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.
YERKES: LTJCIANIC VERSION OP THE OLD TESTAMENT 163
THE LTJCIANIC VERSION OP THE OLD TESTAMENT
AS ILLUSTRATED PROM JEREMIAH 1-3*
Rotden Keith Yerkes
University of Pennsylvania
The quest of the Lucianic text of the Greek Old Testament,
which was undertaken with such vigor a generation ago under
the able leadership of Field and Lagarde, has become little more
than an avocation among scholars since the death of those two
pioneers. The importance of this work consists in the fact that
the Lucianic version was one of the three great Christian recen-
sions of the Greek Old Testament in the third and fourth
centuries.
* Chronological Bibliography. 1798 Holmes, Praefatio in Pentateu-
chum; 1864 Vercellone, Variae Lectiones; 1875 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum
quae supersunt, Prolegomena, ch. IX; 1876 Nestle, Beview of Field's
"Hexapla," ThLZ, I, 7, pp. 179-183; 1882 Hort, Introduction to the N. T.
in Greek, p. 86; 1882 Hollenberg, Beview of Lagarde 's "Ankiindigung, "
ThLZ, VII, 7, pp. 145-147; 1883 Lagarde, Librorum Veteris Testamenti
Canonicorum Pars Prior; 1884 Lagarde, Mittheilungen, I, pp. 122-124;
175-176; 1884 Smith, Beview of Lagarde 's " Septuagint, " 0. I. Student,
Sep., pp. 37-39; 1886 Cornill, Das Buck des Propheten Ezechiel, Prolego-
mena, pp. 65-66; 1886 Nestle, Septuaginta Studien; 1887 Beckendorf,
' ' Uber den Werth der altathiopischen Pentateuehiibersetzung fur die Becon-
struetion der Septuaginta,," ZATW, VII, pp. 61-90; 1890 Driver, Notes
on the Hebrew Text of Samuel; 1892 Stoekmayer, "Hat Lucian zu
seiner Septuagintarevision die Peschito beniitzt?" ZATW, XII, pp. 218-
223; 1893 Harnaek, Die altchristliche Literatur, pp. 526-531; 1894 Har-
naek, Dogmengesehichte, Eng. Tr., IV, pp. 3-7; 1895 Mez, Die Bibel des
Josephus; 1896 Nestle, Septuaginta Studien II; 1896 Burkitt, The Old
Latin and the Itala, p. 9; 1898 Wendland, "Zu Philos Schrift De Posteri-
tate Caini," Philologus, LVII, 249-287; 1899 Nestle, "Zur Beeonstruction
der Septuaginta,'-' Philologus, LVIII, 121-131; 1899 Smith, Samuel, pp.
402-407; 1900 Swete, Introduction to the O. T. in Greek, pp. 80-85;
1901 % "Lucian 's Becension of the Septuagint," Ch. Quar. Rev., pp..
379-398; 1902 Harnaek, Lucian der Martyrer, Hauck's Seal-Enc; 1902
Liebmann, Der Text eu Jesaia 24-27, ZATW, pp. 285-305; 1910 Harnaek,
Lucian the Martyr, New Schaff-Herzog, VII, 53-54; 1910 Prockseh, Septua-
ginta Studien, pp. 76-87; 1913 Srawley, Antiochene Theology, Hastings
EBE, I, pp. 584-585.
164 JOURNAL OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE
Jerome, writing less than a hundred years after the death of
Lucian, remarked, Alexandria et Aegyptus in LXX suis Hesy-
chium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque Antioehiam
Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has provin-
ciae Palaestinos codices legunt quos ab Origene elaboratos Euse-
bius et Pamphylius vulgaverunt : totius orbis hoc inter se trifaria
varietate compugnat. 1 About the same time he wrote, In quo
Mud breviter admoneo, ut sciatis aliam esse editionem, quam
Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores
koivtjv, id est communem, appellant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque
nunc AovKiavbs dicitur. 2
With the early life of Lucian we are not concerned; at best
the facts are so meager and so obscured that little can be said
with certainty. He first appears at Antioch as a vir disertis-
simus Antiochenae Ecclesiae presbyter. 3 He may have been the
leader of the theological school centered there; his was at least
a dominating influence, and it was under him that the Antiochene
school of theology first came into the clear light as actuated by
distinctive principles.
Theologically this school was marked by the early use of
Aristotelian philosophy. In biblical work it was characterized
by principles of literal interpretation, as contrasted with the
allegorical method of the school of Origen, while it made free
use of textual criticism as far as possible. That Lucian was
influenced by these suspect principles may be inferred from the
fact that he lived for nearly thirty years apart from the Church. 4
He was finally restored to communion, and suffered martyrdom
under Maximian in 311 or 312 at Nicomedia. 5
While at Antioch Lucian was famed for his biblical learning. 6
In company with the Hebrew scholar Dorotheus he undertook the
preparation of an edition of the Old Testament in Greek.
'Jerome, Contra Bufinum 2 : 26 ; Praefatio ad Paraleipomena.
2 Jerome, Epistola 106 Ad Sunniam et Fretelam.
3 Jerome, De viris illtistribus, 77.
4 airoavvayaybs e/ieive rpiav kitianbiniv 7roXi/eTo0s XP' >V0V - Theodoret, B\ ]£.,
1: 3.
5 Eusebius, S. E., 8:13; Sozomen, E. M., 3 : 5 ; Georg. Ced., 517 ; Theo-
phanus, Clironographica, 9; Nieetas, Praef. Cyr. Alex. In Psalmos; Jerome,
J)e viris illus., 77; Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis Sacrae Scripturae.
6 Eusebius, E. E., 9 : 6.
TEEKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 165
Pseudo-Athanasius, in the Synopsis Sacrae Scripturae, describes
his "WOrk as follows : ootis Kal ciiitos rats irpoyey paixjiivais kKb6o~c.cn Kal
rot's 'E/fyjatKOis evTv^av Kal i-rowTevo-a's jxer a.Kpi/3eias to. AtiVovra 17 Kal
■KtpiTTa Trjis aXr)0(.ia<i pij-mTa Kal Sio/o^wcraftevos hi Tots oIkuois tw
ypatjitov ro7rois Z£e8oro tow ^pio-Tiavois aStA^ois. Simeon Metaphrastes,
writing about 965, suggests that the Greek texts were quite
corrupt at the time of Lucian. These corruptions had arisen
partly by the accidents of translation and retranslation, and
partly from deliberate efforts to pervert the meaning of the
text. Lucian is said to have retranslated the whole of the Old
Testament into Greek from the Hebrew, of which he is described
as having had a very accurate knowledge. His work gained
great prevalence in the region of which Antioch was the center,
and was of such importance that Pseudo-Athanasius speaks of
the translation as ■) e/JSo/xij, while Jerome ranks it with that of
Origen.
Since Lucian 's version, and all copies which were possibly
made from it, have long since been lost, it becomes necessary,
before any estimate of his work can be given, to attempt to make
a restoration of his recension by a study of existing manuscripts.
