STOP
Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
journal-content .
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.
"MAN BY MAN," JOSHUA 7, 17
By Max L. Margous, Dropsie College
In his Lectures on "The Polity of the Ancient He-
brews" (JQR., New Series, III, 1 ff.) Judge Sulzberger
has occasion to cite the "classical text" in Josh. 7, 16-18
bearing on the subject of the Israelite army organization
and, after giving his own version, aptly remarks : "The text
is slightly defective, but a careful reading of it justifies this
translation."
The text in question is indeed faulty. The two English
Versions (Authorized, Revised) reproduce the Hebrew
text as commonly printed. As the differences between the
two Versions are only verbal we may transcribe here the
Revised. "(16) So Joshua rose up early in the morning,
and brought Israel near by their tribes; and the tribe of
Judah was taken: (17) and he brought near the family of
Judah ; and he took the family of the Zerahites : and he
brought near the family of the Zerahites man by man; and
Zabdi was taken: (18) and he brought near his house-
hold man by man; and Achan, the son of Carmi, the son
of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was
taken."
One need only turn to verse 14 to realize the two
points wherein the received text is at fault. Verse 14
reads in the Revised Version (which again differs only
verbally from the Authorized) : "In the morning therefore
319
320 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
ye shall be brought near by your tribes: and it shall be,
that the tribe which the Lord taketh shall come near by
families; and the family which the Lord taketh shall come
near by households; and the household which the Lord
shall take shall come near man by man." Accordingly, the
divisions are: the tribe (MB>), the family (nnse>»), the
household (JV3)> the man (laJ). We should therefore ex-
pect verse 17 to have read: "And he brought near the tribe
of Judah by families ; and he took the family of the Zera-
hites : and he brought near the family of the Zerahites house-
hold by household; and Zabdi was taken." Such, in sub-
stance, is the version acceptetd by the learned Judge, and
he is sustained by modern commentators.
When we approach the Hebrew of verse 17, the sub-
stitution of dtqS (household by household) for vraib (man
by man) is a self-evident remedy. As for the beginning
of the verse, all that is required is a change in the pointing
of the first nnsK'D: in the received text it is pointed nnsE>D
(family, in the singular), but we should point the word
nftsE'p (families, in the plural). Accordingly, what the
author intended was: "And he brought near the families
of Judah" — which is indeed an abbreviated expression for
the phraseology postulated on the basis of verse 14: "And
he brought near the tribe of Judah by families."
The two forms of the text, the received and the
emended, may now be placed in juxtaposition:
Received Text Emended Text
bmw ris rip^i npaa yma* Dam 16
a-ipV° nnrv Datr 12^1 visaed
nx la^i miiT nnac'D nx nx la^i mm* nhae><? n«
n« 3ipV* Trim nnse'o
"MAN BY MAN" — MARGOLIS 321
onaib imrn nnsE>D dtq^ "mm nnsj?D
irra n« mpv 8 nnt nabi
•'Bia p pj> na^i onaib
niiiT ntaob mr p nat p
The Emended Text is printed as above by Bennett in
Haupt's Bible (1895). In his Notes (page 26) we read:
"nnsEto, with some MSS. and (g (Septuagint) 3 (Vulgate) ;
DTD^, with 3 (Vulgate) <g (Peshitta) and some MSS.,
Dillm(ann), &c." He also remarks: "(& (Septuagint) A
(omits) ijb and m n« in 18; which Hollenberg (Progr.
13) is inclined to follow."
As will be noted, the authority of the Septuagint is
adduced for the first change ( nftaK'D ) , but not for the
second (DTD 1 ?), obviously because, with Hollenberg, he
finds verse tyb to have been wanting in the Septuagint,
though he is not ready to follow Hollenberg in the as-
sumption that the second half of verse 17 is a late addition
in our Hebrew text which should be excised. Driver in
Kittel's Bible (second edition, 1909) at least notes that ten
manuscripts of the Greek read "by households"; but that
is still far from saying what the original Greek translator
read and wrote.
The aim of the present paper is to show that the
verse-half in question was present in the Septuagint and
that furthermore the translator read in his Hebrew text
But before the argument is presented in substantiation
of my double contention it may be well to ascertain upon
what authority the Received Text rests or who are its wit-
nesses.
