857),
pp. xxxxvi. 321—
a facsimile of Gen.xxiv.9—10, 41—43,
from a scrap discovered by Tischendorf at S. Catharine's in 1853 [Now at S. Petersburg (App. Codd. p. v).];
reedited in the Appendix Codd. (infra, 5).
(4) Bibliorum Codex
Sinaiticus Petropolitanus (Petrop. 1862), vol. I. (prolegg., comment., pp.
i—xxx)ii., iii.—
a facsimile of the S. Petersburg portion of the Codex, containing
all that survives of א except the fragments
of Genesis and Numbers and the leaves previously edited under the name of the
Cod. Friderico-Augustanus.
(5) Appendix codicum
celeberr. Sinaitici
Valicani Alexandrini (Lips.
1867).
The Sinaitic fragments consist of the scraps of
Gen. xi—xxiv, Numb.v—vii, which, with the exception of Gen. xxiv.9—10,
41—43, already accounted for, were discovered by the Archimandrite (afterwards
Bishop) Porphyry in the bindings of other Sinaitic MSS. and brought by him to
Europe in 1845, but first communicated to Tischendorf in 1862, after the
publication of the Cod. Sinaiticus Petropolitanus.
The condition of these
fragments is very unsatisfactory.
The
Porphyrian fragments of Genesis form the major part of a single leaf, but so
torn that the exterior column of each page yields only 23 or 24 letters, whilst
from 14 to 19 of the lines at the lower end of each column are lost;
the
remainder is injured by damp and difficult to decipher.
Those of Numbers were coated with dirt where
the margin had been sewn into the back of the book which the leaf was used to
bind, and the writing is in places nearly illegible.
[Since the MSS. which these leaves had been used to bind
were themselves of some antiquity, Porphyry's discovery shews that the
disintegration of the Codex began centuries ago (App. Codd., p. xvi).
On the present condition of the Mount Sinai MSS. see the remarks of
Gardthausen, Catalog. Codd. Sinait. (Oxon. 1886), p. vii.]
In the text of א Tischendorf distinguishes the hands of four original scribes.
["Mea quidem sententia
quattuor potissimum librarii textum scripserunt" (Cod. Sin. Pelrop. prolegg., p. 8).
In the Appendix
Codicum he regards this opinion as a certainty (p. viiii).]
To one (A), who wrote nearly the whole of the
NT., he assigns the fragments of Genesis and of i Chronicles, i Maccabees, and
the last 4½ leaves of 4 Maccabees;
to a second (B), the fragments of Numbers
and the Prophets ;
to a third (C), the poetical Books;
whilst to the fourth
(D) are adjudged the Books of Tobit and Judith, and the rest of 4 Maccabees and
of the NT.
More important to us is his judgement with
regard to the hands of correctors.
In the text of the LXX. he finds five such,
who are designated א a, א c.a, אc.b, אc.c, אd.
The first symbol (א a ) includes such nearly contemporary
hands as differ but slightly from the hand of the original scribe.
The second and third ( א c.a, אc.b) are correctors of the seventh
century, and throughout the MS., more especially in the OT., are the prevailing
hands;
the former stands alone in the poetical Books, the latter predominates
in the Prophets.
אc.c, also of the seventh century, has
made a special study of Job, often correcting א c.a in that Book;
the MS. appears to
have been in his custody for a considerable time, and he has enriched it with
frequent marginal notes such as the exclamation ὡραῖον, and the sectional letters in Isaiah.
אd (viii.? ix.?) has retraced many
pages in the Prophets and here and there attempted an emendation of the text.
To this corrector are also assigned certain marginal notes in Arabic.
Top
Written
in an uncial hand of the middle of the fifth century on vellum of fine texture
originally arranged in quires of eight leaves, occasionally (but chiefly at the
end of a Book) of less than eight;
three or four and twenty letters go to a
line, 50 or 51 lines usually compose a column, and there are two columns on a
page.
Large initial letters, standing in the margin, announce the commencement
of a paragraph or section, excepting in vol. in., which appears to be the work
of another scribe.
There are no breathings or accents added by the first hand;
the punctuation, more frequent than in B, is still confined to a single point.
The three vols. which contain the OT now consist of 630 leaves.
Of these vols.
only nine leaves are lest and five mutilated.
The portions of the Septuagint
which are thus deficient in A contained Gen.xiv.14—17, xv.1—5, 16—19, xvi.6—9;
i Kings .19—xiv.9; Ps.xlix.19—Ixxix.10.
The Codex opens (l,, f. 3) with a
Table of the Books written in uncial letters somewhat later than the body of
the MS.
