YALE
DIVINITY SCHOOL
LIBRARY

Gift of
Professor George Dahl

Studies in the Septuagintal Texts
of Leviticus
HAROLD M. WIENER, M.A., LL.B.

With the Compliments of
HAROLD M. WIENER,
9 Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, W. C.

STUDIES IN THE SEPTUAGINTAL TEXTS
OF LEVITICUS

498 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [July,

ARTICLE IX.
STUDIES IN THE SEPTUAGINTAL TEXTS OF
LEVITICUS.
BY HAROLD M. WIENER, M.A., LL.B., OF LINCOLN'S INN,
BARRISTER- AT-LAW .
I.
For the study of the Septuagintal text or texts of Leviticus
we depend on four groups of authorities — MSS., versions
of the LXX, citations in patristic and other ancient writings,
and extant Hexaplar notes. Each one of these is encumbered
with peculiar difficulties, and the final result of a presentation
of their evidence is generally to leave a feeling of hopeless
bewilderment in the mind of the inquirer. Nevertheless, from
time to time one lights on some more or less satisfactory clue
which helps to unravel some part of the tangled skein ; and
it is with the result of such clues and with their use that the
present inquiry is concerned. I stumbled on one while exam
ining Leviticus xvi. for another purpose, and was led to look
into the matter further by the results I there obtained.
It is necessary, first of all, to glance at the history of the
Septuagint. The greatest landmark is the edition of Ori-
gen known as the Hexapla, from its six columns, giving the
Hebrew text, a Greek transliteration, and the four versions
of the LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Origen
patched and mended the Septuagintal text, with the help of
the other versions, to bring it into accord with the Hebrew
text of his day; and in the process he used asterisks to de
note additions to the old Greek, and obels to mark passages

1913.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 499
found in the Greek but not in the Hebrew. We know of two
important later recensions: those of Lucian, used in Syria.
etc. ; and of Hesychius, which had currency in Egypt. There
was, further, an edition, on the basis of the Hexapla, by
Eusebius and Pamphilus. Quotations in authorities before
Origen should give us a pre-Hexaplar text, and later the
fathers of Antioch should quote Lucian, and the Egyptian
fathers (notably Cyril) Hesychius. Thus we ought, theoret
ically, to find three main types of text in our MSS., and be
able to connect these with versions and fathers; while a
fourth type of text should be attested by the earlier quota
tions. In practice this is not altogether the case.
The first qualification to be made is not very serious. We
sometimes find in older authorities readings which are attrib
uted to a later translator or editor ; e.g. Philo will present the
text of the later Symmachus. Such instances merely suggest
that the known translators often used earlier materials. Sim
ilarly Lucian no doubt presented an edition of the text that
had been current in Syria before his time, and Hesychius
presumably incorporated earlier Egyptian readings.
There are, however, more serious matters. Our MSS. have
suffered from all the usual faults of a MS. tradition; but, in
addition, we have many instances of MSS. that appear to
represent a blending of two forms of text. It would be so
natural for a priest to go from one country to another and
to correct or annotate the Bible he had brought with him
from some local text, that we cannot wonder at this. Such
cases have naturally given us some curious texts; but by
grouping the MSS. we can often make the necessary allow
ances for this. For example, in Leviticus, F and 1 present
closely cognate texts ; but two other MSS. that may be classed
with the Hexaplar group — k and m — often agree with

500 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [July,
them. It would seem, therefore, that these have been copied
from MSS. in which the Fl text had been brought more or
less into accord with the Hexaplar type. And this may be
used further: when F and 1 disagree, the testimony of k and
m, if not purely Hexaplar, may show us which of the other
two has preserved the original reading of the recension.
The Hexaplar text is the easiest to trace, particularly in
passages where G is extant; but the non-Hexaplar MSS.
fall into many more than two groups. Accordingly it is neces
sary to trace the groups and then to study their mutual rela
tions. It will be found that some groups are frequently found
together, while others appear to be antipathetic.
At this point it is right to make some mention of the at
tempts to trace the text of Lucian. Lagarde thought he had
found it in a group of MSS. that are represented in the larger
Cambridge Septuagint by bw. This has, however, recently
been challenged by Dahse and Hautsch,1 and the latter has
shown, by the citations of the Antiochian fathers, that bw do
not contain their text. He himself is at fault in his attempt
to trace Lucian in Genesis from these materials, because he
unfortunately worked on the larger Cambridge Septuagint,
which does not collate 20 of Holmes. The latter, however,
says that this MS." contains " ipsum, ut videtur, textum quem
habuit Chrysostomus in codice suo." Accordingly it would ap
pear that a good modern collation of this MS. (which contains
Genesis only) is essential to any inquiry into the Lucianic
text. It is certainly worthy of note that in the first sixteen
verses of chapter xlviii. there are no fewer than three in
stances of characteristic readings in which 20 and Chrysos-
tom stand alone against all the other authorities ; viz. ver. 1,
'E. Hautsch, Der Lukiantext des Oktateuch : Nachrichten von
der Kbniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 1909,
pp. 518-543.

1913.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 501
Xafiwv for avakafimv; ver. 6, a for oaa; and ver. 16, eiXoyrja-ei
for eiXoywo-ai. I have not pursued this inquiry further.
In the last four books of the Pentateuch Hautsch finds
that gn, dpt, and to some extent 1, also 74 and 76, appear to
be Lucianic. I think he is wrong in lumping together the
four books, for the grouping of the MSS. in Exodus does
not altogether hold in Leviticus, and as to 1 his evidence is
very weak; but it is important to remember his conclusion
as regards gn and dpt. Dahse, on the other hand, believes
that in Genesis fi(ia)r represent Lucian, and egj Hesychius.
Others say that dpt are Hesychian. They may contain some
Egyptian readings, but Hautsch's work appears to me to be
fatal to this contention. In these circumstances a fresh inves
tigation is certainly not out of place.
If there is difficulty with the MSS., there is at least as
much with the versions. Nothing would be more natural than
that missionaries making a rendering into a fresh language
should compare various editions of the Greek or even He
brew texts with a view to getting the best Bible possible for
converts. It is an ancient conjecture that the Bohairic and
Sahidic represent Hesychius; but, apart from differences be
tween the two versions, neither of them corresponds at all
generally with any extant MS. or group. In point of fact,
nobody even knows whether they were made before or after
Hesychius worked. The investigator soon finds that no ver
sion gives a pure Septuagintal text, uninfluenced by the later
Hebrew; and that, on the other hand, probably no version
fails to contain some pre-Hexaplar readings. Some of the
versional readings may, further, be due to later corruption
of the version itself, and others to the difficulty of rendering
precisely into another language paraphrastic translations or
additions for the sake of insuring clearness, etc.