322 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Both Baer and Ginsburg print the two obvious errors:
nnsE'p and Dnaib. Baer has nothing to say on the former;
with regard to the latter he remarks : "The Soncino edition
prints faultily DTqS ." The Soncino edition of the Prophets
(1485-1486) is the first print of that part of the Script-
ures. According to Ginsburg, the second print of the
Prophets in the first print of the entire Bible (Soncino
1488) has likewise QTab. The other books (DnriK DnBD)
which, according to Ginsburg, read nfratsto and DTI3? are
certain manuscripts enumerated by Kennicott and De-
Rossi. 1 De-Rossi adds that "by households" is found not
only in the Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta, but also in the
Aldine edition of the Septuagint, on the authority of
Fischer, Prolus, de versionibus Graecis 8, Leipzig 1772,
page 156, who favors this reading, though Masius accepts
the current reading "man by man." I have Fischer before
me; he adds that the reading is apparently supported by
verse 14.
When prints and manuscripts differ, recourse must
be had to (a) Masoretic evidence and (b) the testimony of
the Jewish mediaeval commentators.
According to the Masorah on Num. 3, 23/ four in-
stances of nnstyp (singular) occur in Leviticus and Joshua
(or Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Joshua), to wit: Levit.
25, 47 and the three in Josh. 7, 17. Hence the pointing
nnQE'p at the head of verse 17 is recognized by the Masorah
and the reading niriBB>0 must be pronounced contrary to the
1 mnSt£*Q, so with vowel letter indicating the plural, Kenn. 182, 250; 548
and 598 in the margin; 155 first hand, i. e. under the subsequent correction;
DTD? 253, 257, 260, 524, 583 margo, 366 over an erasure, D'1227 DTD?
— both readings together — 531; De-Rossi 305 first hand, 20, 174, 663 over an
erasure, 716 in the margin.
2 See Ginsburg, The Massorah, letter D, No. 846, compare also No. 847a.
"MAN BY MAN" — MARG0US 323
Masorah. — A list in Ginsburg, letter b, No. 14, consists of
words beginning in b each of which is found only once in
Scripture (Jinnim nb ini in b3\ b prwm ); among them
figures D'riB^ of Josh. 7, 14. Hence the reading &mb in
verse 17 is ruled out by the Masorah and D ,- a:6 there is
substantiated as Masoretic.
As for the Jewish commentators, Kimhi's exposition
makes it plain that he read nnaeto and Dnaai). According to
him, "the family of Judah" is the same as "the tribe of
Judah"; supply ninat^ "by families." The first Dnaib
he paraphrases by rinse-en Tia W) wvb "man by man who
is the head of a household," while the second tDM means
Ivan 'box the individual members of the household.
But we have earlier evidence for the reading Bniib in
verse 17. In the first place the Targum has it ( snaa^;
the Targum also pointed the first nnst^D in the singular,
rvjnr, Praetorius, Das Targum su Josua, 1899). But we
may ascend still higher. We find it in the Septuagint re-
cension of Origen which dates from the middle of the
third century of our era.
Origen's recension with its critical signs* is extant in
the Syriac translation of Paul of Telia (616-7). I* was
published by Lagarde (1892) from a British Museum
manuscript and the critical signs where faultily placed or
entirely wanting were restored from the commentary of
Masius" who had before him another manuscript which has
since disappeared.
* A plus found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek text which
was subjected to revision was introduced by an asterisk, *, and closed by a
metobelus, : or V.
* Andrew Du Maes, died 1573. His work on Joshua appeared in 1574;
it is excerpted in the second volume of the Critici Sam.
324 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
The Syriac text of verses 17 and 18 reads as follows
(to obviate typographical difficulties it is given in Hebrew
type) : mpnNi> mn Nonit: •'innKi | xiim * KDftio tn mpntn
jam r6n «rpp mpnKi hit ■'•tnnsi * ttfaa tr\2i Onn ndhid
Krme> jo * mn mn nan ma wan mi nay •'lnrwi | k-dj
I trnnn.
The words enclosed within < > are missing in the
manuscript (and are omittted by Lagarde). Whether the
omission occurred at some stage in the Syriac transmission
of the text or was present in the Greek archetype upon
which the translation was based is immaterial. It is sim-
ply a case of aberration of the scribe's eye from the first
mn (or its Greek equivalent) to the second (homoioteleu-
ton).