The first volume contains the Octateuch with Kings and Chronicles (ομον βιβλια ς).
The Books of Chronicles are followed (vol, ii.) by the Prophets (προφηται ις) Minor and Major, Jeremiah including
Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle;
Daniel [Theodotion's version) is
succeeded by Esther, Tobit, Judith, Esdras 1, 2, and the four Books of
Maccabees.
The third volume contains the Psalter, with cli. and the canticles,
Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, the Wisdom of Solomon, and
the Wisdom of the son of Sirach.
The Table shews that the Psalms of Solomon
once occupied a place at the end of the fourth volume which contains the NT.
This
MS., the treasured possession of the Patriarchs of Alexandria from at least the
end of the thirteenth century, and since the beginning of the seventeenth the
pride of its English custodians, is the most perfect of the great codices which
contain the Septuagint.
Moreover it has fared better than the earlier Vatican
Codex in regard to the attention it has received from its editors.
Early in the
eighteenth century the volumes which contain the OT. were already accessible,
as we have seen, in the scholarly edition of Grabe.
Early in the nineteenth,
they were published at the cost of the nation in facsimile with a copious
commentary by H. H. Baber, Librarian of the British Museum.
Lastly, a magnificent
edition in autotype has been completed within the last four years under the
superintendence of Mr E. Maunde Thompson.
Yet the MS. still needs a critical
editor to do for it what Tischendorf has done for the Codex Sinaiticus.
The
autotype edition is without a critical commentary, and the plates do not
distinctly reveal the erasures in every case, or enable the student clearly to
discriminate the hands—
an imperfection of photographic representation which the
utmost care and skill cannot altogether surmount.
On the other hand the copious
commentary which fills Baber's last volume is unhappily to a great extent
inadequate.
In fact no satisfactory attempt has yet been made to distinguish
accurately the various correctors, who have changed so large a portion of the
face of the Codex.
Baber indeed discriminates between the first and second
hands, and a third hand which he calls recent; but in a large number of cases
he falls back upon some such ambiguous designation as manus vetista, vetustissima, pervetusta, antique.
A
cursory examination of the MS. has served to shew that in the places opened his
second hand was usually (not quite uniformly) but a little later than the
scribe himself;
whilst his ancient' or 'very ancient' hand has the appearance
of belonging to the following century, the writing being thin and fine, and the
characters long.
It is evident that there is room for an entirely new handling
of this subject, and there is reason to hope that this will have been
accomplished by a competent scholar before the larger edition of the Cambridge
Septuagint has passed through the press.
In the present edition, which has been constructed on the principle of using the best editions already accessible, it
has been necessary to be content with the autotype text and Baber's commentary.
Baber's second hand has been represented by Aa;
his 'ancient' or
'very ancient' hand, when not identified with the second as occasionally it is,
by Aa?;
his third hand is our Ab.
[It seems probable that A, which as far back as
the furthest period to which we can trace its history was preserved in Egypt,
had been originally written there;
and as Sir E. M. Thompson has pointed out,
the occurrence of Egyptian forms of the Greek letters in the superscriptions
and colophons of the Books proves that "the MS. if not absolutely written
in Egypt must have been immediately afterwards removed thither."
The
editors of the Roman facsimile find a slender argument for the Egyptian origin
of the Vatican MS. in the occasional patching of its leaves with papyrus.
On
the other hand Dr Hort in 1881 was "induced to surmise that B and א were both written in the West, probably
at Rome."
More recently Mr J. Rendel Harris has been led to conjecture
that both these MSS. came from the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea.
For some investigations as to the relation which
these great Codices bear to the recensions of the Septuagint see Dr Ceriani in Rendiconti of the Reale Istit. Lombard. ii. xix, p. 206 f., xxi. p. 547;
Dr C. H. Cornill, das Buck des Propheten, Ezeckiel (Leipzig, 1886), pp.
63—95;
Dr Hort's letter in the Academy, Dec. 24, 1887;
Dr Silberstein, uber
den Ursprung, &c. (Gies-sen, 1893);
Dr J. Rendel Harris, Stichometry,
p. 71 ff. :
Dr J. Armitage Robinson, Euthaliana, p. 42 ff.]
Top
The
remains of this MS. of the fifth or sixth century now consist of 150 fragments
inlaid in 147 leaves of 10¾ x 8¾ inches, in size nearly corresponding to the leaves
of the original Codex.
The vellum is moderately fine, the characters are
uncials, round or square after the type of good uncial MSS.;
23 to 30 letters
made a line, and a single column of 26 to 28 lines filled a page, excepting
where the writing was partly displaced by an illustration.