502 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [July,
The patristic evidence is extraordinarily unsatisfactory.
The fathers seem to have quoted very largely from memory
at' the best of times, and it is quite common to find a writer
citing the same text differently on two or more occasions.
Cyril in particular is a notorious offender. Then, too, the
patristic writings are themselves in a doubtful textual condi
tion, and may often have suffered through scribal careless
ness or zeal. Indeed, the whole inquiry rests on the most
unsatisfactory basis, and it is only by doing the actual work
that one can discover what is and what is not feasible. So
many cautions have to be observed, and the difficulties are
so numerous, that the progress made is necessarily very slow.
In my own work I have benefited largely by what has been
done by my predecessors, and particularly by Dahse's pub
lished work. I understand that in Leviticus Dahse has in
some cases reached the same results as myself independently,
— indeed, he has anticipated me by several years. But as, at
the time of writing, his work on Leviticus is not yet pub
lished, and we differ to a very considerable extent, I have
thought it best to go on without reference to him. The exact
range of our agreements and differences is unknown to me ;
but I think it will be found that we hold very divergent opin
ions on the ascription of different groups to the Lucianic and
Hesychian recensions.
The evidence of Hexaplar notes is meagre, and, like our
other authorities, subject to a certain amount of corruption.
Nevertheless, it affords some valuable material.
The problem of referring the types of text represented
by the non-Hexaplar groups of MSS. to the recensions to
which they respectively belong (which must be the first step
towards recovering the original texts of those recensions
from these groups) appears insoluble at first sight, but yields

1913.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 503
to treatment with careful study. If we eliminate the ordi
nary cases of corruption due to the well-known sources of
error, we shall find that the groups when compared afford us
numerous resemblances and differences. Such resemblances
may be due to (1) Hexaplar or Hebrew influence, (2) com
mon descent from a particular recension, (3) correction of a
text belonging to one recension from a text belonging to
another recension, (4) the preservation of pre-Hexaplar read
ings in groups belonging to different recensions where the
other groups have been accommodated to the Hexaplar text.
This looks bewildering; but in practice it is not always diffi
cult to disentangle the cases, and for two reasons. On the
one hand, the MSS. of the Hexaplar group and the Masso-
retic text usually make it easy to discern what resemblances
are due to the first cause. On the other hand, the number
and quality of the resemblances and the general character of
the groups are of great assistance. If, after finding that a
particular group agrees in some twenty non-Massoretic read
ings with the Lucianic versions and fathers, we suddenly
discover an instance where it joins an Egyptian version or
group in presenting a non-Massoretic reading while our other
witnesses agree with the Massoretic text, we may safely con
clude that the reading is pre-Hexaplar and not specifically
Lucianic or Egyptian, and this conclusion will be strengthened
if the reading is found in a pre-Hexaplar authority such as
Philo. On the other hand, readings that are found only in
witnesses commonly Lucianic or commonly Egyptian will pre
sumably be Lucianic or Hesychian as the case may be. We
shall have occasion to watch these principles in operation
when we come to the tables of readings, and accordingly I
think it unnecessary to cite examples at this stage.
The larger Cambridge Septuagint is the basis of our work,

504 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [July,
and the MSS. are accordingly cited by its notation. The
uncials are designated by capital letters, and thirty cursives
by the twenty-six letters of the alphabet and a2, b2, c2, d2, re
spectively. There is, however, one complication. In Genesis,
b denotes 19 of Holmes, and where it was wanting the Cam
bridge editors cited 108 under the symbol b. From Exodus
onwards, they decided to cite both MSS. regularly, and ac
cordingly use b to denote their agreement. Where they differ,
19 is cited as b'. Where a MS. has been corrected, the orig
inal reading is indicated by an asterisk. In the case of BAF
a superlinear 1 denotes corrections by the original scribe, and
superlinear a, b, etc., later hands. In other MSS. the super-
linear a denotes corrections by the same or an approximately
contemporary hand, and superlinear b corrections by a later
hand. The patristic abbreviations present no difficulty. With
regard to the versions, for the Bohairic superlinear 1 and w
denote, respectively, the editions of Lagarde and Wilkins;
for the Sahidic, superlinear c and m those of Ciasca and
Maspero; for the Ethiopic, superlinear c and f Dillmann's
MSS. C and F; and for the Latin, superlinear r, v, w, and z
signify, respectively, Robert's edition, Vercellone's Varise
Lectiones, Ranke's edition of the Wurzburg palimpsest, and
the Munich palimpsest.
In LeviticUs the principal non-Hexaplar groups of MSS.
are, roughly, as follows: BAyNha2, Fl, gn, dpt, ejsvz, bw,
fir, qu. The best authority for the Hexaplar text is G where
extant, and it is supported in varying degrees by Mackmox.
Of these, m and (to a less extent) k agree largely with Fl,
suggesting that texts of this type were corrected from Hexa
plar texts and from the ancestors of these cursives ; c has
similar affinities to bw; while other relationships will emerge
as we proceed. This first grouping is intended to be merely

1913.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 505
approximate. It is evidenced by the tables, which are printed
to illustrate other points as well and therefore need not be
proved separately. For convenience, I cite b2 with the Hex
aplar group.
One other matter requires mention before we proceed to
the actual readings. For some reason, quite a number of
authorities change in character at the beginning of Leviticus.
Thus Dr. Swete writes of the Armenian : " Mr. McLean, who
has collated the greater part of the Octateuch, informs me
that the Armenian shows a typical Hexaplar text in Genesis
and Exodus, agreeing closely with the Syriaco-Hexaplar ver
sion, and in varying degrees with the MSS. that compose
the Hexaplar group. The Hexaplar element [he adds] is
much less in evidence in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuter
onomy, but again appears strongly in Joshua, Judges, and
Ruth." x There are many other instances. For example, the
MS. g to a great extent goes with ej in Genesis-Exodus, giv
ing a group egj ; but in Leviticus we have to deal with gn
as one and ejsvz as another. B and A are members of a
group BAyNha2 in Leviticus, but I doubt whether this holds
in Exodus. The following table, which I have compiled for
the purpose qf tracing the MSS. which appear to present
Egyptian readings in Exodus xxxii.-xxxiv., certainly does
not favor the hypothesis. On the contrary, it suggests that,
except where one or other is influenced by the later Hebrew,
Baho form a group. Why so many witnesses change in char
acter at the end of Exodus is a question I cannot answer.
Possibly it has some connection with the fact that the Greek
Church seems to have taken no lessons from Leviticus, except
in chapter xxvi. It may be that those who desired a text of
a particular type for church use in the case of Genesis and
'Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2d ed.), p. 119, ».

TABLE I

Reference

Reading of M. T.

Egyptian variant

Authorities presenting
Egyptian variant

Other Septuagintal read- Authorities presenting
ings where material such readings

Exod. xxxii

3

their (ears)

(ears) of their wives
and of their daughters
Sahidic

x 14, 16,71, 77, 130
Latr

of their wives
their (= M. T.)

Ay F»M(mg)c gn dpt
ejsvz fir Arm-ed Cyr
Bha2 M a k m x b2
F*l bw qu

6

on the morrow

to irpm Sahidic

h r

= M. T.

all others.

7

get thee down

to ra%os tvrevBtv Kara-
/37jft Sahidic

B a 0 r Cyr-ed £

Kara^ndi to Taxos
/caTO/3i)ft = M. T.
to Ta^os Karafin&i. £p-
revdevKaraflyBi. to Taxos iv-
Ttvdtv

bw(pr kcu) f(om To)i
Barn Or-gr
x Eus
qu Eth(vid)
A M rell Cyr £ Thdt
Boh Lat Syr (obel
ising the last three
words) : egjsvz prefix

28

about three thousand
men

twenty-three thousand
men Bohairic

r Latw * (vid) Cyr-ed

= M. T.

KCU.

xxxiii

2

the Jebusite

+ and the Canaanite
(omitted earlier) Sah

Bab (mB)aho fir

8
to the tent
+ rnv i^a ttjs irapep>
(SoXijs Boh & Sah
aho fir d b M
-|- 41-u> rns 7rape/X|8oXi;s
B w b2 u Eth
Otoas
O)
5s-
I
H3
xxxiii 15

go

iropevn p.e6' rip.u)v Boh

0 u (v/j.av) Arm Eth

iropevv = M. T.