The Greek for the Syriac as given above is extant in
the manuscripts underlying Lagarde's edition of the Greek
Old Testament (1883; one of those manuscripts served as
the basis of the first printed edition of the Septuagint in
the Complutensian Polyglot). There is a gap right at the
start the nature of which escaped Lagarde. He prints in
brackets mi irpoavx^n Kara fy/iovc But one more word should
be added: umSa. The scribe's eye wandered from wvda with
which verse 16 closes to wvda of verse 17. Hence the full
text reads '. <jiai ■Kpoatixdrj Kara dq/iovf tovda^> mi aveSeix^V typoc °
£apaei Km TrpooijxOy Sij/ioc o £apaei Kara avipa mt avedetxOy fa/3<5£i kcu
irpoarix^V o ot/cof avrov Kara avdpa Km avedeix^V ax a P m0 C X a Pl ttL vlov
^afideL viov i^apa ttjq §vfai$ covda.
As will be observed, the critical signs are missing. The
two texts supply each other's deficiencies admirably.
Origen accordingly wrote : tun -Kpoarix^n K <"' a fiyftove # iovSa ■. km
avedeixfo} <%«>f o C,apau Km npooiJxQ'n <%/of o i^apaei Kara avdpa.{s) * Km
MAN BY MAN — MARGOUS 325
aveSuxfty fa/3(i« mi npoarjxOri oim<; avTov Kara avSpa : nai avedeix^l
axap wos x a PP ei mov Z a M el mov £ a P a * TWQ <j>v7ir/c lovSa :
It is obvious that Origen read in his Hebrew of verse
Ij D 1 *!^? tara awf/jaff), comp. D , "133;> mra avSpa verse l8.
The error in the Hebrew is as old as Origen.
We may take it for granted that all such manuscripts
of the Septuagint as exhibit the reading mra avSpa^ in verse
17 were influenced by Origen's recension.
Two such manuscripts are F (Ambrosianus) and n (a
Mount Athos manuscript hitherto uncollated of which pho-
tographs have been secured by the Dropsie College. It is
related to some twelve manuscripts grouping around the
Catena Nicephori, but has readings of its own). They di-
verge at the end, but otherwise present a text substantially
identical : Fn mi ■Kpoarix^V Kara Srjfiovg mvda mi evedetxOl Sr/fio^ £apat
(F reads £api) mi rrpoar/xSr/ 8q[to( o i^apai mr(a") avdpac ' mi evedux&l
(omitted in F) oikoq £a/ij3pt Kat izpoarjx^ oikoc (F adds avrov)
/cai-foQ avdpa(c~) • mi evedeixOq &X a P
n vio( (afippi viov l,apa tov x a PP l mov avrov
F vw( x a Pf el vwv fc/tfipet viov (apa
Fn Trie fyvktjs tovSa.
Opposite the portion which is enclosed above between
two upper points there is found on the margin of n an
asterisk (*). To the sign -+- over fr/ippi corresponds in the
same manuscript on the margin x a PV-i- by the first hand.
Both texts have Origen's additions. Both have the
telltale mT[a) avdpas in verse 17. Both however, write
Sapppi in the place of (afidei. In this they revert to the form
of the name in the Greek text antedating Origen, which
form goes back to a Hebrew variant "nor for the received
"HST. In I Chron. 2, 6 Zimri is the first-born of Zerah, the
326 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
son of Judah. As for the divergence at the end, F, bar-
ring the form t,wPph coincides with Origen, while n text
(not: margin) in common with its group members curtails
the pedigree by one and then adds by way of rectification
that the culprit was not really the son of Zimri, but his son
Carmi's son. We shall meet below in one other manuscript
belonging to a different group with the same ending.
The Origen recension underlies furthermore the
uncials A (Alexandrinus) and its recently discovered con-
gener e (Washington Codex). Of the two A is intact,
while the scribe of e (or a predecessor of his) made an
omission by homoioteleuton exactly at the place where the
scribe of the Syriac has erred. Restore e as follows:
kcu ■Kpocrix8rj Kara Srifiovq Km svedeixOtf Srjfioq C,apai <^k<u irpoa^x^V fyftoc
fapar> /car avdpag nai evsdeixSv o-X a P mo C fapfiP 1 viov C,apa with which
Compare A : mi irpwrtixfy lcaTa <%*»»£ «ai evedeix9y fyu-OQ iaptei mi
irpoarixOij Srifio^ t,apiu /car avdpag Km eveSeixSi] ax& (i. e. ax av J
»)(0f fa/i/Hpi viov ^apa.