It may then be possible to judge whether Jerome's description
of his work was not too meager and whether Simeon Meta-
phrastes did not err on the other side by attributing too much
to the work of the Antiochene scholar. It may also be possible
to form some idea of the Greek translations with which he was
familiar, and of the Hebrew text from which he made his
corrections or his translation, as the case may be.
It has usually been assumed that all the manuscripts of the
Greek Old Testament can be traced, or could be traced if the
means were accessible, back to an original " Septuagint, " or
translation of the Old Testament into Greek ; or that early trans-
lators, as, e. g., Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Origen, Hesy-
chius and Lucian, had some such uniform copy upon which to
base their efforts. Prom this assumption much Septuagint work
has proceeded.
Now it has long been noticed that no two manuscripts of the
Greek Old Testament agree with each other, although some show
greater kinship than others. A study of a single manuscript,
however, e. g., the B text, reveals some interesting facts. There
166 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
are certain parts of the Old Testament which, in the Masoretic
text, are duplicates of each other. If any one Greek manuscript
were a consistent and uniform translation, or copy of such trans-
lation, it would be expected that these duplicates would be
translated somewhat alike. As a matter of fact, an examination
shows that even in these parts there are such variations as to
lead to the conclusion that two entirely different hands were at
work in the two places.
In the Appendix to this paper will be found a table of six
columns of which the second and the fifth will occupy our atten-
tion at present. In these columns will be found readings from
the B texts of 2 Kings 19 : 1-6 and Isaiah 37 : 1-6 in which the
Hebrew texts are repeated practically verbatim. In these six
verses there are thirty variants. Six are differences in gram-
mar; three are differences in number; one is in the order of
words ; eleven are differences of vocabulary ; there are six omis-
sions in Isaiah as against Kings and four in Kings as against
Isaiah.
This table is followed by a similar one comparing 2 Kings
24 : 18-25 : 8 with Jeremiah 52 : 1-12 which are alike in the
Hebrew. The B texts of these two sections reveal the following
differences : twelve in grammar, ten in vocabulary, two in the
spelling of proper names, one in the order of words, one in
number, four in the forms of verbs, two in the reading of the
original Hebrew, four omissions in Kings against Jeremiah,
while Jeremiah omits two whole verses and two minor words
against Kings. A study of these readings and variations leads
to two conclusions :
1. The Hebrew texts, while they are alike at present, were
certainly not alike at the beginning.
2. The Greek translations were made not only from different
Hebrew texts and by different hands, but probably by different
schools and at different times.
The probability is that there was not in the early centuries
any such thing as ' ' The Septuagint, ' ' but that the Greek version
of the Old Testament came into life very like the English Bible.
It was probably preceded by various translations of single books,
or groups of books, contributed by different hands who worked
over the space of several centuries. The first part to be trans-
lated was undoubtedly the Torah, which may have been rendered
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OP THE OLD TESTAMENT 167
in an official, or semi-official manner, as the letter of Aristeas
suggests. This was followed by translations of other parts as
need arose or as men had the inclination. 7
Even in the first century of our era there was no uniform ver-
sion of the Greek Old Testament, as is borne out by a comparison
of the New Testament with any known version or manuscript of
the Old Testament. Endeavors have been made 3 to ascertain
what version or versions the New Testament writers used, but
with little more than tentative hypotheses as results, and with no
unanimity of opinion.
Philo, to be sure, refers to an annual festival 9 on the island
of Pharus commemorative of the completion of the translation
of the Old Testament into Greek, but this would connote no
more than the fact that all the books had been translated.
There is no evidence of an attempt to produce a uniform
rendering of the Old Testament into Greek until the second cen-
tury of our era and after that time there were two different
influences at work. The first was the Jewish-Ebionitic influence
which produced the versions of Aquila, Theodotion and Sym-
machus ; the second was the Christian influence which animated
Origen, Hesychius and Lucian of Antioch.
In tracing the lineage of the Greek texts of the Old Testament
it must be remembered that there was probably no uniform
Hebrew text from which the earliest translations were made.
There may have been an official Hebrew text of the Torah at the
time this part was translated into Greek. This was, in all prob-
ability, before the composition of many parts of the Nebiim and
certainly before the completion of the Kethubim. As these later
writings were produced, translations of them were made into
Greek, possibly long before they were accorded the dignity of
canonicity, and certainly long before the Hebrew text had become
fixed. Swete 10 calls attention to the fact that "no official text
held undisputed possession in the first century or was recognized
by the writers of the New Testament." And inasmuch as the
content of the Hebrew Canon was not fixed until the end of the
7 Nestle, in PMlologus, vol. LVIII, eame to the same conclusion, but
based his arguments upon entirely different grounds.
8 Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greelc, Part III, ch. ii.
° Quotation in Swete, op. cit., p. 13.
10 op. (At., p. 439.
168 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
first century of our era, and the Hebrew text until much later,
it would be surprising if there were any such thing as a uniform
Greek translation. In fact, there is no evidence of any attempt
at a uniform rendering of the whole Old Testament, or rather
a uniform collection of the Graeco-Jewish literature until the
version of Aquila. By this time both the Hebrew texts and the
Greek translations of individual books had been copied so often
that there was already a considerable disparity between them.
The translations of the third century Christian scholars are
analogous, in a general way, to the King James, the Douay and
the Revised versions of the Bible in English. 11 Attempts were
made to render the entire Bible into the vernacular. These
attempts were based upon whatever former translations were
accessible to the scholars as well as upon the studies of these
scholars in the original texts. Their results were never univer-
sally recognized and their use was locally or theologically con-
fined to those who were in sympathy with the translators. Any
attempt to restore an original Septuagint, therefore, becomes
impossible. At Alexandria, at Antioch and at other metropoli-
tan cities there were probably collections of rolls of translations
made by entirely different hands and at different times.
Our present problem is the construction, with the aid of known
manuscripts, of a hypothetical text which we may assume to
resemble somewhat the translation of Lucian, and, from this
hypothetical text, to estimate the character of the work of Lucian.
The efforts to recover the text of Lucian are largely the work
of scholars of the last generation. Robert Holmes called atten-
tion 12 in 1798 to the similarity existing between the Compluten-
sian Polyglot and codices 19.108.118. Vercellone 13 wrote in
1864 that codices 19 .82.93 .108. unum idemque avTiypa<j>ov ad
singular em quandam recensionem spectans representare. Neither
of these writers, however, suggested a connection between the
codices mentioned and the recension of Lucian.
The first stride toward an attempted recovery of the recension
was made by Frederick Field in 1875 in his Origenis Hexaplorum
"Nestle, op. tit., makes the same comparison with the various German
translations of the Bible.
12 Praefatio in Pentateuchum.
13 Variae Lectiones 2 : 436.
YERKES : LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 169
quae supersunt. A note prefixed to the Arabic translation of
the Syro-Hexaplar read: Lucian compared with greatest care
these Hebrew copies, and if he found anything lacking or super-
fluous he restored it to .its place, prefixing to the part amended
the initial letter L. This method of marking, absent from most
manuscripts, was found in the Syro-Hexaplar. A single example
will illustrate Field's method.