Bah*r

&Sah

Syr Or-lat

avixiropeon or irpoivopwn
with variants.

all others.

16

wbsai

ivtiol-aG'Onoop.ai Boh
(ed Wilkins)

Bh fi M k b*

ivdot-aodrjirofieda

all others.

18

Shewme, I praythee,

ipupavioov p.01 otavrov

Bah 0 (prefixing read

equivalents of M. T.

all others.

my glory

Sah (vid)

ing of M. T.) r

19
I will proclaim
\a\rjaw Boh
Bah u
= M. T.
all others.
xxxiv 2
come up in the morn
ing
ivaffras avafinBi Sah
r x
5
with him
vacat Boh
x Eth Cyr \
10
"OS
vacat Boh Sah
fi
11
"03N
vacat Boh Sah
fi u Arm-ed Latr
22
(the) feast 2°
apxnv Sah
Bah r u(dpxn) Syr
= M. T.
all others.
26
wan
Oijaets Sah
Bar*
elffoixreis
all others.
28
(and he wrote) on th e
to pvfmra raura £iri
B r qu Cyr
ra. pvp-ara iiri twv irXa-
aho
tables the words of
twv irXaxajv TVS Sia-
KWV T7]S diad7]KT}S
the covenant
Ctjktjs Sah
= M. T.
iiri rwv irXaKWP to. pn-
fiara ravrarns Siadnnns
ckmxn Arm Boh Lat
Syr
all others with minor
variations, but f*o the
Eth omit tvs Staffymjs.
29
Mount Sinai
the mount Sah
Bah n x Cyr
Lat Or-gr
the two
(Sou a! Svo Boh
fir«
Idov Svo
ISov al
= M. T.
dpt
Aya2 Fl Mb2 egjsvz
B & all others.
34
that which
wavra boa Boh
h y ndpt Eth (vid)
5©
h- '
CO
to
s-Co
c
frc, r-i.
O st-1
Oto-3
508 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [July,
Exodus found no reason to demand it in Leviticus ; but I am
not learned in liturgiology and cannot venture an opinion.
In the preceding table all the cases are instances of non-
Massoretic versional readings; and where they are found in
Cyril as well as in an Egyptian version a strong presumption
is raised for regarding them as distinctively Egyptian.
If this table be carefully considered in the light of the fact
that q, which goes with u, is missing from xxxiii. 7 to xxxiv.
27, it becomes obvious that Baho, x, fir, and qu are the MS.
authorities which contain the largest proportion of Egyptian
readings in Exodus, and that the text of Hesychius, so far as
it has come down to us in Greek MSS., is to be sought among
these. I have been careful to confine the list to instances of
non-Massoretic versional readings. Where these are found
in Cyril as well, a strong presumption arises that they, may
be Hesychian (see xxxii. 28; xxxiv. 28, 29). Here it may
be added, that, in the investigation of Hautsch on the Luci
anic text of these books to which reference has already been
made, there are very few instances where any of these groups
or MSS. seem to be at all sympathetic to the Antiochian fa
thers. Of the purely cursive groups, fir and qu appear to
have least in common with the fathers of Antioch, just as gn
and dpt seem to have most. The resemblances of qu and the
Ethiopic (xxxii. 7; xxxiii. 8, 15) are also noteworthy.
Another observation to be made is, that, if B contains
Hesychian material, it is impossible to trace the number of
its resemblances to the Egyptian versions from the Cam
bridge Septuagint. This (with immaterial exceptions) pre
sents the text of B, and generally only records divergences
from that text in the apparatus. This makes it impossible
(except where the Egyptian versions are specifically quoted)
to say how far they agree with B.

1913.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus.

509

On turning to Leviticus, I begin with the clue that first
attracted my own attention, in the hope that it may serve to
interest others in the subject. In chapter xvi. there is fre
quent mention of a goat, the word %t/xapo? being regularly
used; but in every instance there is a variant rpayot as will
be seen by the table of its occurrences in that chapter: —

TABLE II

Lev. atvi

MSS & fathers using Tpa-yos

Remarks

5

gn ejsvz b2 0 h M(mg) Jul-ap

Cyr

Hexaplar note in v: LXX, the
others x'Mtpous.

7

gn ejsvz b2 0 x M(mg) Jul-ap
Phil Bam

Cyr

The same.

8

gn ejsvz b2 0 x Jul-ap

•Cyr

The same: a note in M attributes
to Symmachus ei's OTparnyov, an

9

gn ejsvz b2 0 bw

obvious corruption of els rpayov.

10 1°

ejsvz b2 0 bw M(mg)

gn omit the first clause of this
verse containing the phrase. Ac
cording to a Hexaplar note in
M Symmachus had els rpayov
aipiep-evov tor &Troirop.irau>v : v
erroneously attributes to Aquila.

2°

gn ejsvz b2 0 x qu N

M lm dpt have x'MaP°S' The rest
omit the whole phrase which is
wanting in MT and has come in
from the first half of verse 22.
M & v prefix an asterisk to the
clause. Hexaplar note in v : LXX
X^apos.

15

gn ejsvz b2 0 Jul-ap

-Cyr

Hexaplar note in v: LXX, the
others x'W0"'

18

gn ejsvz b2

A similar note in v.
20
gn ejsvz b2 bw M(mg)
21 1°
gn ejsvz b2 bw
2°
gn svz b2 bw
ej omit the whole phrase.
22 1°
gn ejsvz b2 Thdt
,
2°
gn ejsvz b2 bw
26
gn ejsvz b2 bw
27 ¦
gn ejsvz b2 bw
.
510 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [July,
It should be added that, according to Holmes, Slav Mosq
uses rpayo<;t and this is probably a Lucianic version; but,
curiously enough, in the addition to verse 10 he records
Xif**po<; as the reading of Slav Mosq and Ostrog, though
they follow the text of g closely in the rest of the addition.
On this table it is clear that gn, ejsvz, and b2 use rpayos
regularly throughout the chapter, of set intent. In the case
of h the word seems to be a gloss, as also in x (ver. 7, 8) ;
while the text of o suggests that it is descended from
some MS. in which somebody sought to replace the rarer
Xipapo<; by rpayo?, but got tired of the process half way
through the chapter. The cause for the variations of bw is
not immediately obvious. It is Jx> be noticed that Theodoret
and Julian use the word, and that it has the support of Philo,
who is older than Symmachus. Attention should further be
drawn to the phenomena presented by the addition to verse
10 : "And the goat shall bear upon him their iniquities into
a desolate land." This is found in the Armenian, which is
presumably Lucianic where it is not Hexaplar, Slav Mosq
and Ostrog and the Old Latin, also in gn and dpt, which are
the two groups that go most closely with the fathers of An-
tioch, and 1m as well as ejsvz. We shall see hereafter that
this group is founded on a text which in certain important
respects is akin to that of gn and the Armenian. The addi
tion, however, is missing from the Egyptian and Ethiopic
versions fir, bw, and BAba2 (y is here wanting). Of the
MSS. that appeared in Exodus to contain Egyptian readings,
only o, x, and qu present the addition. In these it may easily
have been added from a Lucianic text. Further, the quota
tion from Theodoret in Cat. Nic. i. 1066 cites this half verse
in the form presented by gn, the Armenian, and Slav here
(ets ttjVi not ynv) as following verse 10, and leaves on the

