ART. VIII.-1. Vetus Testamentum Græcum cum variis lectionibus. Edidit R. Holmes; continuavit J. Parsons. Oxford, 1798-1827. 2. Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt . . . concinnavit, emendavit, et multis partibus auxit Fridericus Field. Oxford, 1875. 3. Librorum Veteris Testamenti ... pars prior. Ed. P. A. de Göttingen, 1883. And many other works by the Lagarde. same author. 4. De Codice Marchaliano seu Vaticano Græco 2125 Prophetarum Commentatio Antonii Ceriani. Rome, 1890. 5. The Old Testament in Greek, according to the Septuagint. By H. B. Swete, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity. bridge, 1887-1894. ELE Cam LEVEN years ago the Revised Version of the Old Testament issued from the press, giving to the world at large the collective opinion of the best scholarship in England and America on the text and translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. These eleven years have seen a new departure in the textual criticism of the Bible. The change is one in method, not in ultimate aim. The aim of textual criticism must always be the same-the recovery, namely, of the original words of the work to which it is applied; but whereas, until recently, scholars concerned themselves mainly with the languages in which the books of the Bible were originally written, within these last days the centre of immediate interest has shifted to the versions of them in other languages. This is true alike of both Testaments. The best work that is now being done is not directed so much to the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament, or the Greek manuscripts of the New, as to the ancient translations of these into Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, or Latin. With this phenomenon may be directly connected the appearance of the Revised Version of the English Bible. The Revisers had before them the results of exhaustive studies on the manuscript evidence for both Testaments in their original languages; and the controversy that raged around the Revisers' decisions of which the Quarterly Review' pars magna fuitshowed that these results were by no means conclusive nor universally accepted. It was evident that along these lines finality was not to be reached. If the best authorities could not agree as to the weight to be attached to the principal manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, or as to the trustworthiness of the Hebrew text contained in all extant Hebrew manuscripts, it was impossible to hope that unanimity would be obtained by renewed examination of the already well-explored ground. ground. Direct evidence having thus failed to convince, it was natural to fall back upon that which was indirect. Till then the Versions of both Öld and New Testaments had been but incompletely studied; and it was possible that their testimony, if carefully and exhaustively examined, might be decisive with regard to the great issues that still were open. Certain it is, in any case, that within the last ten or fifteen years there has been a remarkable outburst of activity, especially in England, in respect of the versions of both Testaments. The University Press at Oxford has in hand, at the present time, new editions of the Vulgate, the Bohairic (or Memphitic), and the Peshitto versions of the New Testament; the sister University of Cambridge is similarly occupied with the Septuagint and the Curetonian Syriac. Private scholars have been doing good work on the Armenian and Old Latin Bibles. A complete edition of the Old Latin has likewise been undertaken by a foreign Academy; and foreign scholars, as well as English, are working actively at the Sahidic version. Everywhere the versions are being made the subject of exhaustive study to an extent hitherto unknown. It is with one of the results of this labour that we now propose to deal. In 1883 a syndicate of Cambridge scholars, acting on the suggestion of the late Dr. Scrivener, to whom the textual criticism of the Bible owes so much, put their hands to the task of setting in order the chaos which surrounded and still surrounds the text of the most important and unique of all the versions, the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint. Their scheme embraced the production of two editions of the Septuagint, with a common text. The text in both was to be that of the best manuscript available in each book; but whereas the apparatus criticus of the one was to be confined to the various readings of three or four of the oldest manuscripts, that of the other was to be on a much larger scale, and to include all the uncial manuscripts, the most important versions and patristic quotations, and, if not all the 'minuscule' evidence, at least an ample representation of it in all its classes and branches. The smaller edition was naturally the first to be taken in hand. It could be done in less time, and would serve the purposes of most scholars while the larger was being prepared; and all work done for it would be equally available for its successor. The editorship of this smaller edition was placed in the very competent hands of Dr. Swete; and the appearance of successive volumes in 1887, 1891, and 1894, with a revised edition of the first volume in 1895, enables us now to congratulate him and his assistants on the admirable manner manner in which they have discharged their toilsome undertaking. The value and the limitations of the three handy volumes thus put forth by the Cambridge Press are equally evident. It is a great thing to have the evidence of the leading manuscripts recorded with an accuracy far in advance of any previous edition of the Septuagint. The Codex Vaticanus is taken as the basis of the edition, its text being printed in full wherever it is preserved. Where it fails, the manuscript which, in the opinion of the editor, stands next in importance takes its place; in Genesis and the books of the Maccabees the Codex Alexandrinus has been employed; in the missing portion of the Psalms, the Codex Sinaiticus. The apparatus criticus contains the readings of from two to four MSS. on every passage; but since the majority of Septuagint MSS. only contain a portion of the whole, the authorities referred to differ in the several books, the total number of manuscripts einployed being eighteen. The merits of this system are obvious, and the student can with perfect confidence refer to this edition for the readings of the principal MSS. of every book. It is as well, however, clearly to understand its limitations. In the first place, the selection of one MS. to furnish the text throughout involves a certain begging of the question which still has to be solved, the question as to which is the truest form of the Septuagint. The choice practically lay between the Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, since no other early MS. is even approximately complete; and although the Vaticanus has the advantage in age, the difference between them is so small as to furnish no real presumption in favour of its greater purity. It is probable that its text is actually the purest; but it must be remembered that the two MSS. do in fact represent different families, and that the comparative merit of the two is not yet finally determined. Secondly, it should be noticed that, with the exception of the unique MS. containing the original Septuagint version of Daniel, no cursive manuscripts are used. In the case of the New Testament this would practically be no drawback, owing to the great number and importance of the uncial MSS.; but uncial MSS. of the Septuagint are by no means so numerous, and the relative value of the cursives is much greater. In fact, it is principally from cursive copies that the well-marked families of the Septuagint text, which will be described below, are known, and without their aid little progress could be expected. Finally, no mention is made of versions in other languages (except the Syriac translation of Daniel), although some of these are of great value in recovering the original form of the text. In pointing out these deficiencies, we have no thought of making them a ground of reproach against the editor and his advisers. They are simply the limitations inherent in the plan of the work, and will disappear when the larger Cambridge edition has reached completion. Meanwhile, our portion of the loaf is very distinctly better than no bread; and the arrangement, the short descriptions of the authorities, and the accuracy of the execution leave nothing to be desired. The satisfaction natural at the sight of a good piece of work well done must not, however, blind us to the fact that this is only a beginning. It is now close on a hundred years since the foundations of Septuagint criticism were laid broad and deep by the great work of Bishop R. Holmes and his follower, J. Parsons, in which the evidence of no less than three hundred and twenty-five Greek manuscripts, to say nothing of versions in other languages, was marshalled and set out in the pages of five noble folio volumes. It is with some shame that we compare these great beginnings with the results of to-day. The end of the eighteenth century found the Oxford editors displaying the evidence of three hundred and twenty-five manuscripts; the end of the nineteenth finds the sister University confining its efforts to about eighteen, while no advance has been made beyond the stage of the simple presentation of evidence. The time for estimating the value of that evidence has not yet come. The reason for this apparent tardiness was, in part, the superior claims of the New Testament. The discovery of new manuscripts, such as the Codex Sinaiticus, and the thorough examination of old ones, such as the Codex Vaticanus; the collecting, sifting, and weighing of evidence, to say nothing of the larger questions touching the date and authenticity of the Gospels and Epistles,-all this sufficed to occupy the powers of the best Biblical scholars during the greater part of the present century, and the less urgent problems of the Old Testament fell into the background. But a further reason is to be found in the imperfections of the work of Holmes and Parsons. They were doing pioneer work, and perfection is not to be attained at one blow. Many of their collaborators had very inadequate ideas of a collator's duties, so that their work is often very indifferently done. Hence, although Holmes and Parsons, and they alone, give a general survey of all the evidence relating to the text of the Septuagint, their work requires complete reexamination in detail in order to bring it up to modern standards of accuracy; and this, or a portion of this, is what the Cambridge editors have taken in hand, and the need of it has has hitherto in part delayed the progress of criticism. But a final, and perhaps the chief, reason is the great complexity of the problems relating to the Septuagint. These lie in the history and fundamental characteristics of that version, and are well known to Biblical scholars; but it is probable that the general public knows them but imperfectly, and fails to appreciate their bearing on the text of the Old Testament. The Septuagint, indeed, holds a quite unique place among the versions of Holy Scripture. Of no other version, except the Samaritan (and that relates only to the Pentateuch), can it be said that its evidence goes back to a period many centuries earlier than that which can be reached by the help of manuscripts in the original languages. It is well known that all the extant Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament represent a single edition of the text, known as the Massoretic edition, which was redacted about the seventh century of our era. It is true that this edition was only the final fixing of a traditional text which can be traced without substantial change to the beginning of the second century; but further than that point it is impossible to go. We have no evidence to show that the Hebrew text before A.D. 100 was identical with that which our much later Hebrew manuscripts have preserved; we have some evidence that it was not so. In any case, there is a gap of many centuries between the date at which the Hebrew Scriptures were composed, and the earliest point to which we can trace back the history of the extant text. It is here that the Septuagint comes to our aid. Not only is it extant in much earlier copies-the oldest manuscripts of it were written in the fourth century, whereas the oldest Hebrew manuscript is assigned to the ninth -but its evidence, so far as we can be sure that we have it correctly, tells us what was the condition of the Hebrew text at the date at which the translation was originally made, in the third and second centuries before Christ. It will be evident, then, that the problem which the Old Testament student has to solve is twofold. First, what was the original text of the Septuagint, and, by implication, what was the Hebrew text from which it was translated? Secondly, what relation does that text bear to the Hebrew text as we have it in the current Massoretic edition? In other words, what is the history of the Septuagint, and what are its characteristics? The history of the Septuagint is curious and remarkable. Its origin goes back into the region of fable. The famous Letter of Aristeas' tells how Ptolemy Philadelphus was urged by his chief librarian to secure a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures for the great Library at Alexandria; how an embassy, of which Aristeas Vol. 183.-No. 366. himself 2 K |