4 Kings 23:37 reads avqp Kara Tr/v awTLfirjariv avrov e8a)Kav;
the Syro-Hexaplar gives a marginal reading Kara Swafiiv avrov
and indicates that it is Lucianic. A reference to Holmes-Parsons
in loco shows that this reading is supported by codices 19.18.
93.108 and the Complutensian. Careful study led Field to the
conclusion 14 certissime concludi arctam, propinquitatem, nedum
identitatem, inter Luciani editionem et codices 19.82.93 .108.
Meanwhile Paul de Lagarde had been working upon an entirely
independent line and his conclusions were published in his
Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum Pars Prior in 1883.
Commencing with the suggestions of Holmes and Vercelloue,
he established the relationship between codices 19 . 82 . 93 . 108 . 118
and the Complutensian Polyglot. He collected Old Testament
quotations of Chrysostom and found that his readings were
supported by members of this group of codices. He then made
use of the statements of Jerome concerning the three families
of Greek recensions and assumed that, of these three families,
the Lucianic would be the one most likely to be used by Chrysos-
tom and Theodoret. He also found that, as far as he was able
to compare, the Gothic variants were supported by the same
group of codices. This led him to construct the text published
by him as the Lucianic recension.
An examination of Lagarde 's work shows that there is no
exact agreement between the manuscripts upon which he based
his text. The following examples from Ex. 1 : 1-10 will suffice
to illustrate:
1
u<T7j\0o<rav
B
£i(Tlj\6oV
19.
108.
4
Ne<£0aAi
B
Nc^^aXeijn
19.
108.
5
\pw)(ai
B
ai xpv-^ai
19.
82. 108.
9
E17T6 St
B
Kai «7re
19.
108.
eOvu
B
■yevct
108.
lxxxvii.
170 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
ytvos
B
eOvoi
19.
108.
118.
l^eya
B
ixtya iroXv
118. Com.
10 ir\r]6vvy)
B
TrXrjOvvdHTiv
19.
108.
118.
OVTOL
B
avTOi
19,
108.
Com.
yr/s
B
yqs t)ij.u>v
19.
108.
118.
Thus it will be seen that there is no single manuscript which
gives all the readings adopted by Lagarde. Codex 82 is closely
related to B in the Pentateuch, while 93 does not contain the
Pentateuch. Of the others it will be noted that, out of ten read-
ings adopted by Lagarde, two are not given by 19, one is not
given by 108, while five are not given by 118 and the Compluten-
sian gives only two. At best, then, Lagarde 's text is but a ten-
tatively hypothetical restoration of what may have been the text
approximating that of Lucian.
An examination of his comparisons with the readings of
Chrysostom shows no closer agreement. Codices 19.93.108.118
in the main support the readings of Chrysostom, but every one
of them is absent occasionally, while 82 very seldom agrees. The
result, then, is but tentative and hypothetical, although as a
tentative hypothesis it has not been displaced.
The important fact is that Lagarde and Field, working inde-
pendently of each other and on entirely different lines, reached
practically the same conclusions, excepting the fact that Field
makes no mention of codex 118 which Lagarde found so
important.
It had been the intention of Lagarde to publish a second part
containing the remaining books of the Old Testament, but his
death in 1891 left his work unfinished and no scholar has since
undertaken the task. Field, however, laid the foundation for
the study of the Lucianic version of the prophets. "Upon the
basis of the similarity between readings of Theodoret and the
group of codices 22.36.48.51.62.90.147.231.233, he classified
these codices in the same family. Comparison of marginal notes
on codex 86 indicated by the symbol X showed kinship with
this group, to which he therefore assigned Lucianic influence.
Cornill, in the Prolegomena to his Ezechiel, published in 1886,
discussed the subject at length and came to certain definite con-
clusions, as far as Ezekiel was concerned. He agreed with Field
in attributing the group 22.36.48.51.231 to Lucianic influence.
YEKKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OP THE OLD TESTAMENT 171
To this group he added the fragment called Z c which contains
but a small portion of Ezekiel. He rejected 62.90.147.233
because sie theilen mit Lucicm erne Anzahl von hexaplarischen
Zusatsen, geben aber nicht die Recension Lucians.
The most recent investigation of the subject has been pursued
by Dr. Otto Procksch of Greifswald 15 who divides the manu-
scripts into three general groups which he styles the Hexaplaric,
the Prehexaplaric and the Lucianic. In Jeremiah he assigns
33.87.91.228 (41.49.90) to the first group. To the second
group he assigns 26 . 86 . 106 . 198 . 233 . 239 . (41 . 49 . 90) . To the
Lucianic group he assigns 22.36.48.51.96.144.229.231.
The grouping by the several scholars of the manuscripts which
are said by them to show more or less of Lucianic influence may
be summarized as follows :
Field
22.
36. 48.
51.
62.
90.
93.
144.
147.
231.
233.
308
Cornill
22.
36.48.
51.
231
Klostermann
48.
62.
147.
231
Nestle
22.
36. 48.
51.
62.
90.
93.
144.
147.
233.
308
Liebmann
22.
36. 48.
51.
62.
90.
93.
144.
147.
233
Procksch
22.
36.48.
51.
96.
144.
229.
. 231
Burkitt
22.
36.48.
51.
96.
229.
. 231
In determining those texts of the prophets which show traces
of Lucianic influence and which would therefore be of assistance
in restoring the Lucianic text, the work of Lagarde in the
Octateuch is of real service. Lagarde's text is a hypothetical
restoration of the Lucianic recension and the critical apparatus
is given only in the book of Esther. For the purposes of the
present study, however, it will be assumed that it approximates
the text of Lucian.
Two passages in 4 Kings, to which reference has already
been made, are reproduced practically verbatim in the Masoretic
texts of the prophets. 4 Kings 19 : 1-6 = Isaiah 37 : 1-6 and
4 Kings 24 : 18-25 : 8 = Jeremiah 52 : 1-12.
In the first pair of passages there are twenty-eight instances
in which the B text of Kings differs from that of Isaiah
while the Masoretic texts are alike. In seventeen of these
twenty-eight instances, the text of Lagarde agrees with the B
text of Kings. Of the eleven variants between B and
Lagarde's text, four of the readings of Lagarde agree with the
15 Studien sw GescMchte der Septuaginta, 1910.
172 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
B text of Isaiah. Three of Lagarde's readings are sui generis,
while the remaining four are confirmed in Isaiah by four or more
members of the group 22 . 36 . 48 . 51 . 62 . 90 . 144 . 147 . 228 . 233 . 308.
In Kings there are fourteen readings of Lagarde which
vary from B. Four of these agree with all the texts of Isaiah ;
six are sui generis readings of Lagarde, while four are confirmed
in Isaiah by members of the group Q. 22. 36. 48. 51. 62. 90. 91.
144 . 147 . 198 . 228 . 308 . Comp.
In Isaiah there are seventeen readings in which two or more
members of the group Q-Comp. give a reading different from
that of B. Six of these agree with all the texts of Kings;
two agree with the B text of Kings as against Lagarde; five
are sui generis readings ; four are confirmed in Kings by the
text of Lagarde.