The differences are trifling (note «.x«- v in A = pjj as in our
Hebrew text; the Septuagint writes <*;w = i35?, comp.
1 Chron. 2, 7) . Both have the curtailed pedigree at the end
but without the postscript which we find in n.
The manner in which the text of the two uncials was
constructed is plain. It is an eclectic text. A pre-Origen
text was followed in the ending (note the curtailed pedigree
and the form Zambri) ; otherwise a transcript was made
of Origen's revised text, omitting the additions marked by
an asterisk but retaining a plus where Origen failed to
mark it by signs (perhaps the signs were missing in the
copy immediately before the scribe which may have been
itself a transcript of Origen's text).
"MAN BY MAN" — MARGOIJS 327
On the basis of the present case it might be argued that
Ae constitute the text which Origen made the basis of his
revision. Hence the second cV»c o ^apau was unmarked
from the start, since it was found in that text. But when
all the evidence derived from a critical study of Ae
throughout the book of Joshua is brought to bear upon the
problem the inference is unavoidable that the two uncials
have made use of Origen and not the reverse. Naturally
Ae retained Origen's /car avfipag in verse 17.
The text which Origen made the basis of his revision
is none other than the famous Vaticanus (B) or a text
closely related to it. Verses 16-18 read in B : /cat apdpiaev
iTjaovc; Kai irpoaqyayev tov \aov Kara <jtv"kag nai evedeixOr/ tj tyvkri tovda icai
irpoarix6rj Kara drip,ovq km evedeixBy Srjjioc; t^apaei nai irpoaqx^H kcit avdpa
/cat evedeix^y &X a P vl0 C £ap.flpei viov C,apa.
Origen, in dealing with this text, proceeded upon the
assumption that Kara avdpa goes with what immediately pre-
cedes it and covers ttnaab in verse 17. and that the trans-
lator omitted tmn;6 urn m mp^i Ha? "lain. He accordingly
filled up the gap just as he made good the other omissions.
As was his wont, he did not translate the Hebrew afresh,
but made use for the parts missing of one or all of the three
later Greek translators (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion)
dating from the middle of the second post-Christian cen-
tury. In all such cases he transcribed them faithfully
without regard to the disharmony thus produced by weld-
ing together incongruous versions. The incongruity in the
present case will become manifest as this investigation pro-
ceeds.
It is, however, possible that Origen recognized that the
gap occurred before and not after Kara avdpa. In placing the
signs, Lagarde relied too confidently on Masius; it is not
328 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
always easy to tell whether the latter did not handle the
signs of his Syriac manuscript with considerable freedom
and here and there operated with conjecture. The British
Museum manuscript errs when it places the asterisk too
far down, but, I believe, is altogether right in putting the
metobelus after avrov. Accordingly, the asterisk should be
moved up, against Masius, in front of mm avdpaffj. The
Syriac certainly read mra avfyag in the plural ; the reading is
substantiated by AFen. It is true, F reads the plural
also below; but n has correctly the singular in agreement
with B. In verse 14 all, with exception of nsz, have the
singular. It would seem, therefore, that the singular ac-
cords with the style of the original Septuagint, while the
plural which is a bit more literal squares with the manner
of the source from which Origen supplied the omission.
If this be so, the error D'HnjS in verse 17 is shown to be as
old as the times of Akiba in which period the three princi-
pal Greek translators after the Septuagint flourished.
Origen's text in verses 17 and 18 will then have read as
follows : nai ■KpoatixBri mra <%/M>vf * mvda : mi aveSeixdv <%/"<>£ °
£apaei mi Kpoarixdri Srjjio^ o i^apasi # Kara avSpag mi aveSeixSv ^a/3dei mi
Trpoatixdt) oiKog avrov : Kara avSpa mi avedeixdv a X a P vl0 ( X a Pf iel vwv
£a/3dei viov t^apa % rye <j>vlt)( lOvSa :
But even as corrected Origen's text rests upon a me-
chanical procedure. In saying this, we are not finding
fault with Origen. His aim was to square the Greek with
the Hebrew as he found it, the "Hebrew truth." But our
task is a different one. If B, the text underlying Origen's
revision, is faulty, and we are in accord with the Church
Father on that score, it becomes our business to correct it.