The MS. is said to
have possessed 250 miniatures; traces of a few remain.
Unlike B אA it has large initial letters;
and the position of the single point
used in punctuation is threefold, sometimes at the foot of the letters,
sometimes at their head, and sometimes half-way up.
There are neither accents
nor breathings.
Before the fire which wrecked this exquisite book it consisted
of 165 (others say 166) leaves;
but the Codex was even then far from perfect.
The beginning and end of Genesis (i.1 —13,
1.26) were wanting, and leaves had disappeared in several places.
These lacunae
are noted in the margin of our text.
This MS.
has a singular history.
Presented to Henry VIII. by two Greek Bishops who are said to have brought it
from Philippi, it was given by Elizabeth to Sir John Fortescue, by whom it was
subsequently placed in the collection of Sir R. Cotton.
Lent by Sir Richard to
Lord Arundel in 1630, it fell into other hands, but was ultimately secured
again for the Cotton Library by Sir John Cotton.
In 1700 the Library became
national property, and the safety of the MS. might have seemed thenceforth
secured,
Unhappily it was removed with the rest of the collection to Ashburnham
House, and reduced to charred fragments by the fire which attacked the
treasures of that establishment Oct. 23, 1731.
Dr H. Owen writing in 1778
speaks of the fragments as hopelessly lost;
but the Cottonian catalogue of 1802
mentions 18 of them as still preserved at the British Museum, to which the Cotton
library had meanwhile been transferred;
and further search has largely added to
this number.
The scraps were collected with scrupulous care in 1847-8.
[A photograph of one of the British Museum
fragments will be found in the Catalogue of Ancient MSS., i, Greek,
published by the Trustees (London, 1881), where the palaeography and history
of this MS. are treated exhaustively.]
Three or four
other fragments have been discovered at the Bristol Baptist College, to which
they were bequeathed by Dr A. Gifford, a London Baptist minister who had been
officially connected with the department of MSS. at the British Museum.
Fortunately
our knowledge of this Codex is not confined to what may be gathered from the
relics of the Ashburnham fire. The following sources of information have been
used for this edition:
(1) Collatio cod. Cotton. Geneseos cum Editions
Romana, a v. cl. J. E. Grabs iam olim facto.; nunc licmum summa ctim Ctira
edita ah H. Owen, M.D; S.R.S., eccl. S. Olai Rectore (Londini, 1778).
Grabe's
MS. is still in the Bodleian, and upon being compared with Owen's tract seems
to justify the claim which the latter makes to careful editing;
whilst it is no
surprise to find that a recent examination of Grabe's own work in the light of
the surviving fragments has led Dr Gotch to pronounce it extremely
accurate.
This collation places within
our reach the entire MS. as it existed before the fire; but a great part of the
evidence is of course merely e silentio, and much of that which is
direct can no longer be verified.
Its testimony has therefore been
distinguished from that of the surviving fragments by the use of an italic
capital (D, .Dsil).
[Grabe
had been preceded by other labourers in the same field;
a collation of a
considerable part of D by the hand of Patrick Young (P. Junius) is to be seen
at the British Museum, while the Bodleian has preserved another in the writing
of Archbp. Ussher.
These collations have not been used for the present edition,
Grabe's careful and complete work appearing to need no further verification
than that which the surviving fragments, now critically edited, supply.]
(2) Vetusta monitmenta quae...Soc. Antiq, Lond. sumptu suo
edenda curavit, vol. I. (Lond. 1747), p. Ixvii f.
This book contains two
plates representing certain of the fragments of D, reproduced for the sake of
the miniatures, but carrying with them portions of the text.
[More recently Mr Westwood has endeavoured to
reproduce one of these miniatures in colours (palaeogr. sacra pict., 3).
The Vienna Genesis (Holmes vi), which is also illustrated, is "of later
date and inferior execution" (Ancient Gk. MSS. p. 21); cf. the
PaIaeographical Society's plate facsimiles, plate 178.]
The verses delineated are Gen.V.35—29, viii.10, 11, ix.15—23, xi.9, 12, 13,
13—17, 29—32, .1—6, xlv.13—I6, xv.1—l2, 13—17, 18—xvi.5, xvi.5—15, xviii.15,
xix.4—11, xl.19—20, xliii.12—13, 29—30.
The transcription has been executed
with singularly little skill;
but in the few places where the fragments have
since disappeared (indicated above by the use of thicker numerals) the help
which is thus given suffices for the recovery of the missing text.
(3) Monumentia
sacra ined. nov. coll. vol. ll. (Lips. 1857) pp. x—xxxvi. 95—176.