From this comparison it would seem that some of the manu-
scripts forming the group Q-Comp. give evidence of the same
influence which is seen in the manuscripts of the Octateuch which
Lagarde called Lucianic.
In the second pair of passages there are forty-seven instances
in which the B text of Kings differs from that of Jeremiah.
In twenty-four of these the text of Lagarde agrees with the B
text of Kings. In the remaining twenty-three instances there
are nine cases in which Lagarde's reading agrees with all
the texts of Jeremiah, one in which it agrees with the B text
alone, and six in which it is supported by members of the group
Q. 22. 26. 36. 48. 51. 62. 88. 90. 91. 96. 106. 144. 198. 228. 231. 233.
239. Comp.
In the same pair of passages there are thirty-three instances
in which Lagarde's reading differs from the B text of Kings.
Of these there are five instances in which the B text is supported
by all the texts of Jeremiah, ten in which Lagarde's reading is
supported by all the texts of Jeremiah, eleven in which Lagarde
gives a sui generis reading and seven in which Lagarde is
supported by members of the group Q-C.
At the same time there are twenty-four places in which mem-
bers of the group Q-Com. give a different reading from that of
the B text of Jeremiah. Four of these are in agreement with all
the texts of Kings, eleven are sui generis readings and seven
are supported by Lagarde. These seven readings are given by
the following texts :
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OP THE OLD TESTAMENT 173
22. 36.48.51.62. 96. 198. 231. 52:1
22. 36.48.51.62.88.90.91.96. 144.198.228.231.233.239.Q.Com.A. 52:1
22. 36.48. 96. 52:1
26.36. 51.62.88.90. 96. 144.198.228. 233.239. Com.A. 52:4
22. 36.48.51.62. 96. 198. 231. 52:4
22.26.36.48.51.62. 90.91.96.106.144.198.228. 233. Q.Com.A. 52:12
36.48.51.62. 91.96.106. 198.228.231. A. 52:12
The classification of the variant readings gives the first step
toward the grouping of the manuscripts. For this I have
examined the text of Jeremiah 1-3, noting the variant readings
of Q. A. Comp. 22.26.36.48.51.62.88.90.91.96.106.144.198.
228.229.231.233.239. and Theodoret. This study is based
upon the collation of Parsons which scholars have all recognized
as very faulty. I have compared his collation of A and Q with
those of Swete and have found errors on every page. On the
other hand, Swete 's collation is far from faultless, so that final
results can be obtained only by a study of the manuscripts
themselves or of photographic plates. Parsons' collation of the
readings of Theodoret I have compared carefully with Theodo-
ret 's Commentary upon Jeremiah, and the numerous errors of
Parsons are only errors of omission.
There are, in the first three chapters of Jeremiah, four classes
of variations which are here given in detail.
I. Agreement with the Masoretic text against other Greek
texts.
II. General agreement of Greek texts against the Masoretic.
III. Difference from both the Masoretic and other Greek texts.
IV. Difference from other Greek texts in Greek.
I. Agreement with the Masoretic text.
1. Exact restoration of omissions.
a. Proper names.
1 : 11 Practically all the manuscripts collated
by Parsons agree in this restoration.
b. Substantives and adjectives.
1:3; 2:6; 2:19; 3:11 22.36.48.51.96.231
are constant, 62 and 88 agree three times;
228 twice ; 144 . 198 . 229 . 233 . 239 each once.
c. Pronouns.
1:16; 1:17; 1:18; 2:21; 2:28 Nearly all the
manuscripts occur. 22 . 36 . 48 . 51 . 62 alone are
174 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
constant. 88 agrees in all but one and gives
one in 2 : 2 where it is alone with Q.
d. Verbs.
1:4; 1:19 All the manuscripts appear. 22 .
36 . 48 . 51 . 62 . 88 . 96 . 231 are constant. In 3 : 1
is a restoration given only by Q. 88. 233.
e. Conjunctions.
1:3 Eestoration given by 22.26.36.48.51.62.
88.96.144.231.
f . Phrases, clauses and verses.
1:11; 1:13; 1:16; 2:1; 2:2; 2:9; 2:17; 3:7;
3:8; 3:10..; 3:16..; 3:17 The constants
are 36.48.51.96.231. 22 and 62 each occur
in every instance but one. 26.88.106.144.
228.229.233 agree occasionally. In 2:9 all
the manuscripts agree.
g. Particles.
2:15; 2:16 The constants are 36.48.96.231;
22.51.229 each once.
2. Partial restoration of omissions.
1:13; 2:25 22.36.48.51.62.96.229.231 constant;
unaccompanied by others.
3. Person and number.
1:4; 3:6; 3 : 11 The last two are supported by
most of the manuscripts. In the first only 51 . 88 .
90. 91. 106. 198. 233. Comp.
4. Correction of different reading or mistranslation by
other texts.
2:6; 2:11; 3:2; 3:25 22 . 51 . 62 . 96 . 231 constant.
36 and 48 each agree three times. 88 . 90 . 91 . 106 .
144. 228. 239. A once each. 198.229.233 twice.
II. Agreement of Greek texts against the Masoretic.
The evidential value of these instances is chiefly nega-
tive. They illustrate the fact that none of the Greek
texts is in complete agreement with the Masoretic. The
instances are of interest chiefly as showing exceptions
to the preceding class.
1. Eetention of omissions.
1:18; 2:7; 2:30; 2:34.
YERKES: LUCIANTC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 175
2. Eetention of plus.
1 : 1, 9, 15, 18 ; 2:1, 10, 13, 19, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31 ;
3 : 6, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 21.
3. Person and number.
1:2; 2 : 1, 11, 12, 18, 20, 25, 30 ; 3 : 13, 18, 19.
4. Spelling of proper names.
1:2; 2:18.
5. Different reading or mistranslation.
1: 7, 14, 15, 17; 2: 2, 6, 13, 19, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34;
3 : 1, 4, 7, 8, 15, 19, 20, 22.
III. Difference from both Masoretic and other Greek texts.
1. Additions.
1 : 8, 2 : 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 28, 31 ; 3:2, 20, 22, 23,
24, 26, 27, 29 No constant. 22.36.51.96 are
omitted each once. 48 and 231 omitted twice. 62
omitted three times. The others occur irregularly.
2. Omissions.
26 . 48 . 51 . 106 occur each once and alone. 22 . 48 . 51 .
96 . 231 agree in 3 : 2. 48 . 51 . 62 . 96 . 106 . 144 . 231
agree in 3:24. 26.90.91.198.228 agree in 1:8.
The other omissions are chiefly in 229 which is so
fragmentary that the omissions signify nothing.
3. Miscellaneous.
2 : 3, 14, 31, 34 ; 3 : 22, 24 The constants are 22 .48 .
51.231. 36.96.229 are omitted once each. 26.
88.90.106.144.233 occur twice; the others once
each.
IV. Differences from the other Greek texts in Greek.
1. Declension of proper names.
1 : 2, 3 . . . ; 3 : 22 But little agreement. 106 the only
one absent. 88 . 144 . Comp. agree in four instances.
