An interesting problem is presented by the relation of the texts of Codd. A and B in this Dook. The text of A is always the smoother and more readable ; and wherever the reading of E suggests a suspicion of corruption, A almost invariably gives the requisite correction. Several of these corrections may be attributed to an * Alexandrian * revision of the text, removing grammatical solecisms and harsh phrases ; such are 130 iSpv'«vi (B idpyitturact), 133 etrixarirrriTlt ai/rit . . . rtv ;*>i jSeu-tXtuur (B om. rev /[*»)), 161 yi rxiit] iu^MTou(h rkt mBaiToCf), 31* •» Kpint) . . . »Ti i ^oy»c cuTcv rafvTtpos (B » a* tipirti . . . trt ov i k. tci/Tou fe^.), 338 llBXtTon Iri^C vpo! TO, 'iripef (B l7f rir Vti^o*), 812 ixoXotfiav ii<
ixti *' r£ refj^M (6 «»>\. i ixtt tofiM). But in Other places it is hard to suppose that A does not preserve the original text. Thus 122 (24; ,(„; i\Crr)fatt moret I* OLirHiru (' they grieved him to the heart,' a phrase illustrated by Jth 1617 ; B xai i i>.Cmrm a.C'rev iirr't), 1*1 Joachim at his accession fir irit iiiut imrii (ct. 2 Ch 3fp, B ^u irur enrtii), 4^ ri, pixoy 0, iiiirvpirett »1 '12«uuarM (B 'louiccioi), 6^ jucrs ri wpcrrxyfMt (B xai ri wpc^r.), S"*! twi rit Al>-cul,ov Stpetr wormfjut (B om. ^ukv). 8^ Ka.1 x^titiXm rtti
rpi-^iuputTat (B Ko-riruitt rev rei^.). Fritzsche (Einleituna, 1851, § 8) remarks that B is on the whole a ver^ pure ana A an emended text ; but it Is noticeable that m his subsequent critical edition (Lihri Apocryphi Vet. Te«t. 1871J in the pas- sages given above and in numerous others he adopts the reading of A and abandons ' the pure text of B.' Still more noticeable is it that the earliest author to quote Es A supports the A text against the B. It is not always possible to reconstruct the text which Josephus used owing to his habit of paraphrasing the authority which lay before him ; but out of 13 passages in thij book where a comparison is possible, in 10 he agrees with A against B, while in three only does he side with B against A
Jos. Ant. W.m.Bvpestrtc^trc'ui 'Ihauf^ceiou* . . . kjtitat. rkf ttMt4M4 (Es 4^ ««< <»s *i 'lioVfMCici et^ienrit rkt K^fjmt, B ei \aXict)oi). XI. iv. 1 rev i,i2o(My fx^iot (Es 5^- ifiii^uou, B T^flirow), XI. iv. 6 Ktt'i tvpiH*. if 'Exfietrtifoit rt) 0apv Tfi if Mfiii^ &ifiKief. •* £ jt.r.A. (Es 6^ «. iit. if 'Kjk3- r^ 0<ipu r^ f> M,;2|jfi X'i'P^ rouet iTr iv or ... B rtwti i» i- A preserves the indefinite article ; cf. Es B 6^ xtfxkii f*''tt ; B is a corruption of the Oreek of A^ ; x^ t. 1 atfifiyjutfi iiptt ri 'XcpatnXirit 0|« (Es 813 mntlytujf iSpm rm twpiat rev ,rX, B rf twpiv) ; id. KckAffDiirefrmt i' hrei Setteir^ 4 Ct;.u/« xfifiMtrixH (Es 82l fuKetrBrifftfreti lar r\ ssj 0«,wt« idc* n Mt rtf^Mpi». fl ecpyvptxri ^r^f^p *] ^rayetyfj : B f*ii i^yvp. - C*I^V* A is undoubtedly best) ; XI. v. 2 fvfityetymf v< ri ripxf rev h^v^pt^rtm (did Joa. read iwi re kiyofMfer wipaf wtrmusv in Es 8^ ? A 4^1M* TcT«u6*, B wvTaLu.ef) ; vl. rixvpev< iaiiixa. virip xairiif rev X««S
ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF
ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 76S
rmr^f•t^t, Mfiitvt itif^xtfvrs, x.c.>. with A in Es S*^ (6 omiU a line throu^'h confusion, perhaiw, of KTPId and KPIOTI); ll. ». 8
TbeM instances fonn a strong argument (or the early exist- ence ii not the ori^n&lity of the A text. The chief passage where Joe. appeara to favour B ij Es 6^ (B xa< r « ^ « rttt Juimtiut CAJ Tvpttic u( r» watpxytii ; A M*ppa e ' cars ' ; Jos. XL ir. 1 Tttt VI 2titfit*tt ni'u Mai ««i>^«f lir . . . marxyMjrit).
On the MSS generally see Fritzache, Einleitung, §8.
Of VSS, Sabatier prints two Lat. versions, one of whicU he calls the Vulg., and a ' versio altera' ('ex MS Colbertino annonuu circiter 800'). In reality they appear to be two distinct VSS of the O.L. Jerome left the O.L. untouched, and the Lat. now given in the Appendix to the Vulg. is not his work. A third Lat. version of Es A 3-^ (abbreviated) and of a few verses elsewhere in the book is given in Lagarde {Septuaginta Studien, ii. 1892) from a MS in the cathedral of Lucca written about 670. Tlie book did not exist in the Peshifta Syriac, but is found in the Syro-Hexaplar of Paul of Telia (A.D. 616) ; the Syriac is given in Walton's Polyglot, 1657. There is a free render- ing of the book in the Armenian version.
LrnRATCWL— Fritzsche, Eifget. Handb. z. d. Apokr. I. CLeipzig, 1851), Introd. and Uomm. ; Fritzsche, Libri Apocr, Vtt. Tat. grace (Leipzig, 1871), a crit. ed. of the text ; Zockler, Die Apokryphen, 156-161 (in Strack und Z6ckler*8 Kqjf, Komm, 1889) ; Schiirer, HJP, Eng. tr. n. iil. 177-181 ; Ewald, Hist, oj It., Eng. tr. t. 126-128. Special treatises on the relation between Ea A and Es B ; Trendelenburg (in Eichhorn's AUgemnne BiUiotlifk der Bibl. LUt. 1. 178-232, Leipzig, 1787) ; Pohlmann, ' Ueber das Ansehen des apokr. dritten Buchs Esras, In Tubingen Theol. (^uartaUchrift, 1859, 267-276). In English the best edd. are Bissell (in Lan);e's Comm. on OT 1880) and LaptOD in The Speaker^e Comm., Apocrypha, vol. 1. 1888. A ■eriefl of papers on ' The Character and Importance of 1 Esdras,' by Sir H. II. Iloworth in the Academj/, 1803, vol. 43 (pp. 13, 60, 108, 174, 326, 624). Jos. Ant. xi. 1-5 (Niese). For further references see Schurer. H. Sx, J. ThaCKBRAV.