1913.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 511
mind the impression that he almost certainly read the clause
in this verse.
When we add to this the fact that Cyril x knew the text
of this chapter with xipapo?, not Tpayos, it seems to me rea
sonably probable that this reading is Lucianic, not Hesychian
or Hexaplar, and that Lucian adopted rpayos in this chapter.
I shall hereafter show that gn, the Armenian, dpt, and bw
have close relations among themselves, and I believe that
these are the main sources to which we must look for Lucian.
At any rate, the Hexapla and Hesychius clearly read xi^aP°i-
I now turn to a further set of phenomena. Of the group
ejsvz, v in particular contains Hexaplar notes citing read
ings under the title o' (=LXX). Of this MS. v we know
very little at present, because it is collated for the first time
in the larger Cambridge LXX. Swete says that it dates from
the tenth century. But the notes contained in it are older, as
appears from their sometimes exhibiting scribal errors (e.g.
a,' for o"' ) and from their being sometimes found — though
usually without the attribution of source — in other MSS.
Of these, s occasionally presents the authorities. In the fol
lowing table I have collected those notes of v which attribute
a reading to o' (but no others) in the first eighteen chapters
of Leviticus, supplementing them by the notes of s that
contain a similar attribution for the chapters in which v is
lacking. The headings of the different columns sufficiently
explain the contents of the table, but I have not thought it
desirable to include all the marginal readings of MSS. The
fact that an alternative reading is recorded in a marginal note
does not help us in deciding what text the body of the MS.
contains. 'Cat. Nic. i. 1067.

TABLE III

Reference

Readings of ejsvz

Authorities agreeing with
this group

Hexaplar note of v or s
where v is missing

Authorities presenting the
reading attributed by the
note to 0' (the LXX)

Remarks

Lev.

I 6

iKSeipavres

B*h ackmob2 Fl gn dpt
br

o' Setpavres

B'Aya, GMx w fi* qu
Clem Cyr J

8

imBnaovinv

B*fort Gc g Arm dpt
fi Boh Lat Or-lat

0' iiruTTufiaaovaiv

BaAyha2 Makmoxb2 Fl
bw qu

e n r omit the whole
phrase from Upas in
verse 7 to the same
word in verse 8. Slav
Ostrog & Georg im
portant.

9

oKOKaVTWflA

gn Arm w

0' Kapirufia

BAyhaj GMackmoxb,
Fl dpt b fir qu

10
omit the whole
kx i* Eth : G prefixes
0' km imBnoa tvv xei/m
All other authorities :
phrase.
the Hexaplar obel
im rifv K«pa\vv airov
but Flm gn Arm dpt
b b2 Boh show minor
variations.
12
(to eVi tou irupos)
a2 co (c omits the sec
0' 8' a' ra eVt tou irvpos
BAyh GMakxb2 Fl gn
m f b all have differ
An
ond &ri)
ra eVi rov dvaiatrrnpiov :
dpt w ir qu
ent readings.
a' . . . ivi rov Qvtsuurrn-
to Bvaaarripiov
kmo Fl fir
pLOV
BAyha2 GMacx gn dpt
bw qu
13
6\oKavTwp,a
gn Arm M(mg)
0' napwafut
all others : x has both
words.
I— '
i>3
I
sr o
s
«5*
I 14

dTro twv Trepurrepivv

BAyha2 Makmoxb2 Fl

0' cnro rwv irepurTepiSuv:

irepiarepiSaov G i qu :

gn dpt bw f r

a! & T) djro twv viwv T7/S
Trepiorepas : a' $ dwo ve-
oatrtav Trepurrepas

irtpurroivSewv c

17
oXoKavrufia v
gn Arm b2 w
0' KapTTWflcL
BAyha2 GMackmoxb2
FT dpt b fir qu
II 2
ttXi;o-« tijv SpaKa
gn dpt \inplebit Boh
0 ir\wpn tvv SpaKa : a'
Aya2 GMackmoxb2 F fi
Gac Arm Boh have
Lat] irXvov b r : irXi?o"ou-
ir\ripwpia SpaKos aurou :
qu: irXT^njs B: 7rXi;noi h 1
tijv SpaKa avrov (sub
0"l w
0"' TrXvpns tvs Spams : ff
vknpns tijv SpaKa
ast«risco G).
III 1
abro (after /3owk)
Mkmx(u)b2 Flrasl
dp(w)t ir qu Boh Cyr
0' ix twv flowv auros( ?)
h gna b : abrov BAya2
Gaco F w f : Arm Eth
omit.
M T Sin = auroj
5
oi vioi 'Aapwv oi Upas
BAhaj Mackmxb2 Fl
0' oi vioi 'Aapwv lirl ro
Go Eth : sacerdotis Lat
0' = M T : y is missing
erri to Bvoiaarnpiov
gn pt bw fir qu
BvaiacTopiov
to IV 27 : d has Upas
(e omits the first oi)
'Aapwv.
e&wSias
all.
cl evdoKias
Perhaps 0' is a clerical
6
Bvaia (o-(DT7jpiou)
cmoxb2 Fl fi qu
oi X eis Bvaiav clpvviKWv :
0' Bvoiav owrnpiov
BAha, GMak dpt bw
error.
gn oWms : r omits the
whole phrase.
'3
irapa ras Bvpas
all.
0' eVi Ttts Bvpas
30 of Holmes
15
tous duo
Mmoxb2 Fl gn dpt bw
a 6' 0' tous Svo . . . : 0'
BAh Gack
k adds Svo: a, omits both
fir qu Lat
apuporepovs rovs
words . Georg tous Svo.
IV 9
to iv
gn dpt : to A fir : ™ 0
0' 0 £ctiv
Bha2 GMckxb, Fl bw qu
a reads iariv only : m
has an entirely differ
ent reading for ths
whole phrase.
sOh
s-
(-0
SO
it
s.
<">Sto
TABLE III {continued')

Reference

Readings of ejsvz

Authorities agreeing with
this group

Hexaplar note of v or s
where v is missing

Authorities presenting the
reading attributed by the
note to 0' (the LXX)