Under the title of reliquiae ex incendio
ereptae this volume offers Tischendorf's reading of the British Museum
fragments of D, with full prolegomena and with a commentary into which he works
Grabe's collation, comparing it with the existing scraps.
No one who has
examined the brown and shrivelled relics on many of which at first sight
scarcely a letter is distinguishable can fail to wonder at the relative success
attained by Tischendorf's patience and skill.
But he was compelled to leave some of the smaller fragments
unidentified, and here and there a further examination has revealed a flaw in
his transcription.
These defects are now supplied in
(4) F. W. Gotch's
Supplement to Tischendorf's Reliquiae (London, 1881). Dr Gotch, who at the time
when his book was published held the office of President of the Baptist
College, Bristol, adds the Bristol fragments (Gen.xiv.13—t0; xv.1—12, xvi.5—15,
xix.4—11); the last two are given in photograph.
Lastly, M. Omont has published
in the Memoires de la Societe Nationale des Antiquaires de France (liii.
pp. 163 ff.) a few fragments discovered in the Bibliotheque Nationale
(Gen.i.13, 14, xviii.24— 26, xliii.16).
We are thus at length in possession of
probably all that can now be recovered of the Cotton Genesis;
and the results,
which go far to repair the damage of the fire, are a signal testimony to the
sagacity and persevering toil of many labourers.
The
discrimination of the ' hands' of D is necessarily beset with difficulty.
Grabe found that the MS. had been collated and corrected throughout by either
the scribe or a contemporary diorthota (D1), to whom he
attributes occasional marginal additions which have now disappeared.
More
frequently the corrections belong in his judgement to a later hand, which
Tischendorf attributes to the eighth century (Da).
To Da seems to be due the retracing of the letters which had been faded by age.
Lastly, Grabe mentions a manus recentissima, which has been distinguished as Db.
A fresh
collation of D and D has been made for this edition by Mr C. I. Beard,
M.B., who has expended much time and labour in the effort to attain to perfect
accuracy.
His results, so far as they lie within the scope of a manual edition,
have been worked into the plates and appear in the notes.
Top
Written
probably towards the end of the ninth or the beginning of the tenth century in
oblong sloping uncial characters upon 29 leaves of stout vellum, two columns
occupying each page.
Breathings and accents are frequent, abbreviations
numerous;
the punctuation includes the double point, the comma and the mark of
interrogation.
On the other hand, the orthography of the more ancient MSS. is
maintained, and forms known as Alexandrian abound.
There are lacunae,
and the following passages are missing:
Gen.xiv.7—xviii.24, xx.14—xxiv.54, and
the last 7½ chapters (from xliii.14 to the end).
The
Bodleian Genesis was brought 'from the East' in 1853 by Tischendorf, who is
reticent as to the exact locality where it was discovered; subsequently it was
acquired by the Bodleian Library.
It has been edited with prolegomena in Monumenta,
sacra ined, vol. II. (pp. xxxvi—xxx, 179—308).
The lateness of the MS.
is counterbalanced in Tischendorf's judgement by the excellence of the text,
which appears to represent a good and early archetype.
Its value is enhanced by
the scarcity of uncial MSS. of Genesis, and their generally defective
condition; of the eight which survive, two only [I.e. Cod. A and the great Coislin MS., the latter
Hexaplaric.] (as Tischendorf points out) have preserved
more of the text than E.
Besides corrections by the original scribe, which are occasionally discriminated and are denoted E1, Tischendorf notices others which are nearly coaeval (Ea, and a third group proceeding from a later hand (Eb).
Another leaf of this MS. was discovered
in 1891 among some fragments purchased from Tischendorf's representatives by
the Syndics of the Cambridge University Library (Academy, June 6, 1891).
This
leaf carries the text down to Gen.xliii.13.
The verso is written in a cursive
hand, but Mr Rendel Harris regards the cursive page as contemporary with the
other, and possibly the work of the same scribe.
Variants from the cursive
portion of this fragment (Gen.xlii.31—xliii.13) are distinguished by the use of
an italic (E )
[It is now
known that the St Petersburg Cod. I and the British Museum Additional MS.
20002 belong to the same Codex. See Introduction to the OT. in Greek, p.
134 f.].
A fresh collation of Tischendorf's
facsimile of E has been made by Dr Beard for the present edition.
His
corrections and additions have been embodied in the notes and Appendix.
Top
Written
in broad and laterally thick characters, of the type usual in MSS. assigned to
the fourth and fifth centuries, on the thinnest whitest and smoothest vellum,
the leaves of which are gathered in quires of four and numbered on the first
and last page of each quire; there are three columns on each page, with 35 lines
in each column.