We are in a position to correct it by consulting other texts
which are its congeners and by a careful study of the
"MAN BY MAN" — MARGOLIS 329
manner of translation which was adopted by the author of
the oldest Greek version of our book.
We are in a position to confront B with three texts
which normally go with it. They are all more or less im-
pure, contaminated with matter borrowed from Origen's
revision. But the basis is a text very much like B. Into
it they work Origenic additions, but in a manner of their
own. The three texts are h (55 in Holmes-Parsons), the
Ethiopic translation (codices FH), and the Coptic version
recently published by Thompson.
Of the three, h is a mutilated text, the scribe having
been guilty of two omissions due to homoioteleuton. I
SUpply the gaps within <> . h Kai ■KpocsrixP'O Kara 8r/fiovg mi
eveSetxSv Sr/jiog t^apai <jtai npoarix^V <%«>? £apai^> Kar oikovq ' aveSeixOv
e
oiKog ^aft/ipi <jtai TrpooqxOy oiko( £a/ippi Kara avSpa Kai avedeixOy <^X a P
viog X a PP- 1 viov t,afifipC^>.
Deplorable as the omissions are, the significant mr oikovc is
intact. (In front of aveSuxfy the conjunction mi may have
also dropped out.)
The Greek underlying the Coptic (©) and Ethiopic
(lE) read : Kai ■Kpoarixfiv Kara Srjfuyvg tovSa Kai evedetxdy if//ioe 00
£apaei \C,api Jj) nai irpoatjx^V <%/«>f Kaposi \$api f£) Kar oimvg Kai
evedeixOy oiKog ^afifipi Kai npoatjxOv oikoq ^afiflpi Kara avSpa nai eveSeixOy
a X a P \flX av ffi) T X a V-P L mov £apa \-\-ttk fyvkrig mvSa ^j).
Both contain the reading mr owovg.
Now at last it becomes an easy matter to restore the
archetype of B. It read in verses 16-18 as follows: 16 mi
updpioev irjoovg Kai izpoorfyayev rov Tiaov Kara tpvXag Kai evedeix@y V Qv^V
tovSa 1T Kai ■KpoarixOil Kara Srjfiavg Kai eveSuxBy typos t^apaei Kai TTpoar/x^V
<Cjiar oiKovg Kai evedeixOq oimg t^afijipi 18 Kai irpoO7/x0v^> Kara avSpa Kai
evedeixQy axap viog £a/*flpei viov C,apa.
330
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
The omission, it is clearly seen, was due to homoiote-
leuton. The archetype of B which in this case as in many
others may be identified with the original text of the
Septuagint had the portion now missing and in the form
given above, as shown by the related texts h (ftf*. For all
three (in h, as we have seen, the last two words dropped
out along with what follows) have the portion, and they
could not have derived it from Origen, who, as was shown
above, wrote mr avdpag for kcit oikovc and o owog avrov for oacog
fr/i/ipi, both in conformity with the received Hebrew text.