Remarks

IV 18

tov dvros

FbMoxb2 gn dpt bw'
fir qu

FaGack : quod est Arm
Boh Eth Latr

twv BAh : tw a2 : om.
F*lm

irpos twv Bvpavfsv only

A acx n dpt b fr

0' to 6v irpos tv Bvpa
Bha2 GMkob2 Fl g ejz
7rpo ttjs Bvpas m
of this group)
_
w i qu
20
ra po<rxo> (v sub B1)
g Arm (vid) dpt w
o' 0' tov pjaoxov : a ttj
BAha2 GMackmoxb2
Slav ra piooxu: Mosq
SapiaXv
Fl n b fir qu
adds huic & Ostrogi/li.
28
ijv ijpiapTev iv avrv
BAyha2 Mackmxb2
Fl gn dpt bw r qu
o' X r)V 7jp.aprev Kai oloa
Swpov avrov
Go fi Arm Boh Eth Or-
lat Eus
(xat) olira to Swpov
h FbMcb2 gn Arm dpt
G(sub*)akx u Eus: otoa
oltra BAya2 mo Fl fir:
avrov
w Or-lat 1
to Swpov b: oura Swpov q
Slav + to Swpov avrov
29
ttjs apapnas
BAyh Makmoxb2 Fl
gn dpt b fir qu
irepi tvs apiaprias
a2 G Arm Eth: irepi a. c
w omits the whole
verse.
V 4
17 >caXo7roi7;o-at(e omits
Mk Fl : ^ Kamiroi-noai
0 tj koXws TOiyoai
BAyha2 Gaco dptb'wfir
j is missing from IV
the whole phrase) X
m
qu: 1} /coXos Toivoai g (n
34 to VI 2.
sup ras z°
omits) :^ KaKwsToivaaib*
b2Phil-cod-unic:xomits.
(Kai \a8v avrov) dwo
dpt : dTro twv 6<p8a\- ^
GMckmoxb2 Fl fir qu
7rpo 6<p8d\p.wv BAyha,
6tp8ahp.wv
p.wv gn
0' X Kai \aBv abrov Kai
Boh Eth Laf Or-lat
aJw Latw: irpo AtpBaX-
Kai ovtos yvw (except
see column 5.
~
0 '
ouros yvw
Eus Cyr-cod
outws is read by a2 ac*
povb': Georg = gn
fia? prefix xaiovK iyvw:
s ourws)
'
kmx Fl dp s f Cyr-cod:
all others = 0'.
r reads this f or k. ii. y.
01 I— '
s
a,
^1
0
Crq
s
§
r"
VI

22

28

VII

3

VIII

n

17

XI

3'

42

vop.ip.ov alwvtov tw
Kvpiw (sub 8' v)
e\j/vrai

(iri mWvpwv dprwv
&£vuitwv

lo b of the M.T. after
1 1
(wavra to) o'xeuij
auriysKareKavoevtwv Bvvaipaiwv avrwv

gn bw: vopupos alwvios
B*bl : vop.ipas alwvios tw
Kvpiw t: vop.ip.ov alwviov b2
(Slav Mosq)

gn Arm dpt (KoWvpaov)

BAyha2 Mmoxb2 Fl)
gn dpt bw fir qu
li Mmoxb2 Fl dpt fir |
qu Boh Lat
all. Mkmoxb2 Fl gn Arm
(vid) dpt bw fir qu Boh
(vid) Eth (vid) Sah (vid)
Latrw Cyr-cod
k Fl gn Lat™ air abra

o vopios alwvios
o' 8' exfieBv: X itjieBvoerai
o' eV dprois frvpurais

o' 8' Kai ixpioev tvv
okvvvv Kai iravra Ta iv
abrv Kai ippavev
a' a' o' cveirptoav
o' 8' e abrwv TeSvvKOTwv

Baha2 Mkmox F fir qu:
vopos alwvios tw Kvpiw
Gac dp Arm
BAy k b2 F ira: bfw8v
c(vid):e\I-i#77gd:q omits:
all others i^v^v.
BAya2 Gx bw fir u : h
prefixes eVt KoXvpwv: a
KoXXupcus: eV'(l iv) dprois
dfvpirais (1 -wrais) Mk
mob2 Fl Sah : ^7rt koX-
\vpais dprov fapwrats c
Gack Sah
BAya2 Gack (which ap
parently has both read
ings) gn bw

BAyha2 Ga Cyr-ed: airo
TWV TeBvVKOTWV c

Ay* omit 19-23. Slav
Mosq agrees with our
group gn & bw.

q is missing from VI
31 to VII 16.
M. T. (VII 13)
nbnbv
(yzn crib)
v is missing VII 5-
XI 40.

Probably 0' is a cor
ruption of 6'.
Slav agrees with our
group & its allies.

BAyha2 GMacoxb2 dpt Slav Ostrog agrees
bw fir qu : Arm Philo with our. group & its
omit. allies.

1 So the Cambridge editors. But in Latin this would be indistinguishable from the reading of G.

toh- '
9-

5
°2 s"
il

s

I—*Or

TABLE III {continued)

Reference

Reading of ejsvz

Authorities agreeing with
this group

Hexaplar note of v or s
where v is missing

Authorities presenting, the
reading attributed by tht
note to 0' (the LXX)

Remarks

XII 4

Kadioerai

BA (-vatTai) h ax gn p
bw qu

0' Ka8ar8vatrai

B«bya2GMkmob2Fl t fir

d KaBwtretrBe : c corrupt.

al rifitpat svz (ej omit

BAyhaj Mcmoxb2 gn

0' a' ff ijpxpai

Gak Fl ej

al)

dpt bw fir qu

XIII 2
Aeutrerat
Mmoxb2 Fl dpt Arm fir
0' X dxSvtrerai
BAya2 Gack bw. irpoo--
Georg agrees with our
qu Boh Eth Latr: <?Xeu-
ax^o*CTat h: doaxBv g
group & its allies.
ovrai Cyr-cod : eiVeXeu-
o-eTat n
16
ds \evmv (v \cvkov)
c gn Arm dpt Boh :
0' XevKV
BAyha2 Gax F fi : \wkijv
Slav agrees with our
\evmv hb? Mkmob2 1 r
bw
group & its allies.
qu Lat
25
rpixa Xeumje(sub ft v)
Mkmob2 Fl dpt fir qu
0 a' Bpi\ \evKv
BAya2 acx Boh1 Sah
G is wanting XIII 17-
Boh""- (vid) Eth (vid)
Lat
pr v gn bw
49 : h XeUKOv 8pi%.
29
(ijeax v (sub 0-') : (2)
(1) iav BAyha2 Arm'
iws dv appears to be a
¥ iav sz : (3) 41 iv ej
Cyr (2) tp iav Mca?
k m (ou) 0 x Fl(o) g
dpt bw f(o)ir Boh
Sah Or-gr (3) <f! &v
ac* b2 n qu
-
0' iws avyevvraiiv abrois:
a' bra vycvvraiiv abrur. ff
bri 7e«7)Tat iv abrw
corruption of w iav or
u dv : Slav Ostrog =
(2).
iv avrw
gn Sah0
BAyha^ Mackoxb, Fl
m Arm Sahm omit. So
dpt bw fisr qu
too Georg.
en
s
&
5
aa
1-
I? SI
s. a
XIII 3°

iv abrv

BAya2 Mmoxb2 Fl gn
dpt fi qu

o' ff iv abrw

h ak bw r : aura c(vid)

to

36

(tvs) iavBi^ovovs

koxb2 dpt ir qu : %av8ov-

& o' t)js i,avBvs: a' . . .

BAyha2 a c m(omitsT)js)

