Es 126 ,1, xpofixai^ fnfJjxfif 'liptu-iw rpoi^rau ; Ch LXX «u»
^xM/fi r£w kiya,> Nixa*=Heb. Es perhaps read K'5: for "133. 'ItatiMiou is a later insertion ; the Vulg. has * non attendens verbum prophet®.'
Es 127 jMt, xxrifiitraf *i kpxamf raU fi»fiXim ; Ch LXX »«j
iviiivrttt a'l r*£orsi iri 0ar. = Heb. Es read ^Ty\ ' and they came down ') for )i^ 'and they shot").
In Ea A 830 xati o-it" atiirav iri ype^f ktipu Immria wtrr^M4ar», the Heb. is more closely rendered (' and with him were reckoned bt/ genralogy 0/ the mdlei') than in t.YY (Es B 8^) tut) fur' m.!naXi r* rurTpifx-fjM ». uxi irivr.
In »*i a Martpii of LXX ia rightly given as AiyCwnai. A writer working on the LXX without the Heb. could hardly Infer that Ma^tptt stood for 1'i*r.T (' the people of Mizraim ').
In 8^ ippy>i» *■« ifixTia xMi rr,f itpkt ifd^Tjt, the laat words of the Heb. '7'ysi (' and my mantle are rightly given ; the LXX twice miaconstruea them (9^ A), inpp^tlx rk Ifxaria titv mxi
In 87* mm\ iv> mmrk warar « Vfdja iy%iiiBn iXtai ^a.pk rav xupioti, the Heb. phraae yj-JTSl'DJ (' for a little moment ') is rendered, and the paaaive construction kept. Es B 9^ xcd iifr iwiuxiuran itfjua i fiw, omits the phraae and changes the construction.
8^ ktixx.i4/^aifji,u wctp«0^pei,, and Es B 9'^ irirrpi^itfut iiatrxi- 3««-<u, are independent versions of "ignS 3iE*jn (' shall we again break ?'^. '
8** atf ixpiBr, rat Mai 'aaai wiS^pxiiirmrn rav aifA4u rav Hvpiau, renders the Heb. ('according to the council of my Lord and of those that tremble at the command of our God ') where the LXX (Es B 103) departa from it, »« i> ^v>.<, i,krrr6i a<^ faiiipirat aiiravf i, itraXjzit liiav «l.u4v*.
In !l- Ks A pointa to a neat and certain correction of the Hebrew. The LXX (10*1) runs, *«i tTaptvBvi u( >-aC#^A«au»f 'l»ar«> . . . xxi iropauSn ixH, where the second iwaptvd^ ia tautological, Ea A haa iwapavHai lit ri wmrrvfapiaa '\ank . . . nx'i m.v\iwQu( txu.
The compiler clearly read op |S;l ('and he passed the night there") for D;* 5lSn. ('and he went there'). The lettera I and 1 are very liable to confusion ; and <t»i/'J«^«« ia the constant rendering of the verb p7 (' to dwell ") in the LXX.
91« Jr.. ^i>«i, if M,,; OOraK ix upvm raivraui, is a literal rendering of the Heb. ('jns '?'lp (-o'l 'and they said with a loud voice') ; LXX Q012) Is again wrong with xxi iTt.. MiV. ralr. ri
I ran 19 ^ftMt wtinrma.
These few instances ont of many show beyond a doubt that the compiler, or the author of the version he is using, had a knowledge of the Heb as against the other Gr. version, and that Es A is an
important autliority for a critical emendation of the Heb. text.
The most recent supporter of the third view, and of the claims of tliis book to attention, is Sir H. H. Howorth, in a series of six articles in W\e Academy for 1893 on ' The real character and the importance of the first book of Esdras.' His attempt to estab- lisli the historical credibility of the book and its chronological accuracy, as against the canonical Ezra, is beset by numerous difficulties, and cannot be maintained. Thus he regards the Darius who despatched Zerubbabel as Darius II. Nothus (424), who was a century later than Darius Hystaspes (522), and is forced to date the return under Ezra, and that under Neliemiali, more than half a century later than the dates ordinarily assigned to those events ; he regards Sanabassar or Shesh- bazzar as a distinct person from Zerubbabel ; he says that the misplaced section Es A 2""*' preserves the original order of the Aramaic chronicle from which it is derived ; and he regards tlie story of the three pages as 'equally valuable and worthy of credit with the rest of the book.' It is lost labour to attempt to reconcile this book with history ; the compJer has put together his materials regard- less of the inconsequences involved. But Sir H. Howorth's views on the relations between the two Gr. books are far more deserving of notice ; he has here been partly anticipated by Pohlmann (op. cit. 273-275). He argues that ' Es A represents the true LXX text ; Es B represents another tr., which in all probability was that of Theodotion ' ; and he quotes the parallel of the two versions of Daniel. The existing evidence makes it probable that this view is so far correct, that Es A represents the first attempt to present the story of the Return in a Gr. dress, the story of the three pages being perhaps added by a later compiler. Subsequently a complete and a more accurate rendering of tlie Heb. was required, and this was supplied by what is now called the LXX version of Ch, Ezr, Neh. Whether this took place so late as the time of Theodotion may be questioned.
In favour of the priority of Es A, these points may be noted : —
1. The Position of the Book and its earliest Title in the MSS ('EtrSpas a'). — The explanation usually given is that the events described in it precede in part the events in the LXX Ezr. It is equally probable that it was assigned the prior position because it was the earlier of the two Gr. versions.