48 . 96 . 231 occur four times each and agree in three.
2. Form of verb.
1:2,7,19; 2:11.., 16, 22, 33; 3:17,24 96 is the
only constant. 36 and 231 appear in every
instance but one. 51 occurs in all but two. 22
and 48 in all but three. 62.144.229 occur with
a fair degree of regularity. 90 occurs twice,
once with 88 and once with 91.
12
176 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
3. Second aorist ending.
1:6, 11, 13, 17; 2:5, 6, 8, 17; 3:2, 7, 19.. 22.36.
48.51.96 constant. 231 appears in every instance
but one. 62 agrees six times; 144 and 229 seven
times each; 233 five times; 198 and 228 twice
each. No others.
4. Different spelling.
1:18; 2:3, 8, 13, 21; 3:5 36.48.51.62.96.144.
229.231 agree five times. 22 and 106 occur four
times. All others appear once or twice.
5. Use of particles.
1:7..; 2:6,10; 3:8,12,25 22.36.48.231 agree
in all instances ; 26 . 62 . 144 in six ; 90 . 91 . 96 occur
in four each; the others once or twice.
6. Vocabulary.
1 : 10 ; 2 : 3 . . . , 7, 10, 15 ; 3 : 5, 7, 13 22.51.96 agree
in all; 48.229 in all but one; 231 in all but one:
36 in all but two ; 144 in all but three. The others
appear irregularly.
7. Omissions.
2:27 22 . 36 . 48 . 96 . 231 . 233 agree.
8. Order of words.
1:13, 15, 16, 19; 2:5, 27, 35; 3:9, 17 22.36.48.
62.96 agree in all; 231 in all but one ; 51.88.144.
198 . 229 . 233 occur irregularly ; 26 twice ; 90 . 106 .
228 each once.
9. Miscellaneous.
1:2; 2 : 8, 28, 32 ... ; 3 : 12 96.231 constant. 36.
48 in all but one instance ; 62 in all but one ; 51 .
144.229 each in all but two; 22 three times ; 106.
233 each once; no others occur.
In the preceding analysis the agreement between 22.36.48.
51.96.231 is so general as to warrant the grouping of these
manuscripts together as descendants of a common parent. This
same grouping is also found, on page 170, of the texts with which
Lagarde agrees. For the purposes of abbreviation I shall call
this group L. 16 Of the texts which constitute this group, the
10 This study, and the conclusions drawn from it, were made before I
had seen Procksch's Septuaginta Studieti. It was at first somewhat sur-
YEEKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 177
first four have been classified by all scholars since Field as
unquestionably Lucianic, and the evidence from the present study
simply confirms this opinion. Nestle and Liebmann were the
only ones who did not include 231 in the group.
Codex 96 is described by Parsons as follows: 17 Codex Hexa-
plaris, ex Bibliotheca cl. Moldenhaweri Hafniensis. Continet A
Prophetas Majores; quantivis, ut videtur, pretii. Nevertheless
it was collated only in Jeremiah and Lamentations, and accurate
studies have not been made of it. In Jeremiah its readings
practically coincide with those of 22.36.48.51.231; its absences
are fewer than those of any of the others and it has fewer sui
generis readings than any of the group. Burkitt 18 called it
Lucianic but gave no evidence for the classification. Procksch
gives but a few readings from it in Jeremiah alone ; he includes
it in the list of Lucianic manuscripts at the head of his collations
of The Twelve but does not quote it once. The collations in
Parsons indicate 96 not only as a Lucianic text, but as the best
Lucianic manuscript for Jeremiah.
Codex 229 contains the text of Theodoret's Commentary on
Jeremiah. It is very fragmentary and there are many lacunae
in it, but as far as can be judged its readings agree in the main
with those of L with which it should be grouped.
62 was classed as Lucianic by all the earlier scholars except
Cornill. Procksch finds it with all three of his groups but
mostly with the Lucianic; nevertheless he declines to class it
with this group. As a matter of fact the codex is present with
the group oftener than not and it occurs more frequently than
144 which Procksch classes as Lucianic. On the other hand it
shares a number of sui generis readings 19 with 144 with which
it should be classed.
Field, Liebmann, Nestle and Procksch all class 144 as Lucianic.
Like 62 the codex occurs with L oftener than not but its numer-
ous absences are worthy of note. In the 64 selections of Lucianic
readings given by Procksch 144 occurs only eight times, while
prising, but not a little gratifying, to find that Procksch came to exactly
the same conclusions, although his studies had been pursued upon a different
line and by a different method.
17 Praefatio ad Jeremiam.
18 The Old Latin and the Itala, p. 9. Wrongly quoted by Swete as p. 91.
M In Jer. 1-3 these are 1: 5; 2:9; 2:14; 2:15; 3:1.
178 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
22.36.48.51.96.231 are almost constant. The variations given
by 144 are largely Lucianic but the text is far from a reliable
witness to Lucianic readings.
Comparing L with the Masoretic text on the one hand and with
the family of texts represented by B on the other, these facts are
important :
1. In the Masoretic text of Jer. 1-3 there are 33 instances of
readings absent from the majority of Greek texts. In 29
instances L supplies this material; in four instances L agrees
with the other Greek texts.
2. In -every one of the 20 instances in which the Greek texts
supply material absent from the Masoretic, L agrees with the
Greek texts.
3. In 28 instances the Greek texts are either mistranslations
or translations based upon a reading different from the Masoretic.
In 23 of these L agrees with the Greek texts; in 5 it follows
the Masoretic.
4. In 14 instances the Greek texts give a different person or
number from that of the Masoretic. In 11 of these L follows the
Greek texts while in three it follows the Masoretic.
5. In 11 instances L furnishes material found in neither the
Greek texts nor the Masoretic, while in two instances L omits
material found in both the Greek texts and the Masoretic.
The editor of the parent text of L appears to have used as the
basis of his work a Greek text somewhat similar to the family
represented by B although differing from it in many details.
For purposes of correction he seems to have used a Hebrew
manuscript, or manuscripts, approximating the present Masoretic
text although differing slightly from it. His assumption was
that, in process of copying, much material had been omitted
from both the Greek and the Hebrew manuscripts, but that none
had been added in either. Therefore, in his resultant text he
retained all the Greek pluses and restored all the Hebrew pluses.
This method naturally gave rise to conflate readings, and such
will be found in the text, e. g., 2:2 and 2 : 25. The changes
which he made in the Greek were all stylistic or rhetorical,
designed to make more euphonious reading for those for whom
he did his work. In Jer. 1-3 the following are to be noted :
YEEKBS: LUCIANIC VERSION OP THE OLD TESTAMENT 179
(1) Form of verb 1:7; 2 : 16 ; 3 : 17 and the numerous restor-
ation of classical second aorist endings to which attention has
already been called.
(2) Spelling 2:13; 3:5.
(3) Vocabulary 2:3; 3:7, 13.
(4) Order of words 1 : 18, 19 ; 2:5; 3:9.
(5) Gender 2: 7, 28.
(6) Classical use of genitive 2 : 32 ; 3 : 12.