Slav Mosq agrees with

ovs f : a-avBifrvevs M
STl\§VS
Fl gn bw '
our group & its allies.
&
3§
avyaoptara
yha2 Macmoxb2 F t bw
o' abyaopia abyafov
Sah (vid): B*Akr Cyr-
"1
abyafyvra (sub 6" v)
fi u : abyafovra abyao-
cod abyaopa abya^ovra
para dp : ouyao-piaTi
c?
abyafovra g : abyaopa-
§'
tos n* : abyafrvra 1 :
abyaopjiTa g Eth (vid)
Hi
44
Xorpos tariv
BAy ha2 Mmox b2 Fl
o' 8' a' \tirpos iariv dra-
ack g Arm dpt bw :
Co
fir qu
OapTos iortv
XeTrpos OKaBapros iortv n
XIV 8
fypvatrai
a2 F gn b
o' ^vpvBvoerai
BAyNh Mkob2 dpt w
fir qu : ^vpiaBwatrat ac
kbmx 1
N begins in XIII 59:
G is wanting XIV 6-
32 : Georg agrees with
our group & its allies.
s
21
{iav Si) irtvvs r\
M(mg)koxb2 g dpt fi qu
o* iav 8e irevvrai
BAyNha2 Macm Fl
SlavGeoig agree with
Eth (vid) Lat2 (vid):
bw r
our group & its allies.
'a
irevvs n
0-,
29
(to 5c KaraXatpBev)
kmoxb2 Fl gn dpt fir qu
o a' to Se KaTa\ei$8ev
yNha2 Mac bw: diro tou
Georg agrees with 0'.
0
iXatov (sub 8' v)
tov i\aiov
i\atov BA Sah
b<
33
7rpos 'Mwvawv (\eywv)
x
X o irpos Mwvtrv1' Kat
GsArm (vid):irpos Miob-
Georg adds et Aaroni.
ejvz (s inserts Kai
irpos 'Aapwv
ov Kai Aapwv BAyNha2
irpos 'Aapwv)
Mackmob2 Fl gn dpt bw
fir qu
s
5-1
34
iv K\vpw
M(mg) oxb2 dpt b(mg)
o' iv Krvtra: ot X els Kara-
BAyNha^ GMackm Fl
fi Boh Cyr
trx^otv
gn bw r qu: Thdt omits.
ot -3
TABLE III {continued)

Reference

Readings of ejsvz

Authorities agreeing with
this group

Hexaplar note of v or s
where v is missing

Authorities presenting the
reading attributed by the
note to 0' (the LXX)

Remarks

XV I

elirev

M(mg) ob2 fir qu Eth*

0' X i\a\ytrev

BAyNha2 Mackmx Fl

G is missing XIV 49-

Latr

gn dpt bw

XV 25: Slav Mosq
agrees with our group
& its allies.

2

XaX^o-ox (tois uiois
'LrpaijX) (/cat) ipets

BAyNha2 Mmoxb2"
Fl gn dpt bw ir qu
BAyNha2 Mamoxb2
Fl gn dpt bw ir qu

0' X XaX^o-aTe Tots viois
Iif\ Kai ipare abrois
ack f Eth Lat2
ck f Eth Lat2
irpos abrovs
y Mmoxb2 Fl gn dpt
bw fir qu ,
BANha2 ack
Slav agrees with our
group & its allies : Lat
ad eos.
9
iirtoaypia
Moxb2 Fl r qu BohEth
0' iiruraypta dvov
BAyNa2 ac gn dpt bw
h is missing XV 8-33
Lat2
fi : eVio"Ta7p.a votov k*
m omits 7-9.
XV 12
Kai (TKiVOS
BAya2 Mackmoxb2 Fl
gn dpt bw fir qu
X' 0' Kai irav crxeuos
130 of Holmes Eth
y is missing from the
third word of XV 12-
XVI 34.
(i) vitpBvctTai jsvz
(1) Mack*mb2 1 gn bw
0' 8' viipvcerai
BAa2 ox F i
N is not quoted appar
(2) irXufrtyreTat e
f qu (2) e k"pt r: ir\v-
Bvoerai d
ently through an over
sight: SlavOstrog=(i)
27
dKaBaprov vz (os ejs)
0' 8' a' dKaBapros
BANa2 GMacmob2 Fl
gn dp ejs bw fir qu
t is .missing XV 14-
XVI 7: k omits XV 27.
KaBapos x t
OtI— I
GO
CO
crc.
too
— -K
s
XVI 5
10

34

XVII io

XVIII 4

23

25

Suo Tpa7ous [see sepa
wore (i£iKaoatr8ai) (s
omits) (e'cp' eauTu) Tas
avopuas

O-iKaaacBai (subo'v)
(icai) iirioTvaw
TO- TpOffWTTOV pOV (ilTl
TIJV T/oxvv)
(cat iropeveoBe (j -o-ecrc7e)

pvatpov v (-apov ejsz)
aurois Stabrvv

rate table on the oc
M fir qu : <!>s dpt
BANhaj Mmob2 Fl -^
gn dpt bw fir qu
Mmob2 Fl gn Arm
dpt fir qu Boh Eth
Lat (vid) Cyr \ Thdt
ob2 ir u : e^iXacro-eTai f
BAyh Mamoxb2 Fl "1
gn dpt bw fir u
BAyh Mmoxb2 Fl gn
dpt bw fir u
Mb2 Fl b' ir Boh Eth
Luc : Kai iropevttvrBe j bw
u : Kai irop&jarQat o Phil-
cod BAyh*k*F*u ByNha2 Mckmob2(ex,l
corr) Fl (excorr) dpt fi u
BAyNha2 Mackmox
b2 Fl dpt bw fir u
BAyNha2 Mackmox
Fl gn dpt fi u

currences of this word
o' a' tov (i£ika(rao8ai)

o' a' 8' itp'iavrw iratras
ras dStKias abrwv

o' X c!£iXa<nc«r6'ai

o' (tat arvow tijv tpvxw
pov iiri tijv i'vxvv
o' a' tov wopeveoBai

o pwaapov

o'abrij Slabr[vv]: X aur)js
iir abrvv

in this chapter supra
BANha2 Gackmox Fl
gn bw : b2 omits.
Gackx s(mg) Sah
BANha, Gackx bw

BANha2 GMackmx Fl
gn dpt bw
Na2 ck s(mg) z (mg)
Na, ack s(mg) z (mg)
Or-lat
ckx : TopeveoBai Ba2 n
p Sah Clem : iropeveoBe
AyNh dt Phil-ed : a2 g
f omit.
N»!hb?a2 Mackboxb2
Fafl gn t b fir : ptttrapov
dp m : p.upop N*w
xbwEus: auD)sagnArm-
codd Lat : aurcuK A r
authorities in cols 2 & 3:
iir' gn
authorities in cols 2 & 3 :
abrvs b2 : abrovs bw :

P- 509]

q is missing from XVI
12.
G is missing XVII 10-
XVIII 28.

tocoCo

5-Co

a
Ck, S

il

sCo

Mto

520 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [July?
In the first place, it is to be noted that by o' is meant a
Hexaplar text that closely resembles the text of G, though it
is not identical with it. It may further be said that the He
brew it represents differs only very slightly from the Masso
retic text. The most important instances are vi. 22 (M.T.
13), where the reading of G and its allies corresponds to the
Massoretic text, and o' fails to do so; vii. 3, where gn, Arm,
dpt, ejsvz, give the Massoretic text; xv. 9, where presumably
ovov should have been obelized; xv. 12, where o' represents
a Hebrew that differed from the Massoretic text through the
dittography of the $o of ^31, thus giving irav; and xvii. 10,
where o' and its allies have " soul " for " face." But substan
tially the o' of the notes is the text of our best Hexaplar
authorities, and corresponds very closely with the Massoretic
text, though here and there it has a slightly different He
brew. Secondly, I wish to draw attention to the sources of
the readings so far as they are known to us. Clearly ejsvz
is connected with a recension which consciously and confess
edly differs from the " LXX " of the notes, and incorporates
readings some of which are known to come from Theodotion
(iv. 20; vi. 22; xiii. 25, 38; xiv. 29), Symmachus (xiii. 29),
and Aquila (xvi. 34). The author of this recension there
fore drew on all these renderings for his material. In other
cases variants are attributed to the LXX and Aquila, Sym
machus, and Theodotion, leaving us to conjecture whether
the renderings adopted are pre-Hexaplar or due to some fifth
interpreter or to the author of the recension himself. In the
next place, no doubt is possible as to what witnesses incor
porate this recension. They are gn and the Armenian and
the Slavonic, and to a less extent dpt. The Armenian is not
always quoted; but, if the readings of gn be examined, it
will be seen that the differences are such as can be explained