Initial letters are used, projecting slightly into the margin.
The MS. has not only a frequent and varied punctuation, but stands alone
amongst early uncial codices in exhibiting breathings and accents prima manu.
The margins, both lateral and intercolumnar, are unusually broad, suggesting
that the scribe contemplated the addition of marginal readings, some of which
are in fact written by the first hand.
The Codex now begins at Gen.xxxi.15 and
ends with Joshua .12;
there are numerous lacunae, the Book of Numbers
being alone complete.
The lacunae from Exod.xxx.29 are almost invariably
supplied by later hands.
An unknown hand on a blank page bound up
with the MS. is responsible for the statement that this remarkable Codex
originally came from Macedonia, and was bought in Corcyra by Card. F. Borromeo
(1561-1631), the founder of the Ambrosian Library.
It was cursorily examined by
Montfaucon, who noticed the presence of accents prima manu; and it was
collated, but with lamentable want of care, for Holmes, by whom it is briefly
described.
A discovery of the defects of Holmes's collation has led Dr A.
Ceriani to publish the MS. in extenso in the third volume of his Monumenta
sacra et profana (Mediol., 1864).
His edition is not in facsimile, and the
exigencies of his type have compelled him to print in full the compendia
scripturae; complete prolegomena and all corrections later than the first
hand are moreover postponed to a fourth volume of the Monnmenta which is
still a desideratum.
But the provisional preface, a considerable introduction
of fifteen closely packed pages, supplies nearly everything which is necessary
for present use.
The character of the text is but lightly touched; but the
Editor remarks its frequent agreement with A as against B.
[This agreement will be found to be particularly
striking in the Book of Exodus.
In Leviticus on the other hand F is frequently
opposed to A and in agreement with the Sixtine text.]
Ceriani supports the relative antiquity of the Codex, notwithstanding the
presence of breathings and accents, and is disposed to place it not later than
the first half of the fifth century.
He supposes two scribes, to one of whom he
assigns the Pentateuch, to the other the fragment of Joshua.
A change in the
colour of the ink, which is yellow in the earlier books, but green in Joshua,
marks the transition.
On the other hand the continuous numeration of the
quires, in the hand of the penman of the Pentateuch, suggests that the scribes
were not only contemporary, but associated in their work.
All the corrections which Dr Ceriani has
printed are of the first hand (A=F1), as he has kindly informed the
present Editor.
These have all been worked into the notes or the Appendix,
excepting fragments of the other Greek versions, which are foreign to the
purpose of a manual edition of the Septuagint, and may be found in Dr Field's
Hexapla.
A large number of corrections additions and scholia in later hands had
been communicated to Dr Field by Ceriani (Hexapla, I. p. 5), and
permission was liberally given to use these for the present edition.
Dr Field's
lamented death intervened, and it was impossible to trace the papers which contained
these variants.
A portion of them however had been incorporated in the Hexapla,
and any of these which were available have been copied into the notes, where
they appear under the symbol Fa.
In preparing a second edition the
Editor had the advantage of consulting a list of corrections and additions
which were kindly communicated to him by Dr Ceriani in 1888;
in the present
edition he has derived further assistance from a fresh collation of the MS.
made by Mr N. McLean for the Larger Cambridge Septuagint.
Top
In conclusion the Editor desires to offer his sincere thanks to all
who have cooperated with him in the endeavour to render this reissue of Vol. I.
more accurate and serviceable than the first edition.
His acknowledgements are
especially due to Mr Redpath, the Editor of the Oxford Concordance to the
Septuagint, whose vigilance will, as he trusts, have left few superficial
errors for future correction.
To the officers and workmen of the Press he owes
a not less hearty recognition of the care and assiduity with which they have
accomplished the difficult task of correcting the plates.
In this
fourth edition the punctuation of the text as far as the end of Leviticus has
been made to correspond in all important particulars with that of the larger
Cambridge Septuagint, and the notes have been corrected from the same source.
For these improvements the thanks of the reader are due to the Editors of the
larger work, and to Mr E. J. Thomas, who has made the necessary changes.
Codex Sinaiticus ( = S, Lagarde, Nestle). |
|
A |
Codex Alexandrinus ( = III, Holmes). |
B |
Codex Vaticanus ( = II, Holmes). |
D (D ) |
Codex Cottonianus Geneseos ( = I, Holmes). |
E (E ) |
Codex Bodleianus Geneseos. |
F |
Codex Ambrosianus ( = VII, Holmes). |