Internal evidence serves to corroborate my conclusions
based upon the external evidence of correct grouping. The
translator had before him verses 16-18 in somewhat the fol-
lowing form (to facilitate an understanding of my remarks
below, I reproduce in the parallel column the Greek as re-
stored) :
mpi npan ynni m^ i«
nnats>D nx 3-ip'i " mm* one*
with nnsK>o nx na^i mini
ovo^ imtn nnse>o n« 3*1 pi
mpi 81 nor nn na^i
onsii) nor ira m
rnt }3 not }3 -lay iai>'i
16 k<m updpiaev ir/aovg Kai npooriyayev
tov "kaov Kara <j>v/ui( Kai eveSeix^V V
tyvkri mvSa 1T Kai npocrix&l Kara
dr/ftovg mi evedux&t) Srip,oq £apaei
mi wpooqxSv mr oiKove Kai
eveSeix^V oikoq £afif)pi 18 Kai irpo-
ar/xSri Kara avSpa Kai sveSeixBi}
axap vioq £afif3pei viov t^apa
The translator's fondness for condensation reveals
itself at the start. "Ip33 D3£"l is simply mi updpiaev "rose up
early" (Origen added to npm "in the morning"). While he
uses the active voice {^poariyayzv) for the first 3npjl (verse
16), he proceeds in the sequel with the passive construction
{■KpoarixOv, "was brought near"). By doing this he succeeds
in getting rid of what to him seemed unnecessary repetition
MAN BY MAN — MARGOLIS 33I
though such is quite in accordance with the style of He-
brew writing. He reproduces the subject as in the Hebrew
with each new sub-division introduced by the verb "was
taken"; he leaves it to be supplied from the context when
the sub-division "taken" is "brought near" for another sub-
division. Hence beginning with verse 16b he writes: "and
the tribe of Judah was taken; and it was brought near
deme by deme; and the deme of the Zarahites was taken:
and it was brought near household by household; and the
household Zamri was taken: and it was brought near man
by man; and Achar, ec, was eaken." It was left for sub-
sequent texts (h (giE) to introduce the explicit subject.
That this is not to be laid at the door of the translator is
clear from the nature of the omission in B. For with h
(£1; as a basis, the textual form after the omission (aberra-
tion of the scribe's eye from the second irpoovxto to the third)
WOUld have resulted in nai n-poavx^V ockoc Safifipi Kara avdpa. The
omission of omog Sapppi in front of Kara avdpa in B proves my
contention as to the translator's method of condensation.
The translator pointed the first rinsCD in verse 17 as a"
plural (nhsE'O ) . In accordance with his method of con-
densation, the clause "and he brought near the demes of
Judah" became "and it (sc. the tribe of Judah) was
brought near by demes."
The other variations between the Hebrew underlying
the Septuagint and our received Hebrew text need not de-
tain us. Of utmost importance is the reading DTO7 in verse
17. As for the omission of Carmi at the end, the curtail-
ment may and may not have been found in the Hebrew.
Achan's father was omitted because he was of no moment,
each warrior, N. N. son of N. N., ranging himself imme-
diately under the household ( tvi ) which comprised a num-
33 2 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
ber of families in the modern sense of the word. Mez (Die
Bibel des Josephus, 1895, 5 f.) is wrong in arguing that
Carmi is an interloper ; the Septuagint certainly read wa p
in verse 1. Josephus with his axapo; . . . frfieduov kcuq (Ant.
V 33) merely condensed the pedigree. In § 43 where he
gives the execution of the divine order we meet with the
fourfold order :<jn>An (t33£}> or nDD), (pparpm (nnaCD), avyyevua
(JV3) , avnp (13J) . Though he may have written with a view
to verse 14, we shall not go amiss in saying that Josephus,
if he had the Septuagint open before him, read mr owovs,
and, if he worked with the Hebrew text before him, he
found in verse 17 DTub.
The error in the Hebrew accordingly crept in between
the times of Josephus and the times of Akiba.
I will now adduce further proof for the correctness of
my restoration of the archetype of B from still another
quarter. A recension which is not Origen's but which a
recent writer (Hautsch, Der Lukiantext des Oktateuch,
1910) would stamp as that of the martyr Lucian (died 311
or 312) is found in a group of manuscripts enumerated by
me in the article "The K Text of Joshua" (AJSL.,
XXVIII (1911), 1 ff.). In the present state of our knowl-
edge it is perhaps best to forego identifying it with any one
of the three recensions signalized by Jerome and to speak
of it as a nameless recension (see the lucid discussion by
Professor G. F. Moore, in AJSL., XXIX (1912), 37 ff.).
Be that as it may, the manuscripts constituting that recen-
sion divide themselves in two sub-groups, a larger and a
smaller. The former which is not a pure text, contamin-
ated as it is with Origenic matter, is nevertheless useful as
a means for correcting the errors of the smaller group.
The larger sub-group may itself be subdivided into a larger
MAN BY MAN — MARGOWS 333
group of four (u = 84, 1 = 134; p = 76; t = 74; u =
ulpt) and a smaller group of three (f = 106; i = Cod.