1913.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 521
either by the ordinary causes of MS. corruption (e.g. iii. 6,
where gn has 6vo-ia<; for dvata, apparently from the follow
ing ct of ao>TTjpiovt and v. 4, KaXoo-irotno-ai for KaXoTToinarai) ,
or else by Hexaplar influence on the one text or the other
(e.g. iii. 1, where the reading of n is actually due to a cor
rector, and i. 10, where ejsvz omit an obelized phrase). On
the other hand, stress should be laid on the number of re
semblances between gn and ejsvz and on the curious recen-
sional character of some of them. In i. 9, 13, 17 oXoKavToifta
is substituted for Kapireolu,a> to represent burnt offering. In
the LXX both words are used throughout this chapter as
the equivalent of the same Hebrew; but, except in verse 4,
gn regularly substitutes oXoKavTcopafra) for Kapirco/ia (ver. 9,
13, 14, 17), and is followed by ejsvz, though in verse 10 ej
read 6XoKap7ra)/jt,aTa by a natural conflation. Other recen-
sional readings in this list appear to be those in iv. 9 ; v. 4 ;
vi. 22; vii. 3. Another feature is the agreement in vi. 28
between ejsvz and Slav Mosq. The following passages may
be compared: vi. 6 (M.T. v. 25), ordinary reading ets 6, ejsz,
Slav Mosq, 97? ; vi. 31 (M.T. vii. 1), ordinary reading icpiov,
ejsz, b', Slav Ostrog, Kvptov; xvi. 26, ordinary reading <5teo--
raXfievdv, ejsvz, Slav Mosq, Stao-TeXXofievov. These coinci
dences are suggestive, in view of the fact that the Slavonic
texts are probably Lucianic (so far as they are Septuagintal)
and certainly late.1 None of them suggests a different He
brew from the ordinary Septuagint (for vi. 31 is merely a
Greek corruption) ; but it is possible that they should all be
regarded as later modifications of the Lucianic text, so far
as this can be restored from our other authorities. For the
present, we may leave this table with one other remark, viz.
that bw is frequently to be found among the authorities con-
'The translation was made in the eighth century.

TABLE IV

Lev. X

Reading of ejsz

Other authorities for the
reading

Alternative readings

Authorities for alternative
readings

Remarks

1

Bvpuapa

ord

0up.tap.aTa

B»bA gn dpt

/

2

direBavotrav

Mob2 ir qu

direBavov

ord

3

ioriv

ord

+ to pvp.a

bw Boh Sah

ord = M. T.

tlirev 2°

ord

i\a\ij<re

bw

bw = M. T.

4

viovs tov dSeKtpov

ord

dSeXcpous

bw (n omits)

bw = M. T.

bpwv

ord

+ aw tois xiT(i)0"i>' ab-

h Fb gn Arm dpt

ord — M. T.

5

aw

g Arm Fb M(mg)

iv

ord

n omits the verse.

elirev
ord
i\a\v<rev
bw
bw = M. T.
6
Aectfap
ord
pr irpos
y gndt
M. T. pr ^
vacat
k Boh1 Eth
tous KaTaXcXtp:p£vous
ord : G obelises.
6 8vpjos
c
flupios
ord
oi Se
ord
oi
B*Aya2 t* i*
vacat
ord
6
B lmfir
7
^Xaiop yap
Fb Moxb2 gn pt fir
qu
7ap iXaiov
BAyhaj Gackm 1 d bw
9
iav
Fbob2 qu
dv
ord (y omits)
10
&Ka$aprwv
ord
KaBapwv
gn Arm fir Eth Lat
Philo
KaBapwv
ord
&Ka8aprwv
gn Arm fir Eth Lat
Philo
ii
baa
Mkmoxbj Fbl dpt qu
&
BAyh Gc gn bw fir
(a a2 omit)
Otto
Co 3"a.
CO
a
O
— +,
''¦
12

irpos (IBa/tap)

h Mmob2 Fbl dpt ir qu

vacat

BAya2 Gackx gn bw

M. T. bN

M

Lat

o^
abrov
Mmoxb2 Fbl gn Arm-ed
dpt fir qu Boh Eth Lat
'Aapwv 2°
BAyha2 Gack bw
M. T. -= aurou
CO
Co
tpayere
ord
tpayeoBe
BAyh Ga gn : -voBe a2 :
+ avrnv c
a.
tpayere abrvv
F"bw
"3
Co
irapa
ord
irposiiri
a2gn Fbc
»3
abrvv
BAha2 Gac bw fir
abra
Mkmoxb2 Fbl gn dpt qu
(y omits)
ivreraXrai
ord
ivrera\Ke
xl ]
Co
pjoi Kvptos
ya? Mckmo Fbl gn Arm
pm
BAy*ha2 Ga bw Sah
mihi praecepit Domi
ts>
qu Boh Eth
Kvpios
pioi 6 Kvpios
p.oi \eyei Kvptos
dpt fir I
i J
nus Lat : M. T. Wl?
a
'4
yap
ord
vacat
x fir Eth
ord = M. T.
twv owrvpiwv
Mkmob2 Fl g dpt fir qu
Lat (vid)
rov owrvpiov
BAyha2 Gacx bw
n owrvpiwv
i8
elavvexBrj
ord (el ovvvx^ij q)
eltrvx^V
BAya2 f
awerayv pot
ord Arm Eth (aweraa
pot trvvera^ev Kvpios
BAa, Fm \
p-ot o n)
trvvera^ev fiot Kvpios
h 1 f Boh
Dominus mandavit
Sah
mihi
-
M. t. srmu
s
ovveral-ev Kvptos
y ir
s
/tot avverayv
Gak Lat J
'r
>, I9
roiavra
Blb GMac (pr ra) kmox
b2 Fl g Arm dpt qu Lat
ravra
BA'yh (ra abra a2) n
bw fir
to
CO
524 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [July,
taining the Hexaplar reading. It may be necessary to refer
again to this list at a later stage of our inquiry.
I now set out a table of noteworthy readings in chapter x.,
and I use " ord " to signify the ordinary Greek reading where
it is unnecessary to specify in detail the authorities present
ing it.
In this table ejsz separates itself from gn in some gram
matical points (ver. 2, 9, 12 {bis)). In verse 6 we find it
omitting a passage obelized by Origen ; and this is a frequent
feature of this text (see, e.g., its readings in i. 10; iv. 2, 5,
17; vi. 9 (M.T. 2)). It agrees with g in the characteristic
trvv for iv in verse 5, and in verses 4 and 10 its reading has
been brought into accord with that of the ordinary Greek and
Hebrew authorities. On the other hand, there is no trace of
any Egyptian reading.
These characteristics are reproduced throughout the book.
It differs from gn in grammatical points (e.g. Lev. ii. 1; viii.
35; xxii. 6), in changes to the Hexaplar or even Massoretic
reading (e.g. vii. 28 (M.T. 38) ejsz and M.T. "Mount" for
ordinary LXX "wilderness"); in textual corruptions (e.g.
xiii. 30, ejsvz, M(mg), XevKv for ord. XeiTT-rj), and sometimes
by the addition of little explanatory glosses for which there
was probably never any Hebrew equivalent (e.g. xv. 22, ejsvz
add to aco/j,a avrov after Xovo-erai, ¦ xxii. 28, ejsv(mg)z prefix
Ik TToipiviov to TrpofSarov). On the other hand, there are pas
sages where gn appears to have been assimilated to the Hex
aplar reading, and ejsvz seems to join other authorities (such
as dpt and the Armenian) in maintaining the original read
ing of the recension. Occasionally it happens that the group
joins authorities which cannot be suspected of being Lucianic
in maintaining a pre-Hexaplar reading (e.g. viii. 26, icvpiov
M.T. and ord.; tov Beov, ejsz, Lat, Mkmox, Fl, fir, qu ; xiv.