These characteristics can all be explained by the assumption that
the editor of the parent text of L was Lucian of Antioch.
What Lucian did was probably to take the group of manu-
scripts at his disposal, carefully compare them with other works
to which he had access (including that of Origen), and at the
same time compare, with the aid of Dorotheus, the Hebrew texts
at hand. He then endeavored to give a more or less uniform
translation of the Bible as he knew it. This text, together with
the more or less accurate copies made from it, became a sort
of Authorized Version for the region from Antioch to Constan-
tinople, especially for the men of the Antiochene School and
for the early Arians.
The Lucianic recension indicates that the Hebrew text was
not yet fixed at the close of the third century, although it had
assumed by that time a form closely resembling the present
Masoretic. The majority of instances in which Lucian supplied
Hebrew pluses to the Greek text are supported also by hexaplaric
readings. These additions were therefore in existence by the
year 250. In Jeremiah 1-3, however, there are four readings of
Lucian supported by the Masoretic text but unnoticed by Origen.
These readings are :
1 : 16 kjomteok ij.ov. Masoretic = ♦DfltS'O . Other Greek texts =
Kpiaeot's.
2 : 25 avSpiov/mi ov /JouAojum. Masoretic = Hi? JJ*K1J • Other
Greek texts = avSpiov/mi. Here Lucian does not give an
exact restoration but indicates a different reading.
3:7 r] aScX^jy aimjs. Masoretic = nmr?N • Other Greek texts
omit.
3 : 17 to ovojmti Kvpiov cis lepovoraXrjp,. Masoretic = fTliT DSf 1 ?
Cb&yy 1 ?. Other Greek texts omit.
180 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
It would seem that these additions came into the Hebrew text
some time between the years 250 and 300, that is, between Origen
and Lucian.
There are, in the same three chapters four Masoretic pluses
which were not noticed by Lucian. These are as follows :
1 : 18 pKfl *7D by Omitted by Greek texts.
2 : 7 *7Q1Dn piK • Greek texts read Kap^Xov.
2 : 30 DDDin . Greek texts read /mxaipa.
2 : 34 D M pJ D W3N • Greek texts read <x0«w.
This would indicate that these additions had not come into the
Hebrew text by 300, or at least that their reading was not
general.
There are also six instances in which Lucian gives a plus over
both the other Greek texts and the Masoretic. These are :
2:
:12
r, yrj.
2:
31
<HK(p.
3:
:2
7T/0OcrSoKft)cra,
3:
:20
Kai IouSa.
3:
:22
ey<o.
3:
;24
KCU OVTiOV.
In 2 : 34 Lucian reads a second person where both the other
Greek texts and the Masoretic read a first person.
All these Lucianic pecularities indicate a Hebrew text which
was yet in process of formation, but which, in the two or three
generations after the time of Origen, had approached more
closely its final form as represented in the Masoretic text.
In addition to those manuscripts which have been classified as
Lucianic there is another group of texts showing strong rela-
tionship with L but differing from it in many details. 26.88.
90. 91. 106. 198. 228. 233. 239. Q.A. and the Complutensian Poly-
glot (abbreviated as Co.) often appear with L, are often regularly
absent from L, and appear alone in the following thirteen places
in Jer. 1-3 :
1:2 Q. 26.88. 106.
1:4 Q.A.Co. 88.90.91.106. 198.228.233.230.
1:8 Q. Co. 26. 90.91. 198.228.
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 181
1:8 Q. 26. 90.91. 198.
2:10 88.90.91.106. 198.228.233.
2:21 90.91.
2:24 91. 144. 228.
2:31 Q. 26.88.90.91. 228.233.
3:1 Q. 88. 233.
3:6 26. 90.91. 144.
3:10 90. 106. 233.
3:12 Q. 26.88.90.91.106.144.198.228.233.
3:12 Q. 26.88.90.91.106.144:198.228.233.
88 has been generally regarded as hexaplaric. Cornill found
it akin to the Syro-Hexaplar. It occurs quite often with L when
no other manuscript is found, and upon the assumption of its
hexaplaric ancestry its occurrences can be explained.
26 has been generally classed as of Hesychian descent although
no direct evidence has yet been found which gives definite aid
in identifying the Hesychian recension. The regular appearance
of 26 in Jeremiah with Q. 90. 91. 106. 233, both with and without
L, suggests that it should be grouped with these texts.
Cornill groups 49.68.87.90.91.228.238 as Hesychian in Bze-
kiel and one cannot fail to note the similarity between this group
and Q. 26. 90. 91. 106. 198. 228. 233 which are kindred in Jere-
miah. Ceriani considered 26.106.198.306 as Hesychian.
Procksch classes 26.86.106.198.233.239.306 as prehexaplaric
and assigns 91 to the hexaplaric group 20 while 90 is assigned to
both. Of the hexaplaric group he says, Hier tritt namlich als
vomehmster und greifbarster Charakterzug eine enge Beziehung
zum Typus AQ hervor. For purposes of abbreviation I shall
call the group Q. 26. 90. 91. 106. 233 by the initial letters He
because of the possible connection between them and the
Hesychian recension.
198 and 228 rightly belong with this group but give in a few
places readings that are peculiar to L. 21 Cornill classed 228
with this group and in general this classification is supported
by the readings in Jeremiah. Klostermann, however, noted 22
20 Procksch has erred here; 90 and 91 should be classed together.
21 e. g., second aorist endings 2: 8, 27; 3:2, 7.
22 Analecta, p. 13.
182 JOURNAL OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE
that in many instances 228 seemed to follow Lucianic readings
and he suggested that the manuscript originally belonged to an
Hesychian group but that it had been corercted later from a
Lucianic text. From the readings in Jeremiah this is the most
satisfactory explanation offered for this text.
The Complutensian Polyglot was classed by Lagarde with the
Lucianic texts although the evidence for this is far from con-
vincing. In Jeremiah whenever it agrees with L there are always
present one or more members of He while it often agrees with
He when no member of L is present.
The accompanying diagram represents a suggested lineage of
certain of the groups of texts with which we have been dealing,
and an endeavor to show their relationship to the Masoretic, the
Vatican and the Alexandrine texts.
At first there were a number of Hebrew texts the number and
exact content of which will never be known. Probably no two
of these texts agreed. Some were copied and transmitted in
Hebrew ; others were translated into Greek. With each recopy-
ing and translation there were omissions, additions and altera-
tions. The first Greek texts that represent an endeavor at uni-
form translation were those of Aquila, Theodotion and Sym-
machus, all of which, together with some Hebrew manuscripts,
were used by Origen who represents the first effort to produce
a critical text. At the same time uncritical texts were copied
and recopied. The descendants of these can be found in B
and A.
To explain the connection between L and He, as well as the
hexaplaric influences in both, I have suggested a parent text,
abbreviated as PT, which must have been the basic text with
which Lucian worked and upon which he made his corrections,
as well as the basic text from which was prepared the recension
from which the group He is descended. This must have been
an uncritical text. Traces of influences at work both in B and
A are found in it. The anonymous writer in The Church Quar-
terly Review 23 pointed out the irregularity with which readings
pronounced Lucianic in the Octateuch agree with B or with A
or with neither of them. This fact is also noticeable in the
prophets and is just as true of He, both with and without L;
it can be explained only upon the basis of a common uncritical
23 Jan., 1901, p. 388.
Suggested Lineage of Some Groups of Greek Manuscripts.
