SEPTUAGINT
SEnUAGINT
451
H ;lmes, the versions as mtuesses for ffi, we must add further v.*; i.e. not 5 times, but 8 times, G omits ■Ti.T in this chapter, and liaa it only twice (w."-").* The second care must be to observe the practice of these translators ; cf. Sw. p. 325 : 'The Alexandrian translators, wliile loyal to their original, aometinios even to a fault, manifest notliinj; like the slavish adherence to the letter with which Aquila has been charged. They often amplify and occasionally orait ; they render the same Hebrew words by more than one Greek efjuivalent, even in the same context ; they intro- duce metaphors or grammatical constructions which have no place in the Hebrew text, and probably at no time had a place there, or tliey abandon lifjures of speech where the}' exist in the original.' Tliere is no mention here of the fact especially urged by Frankel, that the translators followed some sort of exegetical tradition (L. Frankel, Vurstndien zu der Sc/itutiijiiifri, 1841 ; Ueber den EinJIuss der paldstitiixc/ieti Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermrncitli/:, 1851). We must further bear in mind that the translators were accustomed to the Aramaic speech rather than to the Hebrew. To the examples quoted by Sw. p. 319, add, for in- stance, Ps 59 (60)« i'm = Ajrt$, 140 (141)' D.i-riy5 = ivSoKlais atnuv. Already Jerome remarked on this word in Ec l" nijn = vpoalpcaa : ' non hebraicum sermonem expre.sserunt, sed syrum.' On meanmgs attached to Hebrew roots known to us only from Arabic see Sw. p. 498, Ps 83 (84) ' iiiaei, Dn "i^ (LXX) to60ri= ^Inzv.
A glance into modern commentaries or the 'Critical Notes' after the Hebrew text in SBOT will show the importance of G in this direction. No conscientious commentator on the Hebrew OT can dis|)ense wth constant reference to (5. We quote some examples from the first chapter of some books in SBOT—
Ie On 1 Ball replace* c^p^ by mm^rvtuyi^t ; but he, too, has overlooked the interesting vanant in v. 18 (like all commen- taries (to our knowlcdffe, Dillmann, Spurrell, UolzLnger, Guokel), except T. G. .Mt^intcl, Crituche PolyiiLotten-Cunferenztn uiier dot erste. Buck MoKe, 1790 ; a work of praiaeworthy in- dustn), no fcnving the sing. nJ'lJ'CC, O the pL ipx'", <•<•• n'rif'"?, the latter being condnned by Pe 135 (1.%)", where /ID has tlie [>liiral, Q il^tjff.Ki the singular. The same difference oncurs 2- !0 ' his works') ; and tliuL this is not unintentional, is shown by the Targum Jonathan, which understands tile passjige of those 10 wondrous works whieh (Jod is said by rabbinical wit to have created.
In Lv 1 Driver receives readings of © into the text in w.l7. »■ 1« ; In Nu 1 Paterson in v." ^Niyi lor ^Kiyi, /ID. For Jos 1 it is sufficient to quote Bennett's remark on v.2 ; ' in this and other cases glosses, etc, not found in © art probably glosses later than the MS from which 0 was translated, and therefore better treated as variations of the text'
A remark on Judgeji by Moore has already been quoted ; in !'• he reads 'p'jDyi for D]in ; one witness of (5 and the Coptic offering the doublet fura nv Juz^v 'A^j/mX^x. The original read* ing, the simple Amalec, has been found since, for the first time, in the Latin Lugdunensis, published by U. Robert.
On Samuel, after what has been done byThenius, Wellhausen, Driver, Klosteruiann, Budde, II. P. Smith, any word is super- fluous ; but the question may be asked, whether one would have found, r.g., in 1 S l" the true reading E'^f 9 18? tor D'1?? .lyS'f by mere conjecture without the help of the versions (i» fi*rxtt Tfi»tT>Xt>T,). And if we had hit on it In this way, we should not have had the same confidence In Its truth as we have now, when it is attested by the oldest witness attainabl&
As far as we have seen, in every part of the SBOT that has appeared as yet, one or more rtadiiujg from (3 have been received into the text in the first chapter bv such different scholars as Comlll.Toy, Wellhausen, Siegfried, Kamphausen, Outhe, Kittel. But how much remains to be done may be illuiitrated by two examples from 1 Ch 1. On v.» Kittel remarks : ' O + VLijea ; It bu crept In '/y error from v.' after )1' (ct (34,' overlooking the
\l
• Even in t." It Is omitted by a few witnenes (Ood. 87, Ambroslus), but Augustine testifies to it, saying expressly : ' NuUo modo vacare arbitror . . . auod ah Ipso divini libri huiiis exordlo . . . umiue ad hunc locum, nuaquam positum est Dominus Deua, sed tantunnnodo Deus : nunc vero ubi ad Id vontum est ... it* Scriptura locut* est: Et sumpsit Domiuus Deua.*
fact that (5 has ' EUsa ' among the sons of Japheth already In Gn lO'J. Again, in v.»2 Kittel omits to mention the additional names Raguel and Nabdeel, offered by man.v witnesses, just aa in Qenesia. If eart-juUii compared with /ID.'O turns out to be (As inott wUuable aid fur the explanation of the Hebrew Bible.
But (5 is not less indispensable to the study of the XT : see on this point S w. pp. 450-457 ; Pearson a judgment (at the head of this article) ; Thayer's art. Language of the NT, vol. iii. p. 40. To quote only one example : d7a7ri;T4s and p.oi/oyei'-/it both correspond in G to Heb. I'n;; the one occurs in the Synoptic Gospels, the other in John.