Gr. 609 of the Paris National Library; z = 44; F = fiz).
z departs in verses 16-18 considerably from its congeners
(fi) and must be studied separately. It reads: mi apdpioev
a/aovc to irpoi Kai npoorjyaye tov %aov Kara fv^ag kcu evedeixOy V tyvfo)
lovSa mi ■upooyx^V Kara dq/iovc. kcu evedeixOy o £apai dr/fioc. mi TrpocrjxOy
8rinoQ £apai mr avdpag kcu evedeixdr/ ax a P vl0 C ^a/j.j3pi viov t^apa o
tov Xtyf 11 vlov avrov.
The text is mutilated ; but the omission is not to be put to
the account of the scribe who appears to have transcribed
a mutilated text. For, barring the end (it shares the post-
script of n, see above), he gives a text in verses 17 and
18 substantially agreeing with Ae. z accordingly steps out
for our present purposes as a representative of its narrow-
er or wider group. If we compare the text of i — it reads
kcu ap6piaev ir/oove. to irfiui mi irpoar/yays tov %aov avrov Kara ftvXac.
avrov Kai avtSux&V 1 tyvkri wvda kcu irpoar/x^W av Kara dr/fiovc lovSa kcu
avedeixOq Stjuog o t^apa mi ixpoarryayov tov Srjjmv tov t^apa kot oikovc.
kcu avedeixSy oiKoq £a/j./3pi viov (,apa Tqc_ fv?ir/g wvda — with that Of f
kcu ap6piaev lyaovQ to irpm mi wpocrr/yaye tov Xaov Kara tyvTiac. avrov mi
avsdeixOv V tyvhr] lovSa Kai TtpocrixOijoav mTa Sr/fiovg lovda mi avedeixOy
Stj/iog o £apa Kai npoar/yayov tov Srjjmv £apa kut oikovc Kai avedeixOr/
oikoc ^ajifipi Kai npoarryayov tov oikov £afi/3pi KaT avSpa Kai avsdeixdy axap
vioc Xo-Pt 11 mov Zcijijipi viov $apa rr/g yvXyg wvda
we discover an omission due to homoioteleuton in i, the
scribe having wandered from fa/i/3p« first to {apfipi third, f
agrees in every respect (barring, of course, trifling vari-
ants) with u, their common text therefore representing one
archetype. The latter ranges itself with its mr oikovc on the
side of h (&*&; it shares iovda (verse 16) with (J|» and rye </wfaic
tovSa (end of verse 18) with f», both Origenic additions;
334 TH] £ JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
but it has a number of traits of its own ; the plural wpocyxtkcav,
£apa bis (in the genitive), mi npoanyayov (active construction)
bis. With F it has the full pedigree at the end.
As for the parallel group (r; the Old latin of the
Codex Lugdunensis (?C) is an additional witness of this
group), ro are practically identical. The text of verses 17
and l8 reads as follows: mi wpoar/vexdr/aav Kara dr/fiovg irarpiuv
mi avedeixdr/ dr//j.og o %apa Kai Trpoar/yayov tov Srjftov tov t^apa Kara avdpag
Kai evedeix&i} {avedeixOr/ o) o (omitted in o) oimg ^aftfipi mi aveSeixOy
axap viog XVI 11 mov ?<*/><* mov (aft/ipi mr oimvg rr/g <j>v/ir/g lovSa. S has
suffered an omission through homoioteleuton, the scribe
wandering from aveSeixfy second (as he read with o for
evedeixSri r) to aveSux&n third. The manuscript goes its own
way with the reading warpiag for Sr/ftovg warpiav ro and by cut-
ting down the end so as to read Km avedeixOy a-x a P Vl °s x a ?y- 1
viov (apa. irpoo>/xtiv<yav it shares with ufi.
The Greek underlying f£ read : mi rrpoor/yayov mra Sr/ftovg Km
evedsixSrj dr/ftog o £apa Km npoar/yayev tov Srjftov tov i^apa Kara avdpag Km
evzSux&V oimg (.aftfipi mi ■KpoarjxQri o omog Kara avdpag mi evedeixOr/
axap viog x a Pf- 1 vlov ^a/tfipi viov t^apa.
Disregarding unimportant variations, there remain to be
singled out the transposition of (,apa and ^apfipi in the pedigree,
the omission of mr omovg rrig fvXr/g wvda which it shares with s,
and the plus mi irpoor/x6r/ oimg mr avdpag which it has in com-
mon with n comp. also (ft$». It is safe to say that the plus
was introduced from another recension; |J is therefore a
mixed text. We must therefore fall back on ro as repre-
sentatives of the sub-group s.%.