Early Hebrew texts
Early Gre eK translation
Aqulla
TiT
2 e
Origin
Parent text
Lucian of Antioch
22 36 48 51 96 229 2}1
r~T
A 1
V
62 144 19a]
22S
Hesychius t
n — f — r~
Q Comp 26 90 91 log 8}J
Masoretic
YERKBS: LUCIANIC VERSION OP THE OLD TESTAMENT 183
parent text. After the appearance of the Hexapla of Origen,
and before the work of Lucian, that is, between the years 250
and 300, copies of this text must have been made. This would
be the only explanation of Origenic influence in both L and He.
That this text was not the Hexapla itself is evidenced by the
fact that both L and He give readings not supported by Origenic
texts. Instances of these readings are as follows:
3:2 eprjp.ovfK.vr) B. ev eprjfm ptovrj L.He.A.Co.
3:6 eiropevdrjaav B. eTropevOrj L.He.Q.Co.
3:8 on B. Sum L.He.
2:8 vofwv B. vop,ov fiov L.He.Q.A.
This is an interesting case of a simple dittographic mistake
in an early text of the A family, copied in PT and recopied by
both L and He but corrected by Origen.
PT served as the text of Lucian who, at the same time, had
access to the text of Origen, as well as to some Hebrew text or
texts. The same text served as the base of He, the author of
which made other corrections suggested by some source as yet
unknown. These texts have been transmitted in the following
groups :
L = 22.36.48.51.96.229.231.
L2 = 62 . 144. Based upon Lucian, but not as faithful transmis
sions.
He = 26 . 90 . 91 . 106 . 233. Kinship not so close, but close enough
for grouping.
198 and 228 may have been based upon a text belonging to He,
but they were both corrected from a text of the L family.
The readings and variations in Jeremiah 1-3 may be classed
thus:
1. Readings common to L, L2 and He. The source of these
is to be found in PT and is often hexaplaric.
2. Readings common to L and L2, to be traced to Lucianic
influence.
3. Readings peculiar to L, likewise Lucianic.
4. Readings common to L2 and He, due to PT readings cor-
rected by L.
5. Readings peculiar to He. The source of these cannot be
determined at present, but if Cornill is right in his deductions
184 JOURNAL OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE
from comparisons with Cyrill of Alexandria, Hesychian influence
is strongly indicated.
Whether any of these readings is peculiar or due to hexaplaric
influence must be determined in each individual instance by
comparison with recognized hexaplaric authorities.
The chief value of the Greek versions of the Old Testament
is the aid which they give in determining the quantity of the
first Hebrew text, its vocabulary and the form and meaning of
its words. For the first of these purposes the value of the
Lucianic version is entirely negative. In 1886 Nestle wrote,
Die Recension des Lucianus, auf deren Herstellung nach einer
mir unbegreiflichen Weise Lagarde zunachst seine Bemuhungen
gerichtet hat, ist gerade die unbrauchbarste fur diejenigen
Zwecke fiir welche wir die LXX am meisten brauchen und
gebrauchen. 2 * This statement was repeated by him ten years
later and was severely criticized by Wendland. 25 The study of
the text, however, shows that Nestle was correct in his estimate.
"We find Aquila giving certain pluses over other Greek texts;
Origen uses all of these and adds still others; Lucian includes
all of the pluses of Origen and adds others ; finally, the Masoretic
text has more pluses than any of them. The fact that these
are in chronological order leads to the supposition that the ten-
dency of copyists was to add to, rather than to omit from previ-
ous versions. This means, then, that of all the Greek versions,
that of Lucian is the least authentic witness to the quantity of
the original Hebrew. We may go farther and say that if the
only evidence for a given reading is the version of Lucian. there
is a strong probability that this reading is a later addition which
may be discarded. Of course this principle cannot be adopted
as fixed and unvarying; accidents are always to be looked for,
and the evidence must be weighed in each individual case.
On the other hand, there are instances, e. g., 2 : 11, 31 ; 3:2,
25, in which Lucian evidently endeavored to render the Hebrew
more literally than the texts with which he was familiar. While
he took the suggestion in some instances from Origen, in others
he apparently acted upon his own initiative. For questions of
vocabulary and of the form and meaning of words the Lucianic
24 Septuaginta Studien, I, p. 9.
25 Philologus, vol. 57, p. 286.
YEEKES: LUCTANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 185
version is a more reliable witness. The contention of Nestle,
then, is too sweeping, for there are cases where the version of
Lucian throws valuable light upon textual study. The service
of Lucian, however, is not of enough importance to warrant
the labor entailed by an endeavor to complete the work of
Lagarde. A more useful work would be a catalogue of Lucianic
readings, prepared upon more strict principles than the work
of Lagarde, and accompanied by notes which would indicate the
source of the readings.
186 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
C? i-H t- « 03 OO 0*
cx> • io ^Hcoo c> cio.
.95. rH . CO . ~ CO
• S . " (O ^ tf» S o *>
S^l~J«^§ c 2o6 a «; 5 g- -*
§ « "§ s 5 I I 8 § « 3 a -
:.
j |° o } • ll^^o So < J
^
j^ TO 3 O W I- s 8 H P 8
3 3
^%§ , s | | ,
I-H
5 g p P a a g
W tq £
o
na
H
S^
u, ... .. CS (a s*
s- .14 S- 3-a s-°£ *• s.^o
< bw*o> 3 2 8 ^
H
«
o
2 1 ^s §■ s s s § a a g- 1 .
M S 4a s g Is e §
CM
*^ €1 . . £
s F P a a *
£ ^ % ° ° P
tc
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OP THE OLD TESTAMENT 187
00 CO £- CO £> rh
■* CO ->#-*■* -*
CO • CO
co °5 . © co ^fl co
2 O &> . "* «©
„ °* so ^ d
« ^_- _; o> <n . w »
3 ^ OS <X> . rH „:
^ ss *" S 02 9 „ • £ ^ co « go
"S „ s- k -» 5 • 5 p co § • co C3 O
•S § o o £? So 3 ?- s? «o 51.
eS -4. X I— U • W O . O * B O
3 b,2- ^ * * .CO,^ts;cOS-OOoO>o3«i>
i
<
3.
7.
s-
HH
»
^
05
o
o
|
c/1
s-
;»-
a.
3 J
''S
Q.
p-
t-
S
o
b
p
^
s
o
R-
S3
K P W — P
b S * a «
p
g 5
b ?-
o „ „
* 5. p g -< . M \»
— 6 P w g WW
ss 2 o p o S S
h w i- o o o
r ?-
n
r
p -
"* SB b
5 b
5.
