Page:Apocrypha-and-Pseudepigrapha-Charles-A.djvu/24

I ESDRAS

manifests his intelligence when the skilful paronomasia ἄνεσιν καὶ ἄφεσιν (iv. 62), suggestive of a Greek composer, goes back none the less to a Semitic original (cf. Susanna, 54 seqq.), and the use of the name Sisinnes (vi. 3) in place of the MT Tattenai is typical of his care. E, it is clear, was made to be read, it is a version rather than a translation, and its value for the criticism of the MT must not blind us to its imperfections (on which see Bayer, 11 seqq.). Consequently, a mean must be sought between a promiscuous and haphazard use of E and a whole-hearted though indiscriminate reliance upon its readings and paraphrases. The attempt must invariably be made to distinguish between the underlying text and the features which (as in the Septuagint elsewhere) are due to the translator alone, and the difficulty of this task in certain crucial cases is vital for the disentanglement of the problems of E.^[1]

(b) E and the MT. It is abundantly plain that E is not derived from the G (Theodotion) of the Canonical Books. Where there is agreement, the evidence points to accident or absence of intention, and is not strong enough to prove dependence (see the most recent study by Bayer, 156–61). In certain cases where they agree against the MT they sometimes are due to an easy misunderstanding, and sometimes point to a preferable reading; now and then the more literal version alone preserves an older text. It is highly significant that E is occasionally conflate, and presents simple doublets (e.g. ii. 25, vi. 29, ix. 8, 46), or more elaborate combinations made with some little care (e.g. v. 50, 58, 72 seq., vi. 5, 10, &c. [see Marq. 44–7]). This revision appears to have been made from the MT, and E vi. 25 actually presents the incorrect 'new' (חדת) of the MT by the side of the correct 'one' (חד). Revision has also been made for the purpose of removing difficulties (so, probably v. 73b, in view of the date in vi. 1), or of making identifications (Zerubbabel, vi. 18, 27, 29). These adjustments, which are not found in Theodotion, seem to have been made first in the Greek version, and thus might appear to confirm the view that E is based upon an earlier Greek version (Ewald). The question of the underlying original, however, would still remain, and it is very important to notice that not only does E often presuppose a better text than the MT, but that some of the readings raise questions of literary structure and historical criticism. Consequently, E is not directly based either upon Theodotion's literal translation or the extant MT; the marks of revision point rather to an attempt to adjust to the MT an earlier version which differed from it in some material respects, large (nos. 1, 2, 4, on p. 1 above) and small (e.g. v. 39 seq., 47, vi. 28, vii. 1, ix. 38, 49).^[2]

(c) MSS. and Versions. The Greek MSS. fall into two main classes, (1) Lucianic (MSS. 19, 108), and (2) B, A, &c. The former stand in a class by themselves, reveal many signs of correction and improvement in order to agree with the MT, and can be used only with great caution (see Torrey, 106 seqq.). The latter comprise two main subdivisions, B and A. B is distinctly the inferior, but shows fewer traces of correction. For a full grouping of all the MSS., see the elaborate discussion by Moulton, ZATW, xix. 211 seqq. א, it may be added, lacks E, but its subscription Εσδρας β (N xiii. 31) presupposes an 'Esdras A.'

Two old Latin translations were printed by Sabatier (Bibl. Sacr. Lat. iii. 1041 seqq.), with a collation of MS. Sangermanensis—L^C (Cod. Colbertinus; no. 3703), and a later which in a revised form was used as the Vulgate. A summary from a Lucca MS. was edited by Lagarde, Sept. Stud. ii. 16 seqq. (L Lag.). These differ from, and, on the whole, are purer than G^L.

The Syriac Peshitta is without Chron., Ezra, and Neh. E S is the Syro-Hexapla of Paul of Telia, printed in Walton's Polyglot and by Lagarde (Lib. Vet. Test. Apocr. Syr., 1861). It is explicitly said to be from the Septuagint, and the same is stated at the head of a collection of excerpts in the old Syriac Catena, British Museum, Add. 12168 (see on ix. 55). The variants of the latter and its selections from N are printed by Torrey, 5 seqq., and these selections, with a retranslation into Greek, collation, and complete introductory discussion by Gwynn (see p. 3 n. 3). S has many points of contact with G^L, especially in i. 1–9, but on the whole a relationship with G^B is more distinct.

The Ethiopic translation (ed. Dillmann, Vet. Test. Aeth., Vol. V) represents the text of G^B, S, &c, in contrast to G^A, and, according to Torrey (101), 'is a valuable witness to the Hexaplar text. It must have been made with unusual care from a comparatively trustworthy codex.'

The Arabic translation awaits study (PSBA, xxiv. 169); the Armenian is valueless (Volz, § 2).

(d) Josephus. The Jewish historian (first cent. A.D.), with his continuous history of the monarchy and post-exilic age, stands nearest (of extant compilations) to the chronicler in point of antiquity. He is a valuable exponent of the attempt to weave heterogeneous material into a readable and more or less consistent whole, and his greatest claim to attention lies in the evidence he

1. On the general features of E's version, see further Moulton, 226; Thackeray, 760a; Torrey, 83 seq.
2. For the textual value of E see, in addition to the commentaries on E-N, the discussions by Riessler (Biblische Zeitschrift, v. 146 seqq.) and Bayer.

4