The number of these books varies greatly in the still e.xisting documents ; of others only the titles have survived ; a certain number remained known through the medium of the mediajval Bible as 'Apocrypha' even in the Protestant Churches. On these see art. Apocrvtha, vol. i. p. Ill tl'., and the special articles, as Baruch, i. 251 ;t Bel and
THE DRAGOX, 276; ESDRAS, FIRST AND SECOND,
757, 763; J Jeremy, Epistle of, vol. ii. p. 578; Judith, 822; Maccabep^s, books of (i. -v.), vol. iii. p. 187 ; Manasses, Prayer of, 232 ; further, SiRACH, Three Children (Sono of the), Susanna, Wisdom of Solomon. That the collection of these books, though it is
* Swete'8 statement, that Oripen marked the passage with an •"telus, lacks reliable testhnonv ; the words of Jerome are curious : • in hebraico non haberi nee etge in tfptua^inta inffr- pretilnu, sed in editione vulgata, quae ^rffice «/i..i dlcitur e^ in toto orbe diversa est.' The words in italics are omitted in Field's quotation from e<L Vail. iv. 663.
t The puzzlinif fact that on the margin of the Svro-Hexaplarlo text of Baruch there arc 3 notes stating that certain words in ]17 23 are not found in the Hebrew, which has been quoted for a Hebrew orijrin of this part of the book (i. '2,''i2 ; Sw. 276, n. S from Bevan in Encpc. Bibl. L 494), is in contradiction to the remark at the head of the book, that the whole was obelized by Origen, and finds a very simple solution. For these notes do not refer to the text of Baruch, hut of the Hebrew OT iiuoted by Baruch 2' from Dt 2853. Ori^fn called attention to the fact that the generalizing ' every man ' «.«;•«■•» in Bar 2^ haa no P'N P'x to correspond in Dt 28". Thus these notes are a token of the great care which Origen bestowed on his Hexapla.
t On the statement of Sw. p. 266, and Thackeray (DO, vol. i. p. 7,'i8), that Cod. A entitles both books iifii^t, cf. 'Nestle Marmnalien (1893), p. 28f., where it is shown that this is merely due to the knife of the English bookbinder, who cut away in both cases the first line of the title Er^«( (or IiyJ)«()
transmitted to us almost exclusively through the Church, began to form itself in pre-Christian times, is clear from the contents (see vol. L 117, iii. 35). A trace that G difi'ered from fH in its order and extent may be found in Josephus ; for he uses not only the Greek Esdras and the Additions to Esther, but follows also the order of G (not Ifl) when he counts 5 hooks of Moses, 13 Prophetical and 4 Poetical books, placing, apparently. Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther (from the Hagiographa) after Kings (see Strack, ' Kanon des AX, in PRE^ ix. 752).
On some lists of other Apocryphal books see Sw. p. 281 ; the Catalogue of the Sixty Books begins after the canonical and so-called 'apocryphal' books (the two Wisdoms, etc.) : Koi Saa a.ir6Kpv(pa- 'Addfi, 'Eni'x, Aduext ilarptapxai, llpofffux'? 'Iwini0, 'EXSdS, AiaBi'iKij yiwv(Tiuis,' AvaXTiif/i! M. etc. It is an interesting question, whether a trace of this apocryphal tradi- tion is not to be found already in Sirach (49''''^*). For, after he has gone through the whole literature of the OT down to Zorobabel and Nehemias, he suddenly returns to Enoch, Joseph, Shem, Seth, and Adam.
In an appendix to the Cambridge Septuagint at least two of these books have found a place — the Psalms of Solomon (the apparatus being much en- larged in the 2nd ed. (iii. 765 U'.)) and the Greek fragments of the Book of Enoch (for the first time added in the 2nd ed. (iii. 789 ff.)). On the Psalms of Solomon cf. the German translation of Kittel in Kautzsch, Die Pseudcpigrnphen,121-li8; on Enoch, the new Berlin edition, Das Bitch Henoch, lieraus- gegebeu von Dr. Job. Flemminjr und Dr. L. Rader- macher, 1901. Much to be welcomed would be a collection of the OT apocrypha as sketched by Sw. p. 285, including amongst other remains the Rest of t/ie IVoi-ds of Baruch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Testament of Abraham, parts of the Oracul'i Sihyllina, the Testaments of the XII Patriarch'^, the Latin AscenMon of Isaiah (with the new Greek Fragments published by Grenfell - Hunt in The Amherst Papyri, part i. 1900; see on it F. C. Burkitt, The Classical Review, xiv. 457-459) ; per- haps also the Latin versions of 4 Esdras, Assump- tion of Moses, Book of Jubilees.
All these additions and omissions cover but the smaller part of the differences between US and ffi ; far more numerous are the variations in the proper sense of the word, the passages where G offers a reading different from Ifl. On this point cf. Sw. part ii. ch. v. ' The Septuagint as a Version,' and p.art iii. ch. iv. 'The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.' A thorough, accurate, and cautious comparison between itl and G will exhibit these variations. The comparison must be cautious, else there is the risk of stating variations where there are none, and it must be accurate and thorough, else real variations might be overlooked. In the lirst place, care must be taken to eliminate as much as possible from G all intra-Greek corrup- tions, i.e. clerical errors, that sprang up in the course of transmission of the Greek text, and it is a mistake of many Commentaries to rest content to take the text of the small Cambridge Septuagint as the standard, as former scholars used to acqui»-so» in that of the Sixtina. Take as example the la'.est German Commentary on Genesis, that of Gunkel (Gottingen, 1901), and the very first note touching the textual criticism of this book. It concerns the use of the Divine names in ch. 2, and runs : ' .Tiir d'.iVk is found in Genesis in Hebrew only in chs. 2. 3 (LXX, differing from the Hebrew, has in 2»' '•»•"• " i Sfis).' Now, this is true of the Codex Alezan- drinus : if Gunkel had used the editio Sixtina, he would have had to add vv,'- " ; and if we are still more circumspect, as commentators ought to be, and resort to Philo, Field's Hexapla, the collations oj