O
h
p
o
o
g-
P
3
to
3
b
w
P
s
1
2-
^
p
c/<
^2
o
o
o
o
Q.
g
3
3
S=
o
K
s-
s-
w
*
=.
t-
P S w -^ p
g g g g «
8(,goO"sO s O»: » u. ' P
I" ft^
Sass-^^gs'- g g i M
3 w J ?- «S
p s- | b 5 § ^ g
:«? .^ I $ \< I gg g i= *
Z ^og-^gSbg. g g , §■ b^g
u a. a /< a a p S^ s S
«bgs-s-S5 s t=§c «a.l
^ r
n
r
188 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
"* °° S- C9 cz> co . *# ©
iH CO K . <N Jo y-t .
•co p 3 co ,^ O tj .
Oto b t- . CO • a» oo
?>
o rr 1 t— i oj
•R © " s.^^H^* 2C °2 ^ C3
•8 ° £ ^ §8»^ . d S«» „
d ,5, i §- 3 s 3 ^ . <* « rt & <s. s
I- rt s > l^ fflco sa M» H |
^ o« 1= O O o o so 3 ol
M 1
ffi 5 S
5
1 n
>d
$ a
p
° sa ? | b -, g k ~
^ so fc < SWo 5 3 o«l
:5 -E
!C P
i I
<* " §" I a § 3
1 8 £| i g I g «; f 4 I
j 5 -9- t= 8- g » S g o ■< p
</> p
o 5
X §• % *
S 3- § » g
K b 2 b 3 5- -
""" co <* fe" P » £ s=a"o
O?- » >- p cg.Sd SS'S
5 -S t s. g p 2 ^ § 4 h §
3 6 ^ f" g£f g I <§• g <&
c
r- *
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 189
h to ® n to <f <j . <jj
lO OS 00 _ 03 ^ . U
^^^^^ ro d Z < • d
d • £ % • 2 m * d ffi «j °>
a io S S < SB oSMi-HlTR-HHSiSSSs
S §
1-5 « K) | § < t
< Mi 1 ^ II a s Ms a
^ r P -5. o r> ^ ^ O ^ n ^
i-
C3 .»
<
o
S
V
*
*"£'
_j
H
■a
b
;,-:
o
>.
s
e
o
o
o
3.
o
^
p
<
y,
o
IO
m
Tl
--*
J
C£
^P
fc
CM
te
W
b
o
</>
c
O
B5
s
2
o
1
p
3
n
p
jf
g
o
* si
7*
.* w la °
S 3 e
£ § »
•u
1=
b
3
a
s-
b
^
so
o
o
w
p
1=
9-
b
o
E
t=
s-
H-M
t-
</>
o
w
3 J
3
t=
<ai
l-
a
s-
g
o o
S 5J- s b
d -
w k 2 ^
*= 3- - P 2- fe.
S b 8 t= S"
f* « g i— i _ *-
§ 1 * 3-- 3 t= •=£>
ta
c
S<8
190
JOURNAL OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE
i-H ©CO #8 H ■* O 00 — ' rH tH
its OS BS «D »0 "* . 00 CO »0 CO
oo oo _; • oo . co ^ ™ 22 ~;
£ co ^ ^ £ co ^ £ ^06^06
~ -; oo . . °* ^ <=> • dS «2o
1 3
„ co ~ <rf 3 J . « ^ ^ 5> ^ S- 6 S - u - «, .
.o b os X ^ vg^^t-^^h g ^ (S to o> ^ »
c
-3
£
o 3- -i-s . oo sa §- 5"
3 J 3 J 5 i Jr
^ cj fc 3 J co co i- * to 4 co 52 ^ b* b ffQ I 3 J £»§
h
co 5 i- o> *? s to =- « ?o ri g , s_a> §- S. °> § 5.
STS G/H b I- to , N t= fc 3 J b
S 3* P- S b 3
W g p 3 3. 2
« B3 S ? g 3 «§ «8
§ g * g ft 8- §- 1 g
^3. g !; I- * J I 8- f- fc
wh CSS.I- to , (= t= t-
1 ** b
hi r r
n
r
■? §
1 <£*.
t 3'
>-
3-
>3 *■
-
t-
"~^ ^
?-
^
?-
&
I-
§
* 3' §- 3 b
11 si &1 c
3 J «r 3- 3 J O , »" §
3" fe
d
n 3 J S=-3 j 5 s«5 s m « 5 to c
3- 3 J 4 t = S
n
P
c
r
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OP THE OLD TESTAMENT 191
(O . ID H rH
CO H W Ol lO
CO
« °* <T* o GO
ISO?*- .» g §
o 3^1- ■ ■ 'g a ,S fc^O * S=-
? M^^^h,^ S p «5 * I
3 I Hs rood pco s fe. r * e g § « £ |
|§" *"** g a 3 g 3 I fr § 3 : g 3
K
^
«
sir & U^r°h i- g i
3 P n £
n or-
**■ v Z *<
o P o ~
p 5 ^ C s. b
§. 5 «? S b S sr- S-.P- ^ b S • b 2 §■
S*l^ § 3 ? 1 M s I ° s §
t=
I 8 §
» m 5 k ;? § p^ * * I b 1 ^
P °> £ .8 b S A P ^& F I »g fc 55.
o" S b * a p £■ 2
S- 6 eg. 'S § a gl-
M * p p w fc
O O S w f-* ij wj w
s- s st • *■ a life. 5 " *=
o a r
a ^
-+:
13
192
JOURNAL OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE
S Q. a w
e s cg_ -uji
'1 2 § §
t-8
a.
I
t- (5©
eg.
a
I
3
F (SO
o.
a. p
a o
- I
b a
6C
a
S
O?
CD
CD
CO
T-i
<*i
CO
a.
CD
O}
as
CO
CTi
CO
«
05
3-
i-5
o?
r-5
oi
1 — 1
CO
p
1Q
o?
OS
c6
CD
CN*
^ -
a
o
CO
<y
©
o?
rH
xa
CO
^
3-
CO
OS
3
CD
i-
oa
as
CO
CD
-<
CO
^H
t=
CD
rH
-*
CO
oa
rS.
CO
a.
OS
04
OS
w
b
r-i
•*
CD
^H
ti
w
oa
c6
3 J
1Q
CO
CD
<y
.
1 «
b <i>
3
3
b
CR
l-H
fr-
et
3-
CO
T—l
<i
3
x:
O
l-H
3
o
<M
^
CD
CD
CD
o
d
t-
CD
&
CO
e <
b
a
x
OS
CO
l-H
b
Id
O
02
o
OS
b
3.
N
a
x:
a.
s
b <^
a a
a
a
3-
1-
3
<*>
3-
t-
3
u
§
a.
b
r
n
C
n
§■
8
•'-u>
3
a,
a
a. cS
b __
a.
a
1 *
§•"*
N «
b o
3 1=
so a
k= o
a t-
3 «
p o
a iu
v a
02. b
it a
3,
uj
t=
3-
t-
s
a.
3-
t-
b
CM
■2-1
CO ^
a
3
so
a. qq. s=-
g i g
p
o
l-
p
a
Sr- ct>
9- 3
J
P
o
&~ b «s ~ u
£4 J" 1
2 £
3-
I-
I.
(=
3'
1
3
r
n