But ro require correction. The order viov (,apa vwv (.afijjpi
is clearly impossible. Restore on the basis of $j and ufi:
viov Cap-Ppt viov z,apa. As neither Carmi (first in order) nor
Zarah (last in order) was a household {oimg), it follows
"mak by man" — margous 335
that Km oikovq which was read neither by s nor by JI stands
in the wrong place. It apparently entered the text from
the margin ; and it stood there opposite mra avSpaq which is
an old error common to r^I for mr oimvq. mm avdpaq belongs
at the head of verse 18 and in front thereof there had drop-
ped out by homoioteleuton mi npoor/yayov tov oikov fau/J/M, comp.
ufi.
Hence the archetype of rJJ read: mi npoarivexdvaav mm s^ovq
warpiav mi avedeixdq <%io<; o (,apa Kat npoarjyayov tov Srifiov tov (apa <jcar
oikov(^> mi avedeix^l o o</cof ^afifjpi <jtat itpoaTjyayov tov oikov £a/i[)pi Kara
av6pag^> mi avedeixdr/ axap viog x a Pf Li mov < H a / i I^PO > vlov < C£ a P c C> []•
I am somewhat in doubt as to whether rw tyvfois avda which
ro have at the end stood in the archetype. The points of
similarity with the archetype of ufi are unmistakable.
Both represent a revision of B and testify to the reading
/car otmvg in verse 17. Interesting is the expression %«wr
warptov (ro; for which s has simply ■KaTpia.q). In the parallel
text I Kingdoms 9, 21 Lagarde's Lucian renders nnscD by
warpia in the place of yvlri of the other texts, just as it writes
(pviti for D3B» in the place of o-k^tpov of the vulgar text.
It remains to be said that mr oimvc of the Aldina goes
back to the text of the group 15. 18. 64. 128 which is of a
mixed character, comp. the form £>/?<?« for ^fipi.
By way of recapitulation, I subjoin in parallel col-
umns (a) the reconstructed original Hebrew text; (b) the
reconstructed original Septuagint; (c) the recension under-
lying Rutfffi; (d) the recension of Origen; (e) the received
Hebrew text
336
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
a
6
C
d
e
a-ip 1 "! "
"km npoor/xOv
17 K(M 'KpOG7JX&V ffav
irporyjjVExOTjfyav
11 nai wpoar/xOl
3-|p'1 "
nhatyp nx
Kara dr/uov(
Kara Srjfiovg nar-
piuv
narpiaf
Kara dr/fiovg
nnetsto nx
mw
# tovda :
min<
13^1
K.cu eve8ux@V
Kai avedeixOt
Kai avedeixBy
na^n
nns^D dk
SrifioQ
dljflOQ
dr/fioc;
nnaB'D nx
Tntn
£apaei
o £apa
o t^apaei
imtn
D-lp*'!
Kai irp0G7}xdri
Kai irpoGTjyayov
Kai npoarjx^rj
anp'i
nnsB'D n«
tov Srjfiov
Sr/uog
nnse>D ns
'mm
TOV £apa
o t^apaei
inntn
dtdS
<0c<rr oiKovg
KaT OMOV(
% Kara avipa^
onaaij
13^1
Kai evedeix^V
Kai aveSecxOy
nai avedeixdw
na^i
not no
omoc {.aufipi
o oiKog t^a/ifipi
l^afjdu
mt
3-llTl 18
ls nat npoarjx-
18 K(« irpoorjyayw
w iiai irpooTjxQy
anpi I8
•not rra ns
tov oikov $a/ippi
o oikoc avrov ;
wi nx
D'"133^
Kara avSpa
Kara avSpag
Kara avSpa
ona:6
13^1
Kai evedetx8v
Kai avedeix^l
Kai avedetx&v
na^i
naff
a X ap
axap
axap
Pff
vw( x a Pl li
viog x a Pf- sl
'ona p
not ja
vio( $a/ippt
viov ^afiflpi
viov l^ajidei
nat p
mt p
viov $apa
viov Jdpa
viov £apa
% T7JQ </>vXt/C
lovda :
mt p