1913.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 525
33, Kai 'Kmpmv, ord.; ejsvz, x omit). This is, however, infre
quent, and may be due to the fact that the other Lucianic
authorities have been assimilated to the Hexaplar text in the
course of transmission. Very rarely it happens that ejsvz
alone preserves an ancient Hebrew reading (e.g. xiii. 17, M.T.
ord. lSovt ejsvz omit; xxi. 23, M.T. and ord. Tto dytov- ejsvz
to ovb ftaf which is also evidenced by the conflate readings of
some other authorities.1
It should be addied that the group it represents is very nu
merous.' In addition to ejsvz, the two MSS. of the Catena
Nicephori appear to haVe belonged to the same family, as
do also 16, 32, 73, and 77 of Holmes. It appears that this
text was in use for church services (see Holmes's descrip
tion of 16). No MS. that contains it extends beyond the
Octateuch. Perhaps when the Cambridge editors publish
their introduction to the Octateuch, light will be thrown
upon the subject. It appears to me to be a subrecension
made on the basis of a late Lucianic text with the assistance
of the Massoretic text and a Hexaplar copy. It is not irrele
vant to recall the fact that, in days when the Hebraica Veritas
was the ideal, Lucian's work was severely condemned. This
might easily lead to a " revised version " of it such as is
apparently found in these MSS. I have not found in Levit
icus that it possesses any support from any patristic author
ity, and I think it is probably late. On the other hand, it is
not certain that the Slavonic texts are unconnected with the
text of this group.
It should be added that, within the group, ej are more
closely related than any other two MSS., obviously descend
ing from a common archetype (cp. xvi. 21).
I come now to other points that arise on this table. Sep-
1robvo/ia to ayiov, kmb2; ro bvopu tou 0710U, Slav Ostrog; to dyiov dvo/ia, u.

526 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [July,
arate readings of bw are quoted only in the first five verses ;
but it is apparent, even in these, that its text is in some re
spects highly Hebraized. A noteworthy reading occurs in
verse 4, where crvv rots xiTCOCrlv av'ra>v 1S added in certain
other authorities in the form in which g and the Armenian
present this phrase in verse 5. The authorities are a later
hand in F, gn, dpt, and the Armenian, i.e. Lucianic witnesses,
and h. It will be remembered that similarly the chief Luci
anic witnesses and some others added part of xvi. 22 to xvi.
10. Here, again, we probably have to deal with a Lucianic
reading. With regard to h, it will' be remembered that it
generally goes with BAya2 ; but in chapter xvi. it substitutes
the Lucianic Tpayos for xi/j.apo<; on its first appearance ;
thereby leading to the conjecture that its text had been
glossed from some Lucianic source, and a similar explana
tion would be in place here. Passing over smaller grammat
ical variations in verse 6 that may be Hesychian, we come
to the transposition of " unclean " and " clean " in verse 10.
The evidence of the Old Latin and Philo combined shows
that this is pre-Hexaplar, and accordingly it is natural to
suppose that this is one of the cases in which most of our
authorities havd been brought into conformity with the Hex
aplar text. The unusual combination of gn and fir in isola
tion against all the other MSS. would thus receive a natural
explanation. In verse 13 the Old Latin testifies to a pre-
Hexaplar " the Lord commanded me," which may probably
have replaced an earlier " the Lord commanded." The Mas
soretic text has " I was commanded," and apparently only
1 and x have retained the verb in the original active. Here
fioi appears to be the text of Origen, Kvpios the pre-Hexaplar
preserved by dpt and fir, and fioc Kvpio<; a conflate reading
which has naturally arisen in most of our authorities. Pre-

1913.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 527
sumably Lucian and Hesychius here retained the original
Septuagint. In verse 18 it looks as if elanx^V were the Hesy
chian form, and later in the same verse we have the same
kind of confusion between " I was commanded " and " the
Lord commanded " as in verse 13. But in this instance the
Egyptian authorities all give " the Lord commanded me/'
merely differing as to the order of the words; and it seems
clear that in this place Lucian and Origen agreed on " I was
commanded," while Hesychius, whose reading here seems to
be best witnessed by y and ir, read o-uvera^ev icvpios. It is
worth noticing that Flm here goes with the Egyptian group.

STUDIES IN THE SEPTUAGINTAL TEXTS
OF LEVITICUS

NUMBER TWO

1913.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 669

ARTICLE VIII.
STUDIES IN THE SEPTUAGINTAL TEXTS OF
LEVITICUS.
BY HAROLD M. WIENER, M.A., LL.B., OF LINCOLN'S INN,
BARRISTER- AT-LAW .
II.
In the preceding article we had occasion to assume that
a close relationship existed between the Armenian Version
and certain groups of cursives, particularly gn. This phe
nomenon is one that constantly impresses itself on. the student
"of the text ; but td enable the reader to see it clearly for him
self,, the following tables are printed. In Table V., the most
important Armenian readings possessing support from author
ities in Leviticils viii. are taken as the standard, and it is
shown now fer they meet with support frbm other authorities.
In Table VI., on the other hand, the text of gn in certain
^passages of Leviticus xxiv. is the standard.
Table V. reveals a number of very interesting phenomena.
The' close relationship between gn and Arm appears in such
readings as those in verses 9, 10-11, 16, 19, 30, 32, embracing
- grammatical points, e'r foheous readings, and alterations of
order. Occasionally, as in verses 17 and 35, Arm appears
to part company with gn through accommodation to the He
brew. The grouping of the authorities makes it reasonably
probable that the Armenian presents pre-Hexaplar readings
in verses 2, ll, 19, 27, 30, 31 ; fof in most of these we have
clearly Egyptian witnesses going with the Armenian in pre
serving non-Massoretic readings' which contrast with the later
Hebrew reading's that have influenced most of our texts. On

670 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [Oct.
the other hand, B appears to have preserved Hesychian read
ings in verses 2 and 35.
Special interest attaches to verses 28 and 33. In the lat
ter we have to distinguish four readings of importance: —
(1) ijpie/sa irXvpcoOr) r)fj,epa TeXeiao-em ("clearly the read
ing of Origen, as it has the support of Hexaplar witnesses).
(2) r)/j,epat irXnpcoaeavi r)/j,€pa>v TeXetcoo-eoy; (Arm and its
allies, and M.T.).
(3) irXrjpcodr] ^fispa TeXeLa>(rea><; (h, Spec, Cyr).
(4) r)fj.epa TrXrjpco&r) TeXeicocreay} (B, m, Chr).
That (2) is the reading either of Lucian or of a later in
sertion in Lucian seems clear. Incidentally it should be no
ticed that the Armenian and its allies here, as in some other
places, show a closer approximation to the Massoretic text
than Origen himself. There can be no doubt that the recen
sion has been influenced by an independent study of a He
brew text. The difference between (3) and (4) is merely
a question of the relative positions of rip-epa and irXvpadn .
Possibly this is a non-recensional difference; but if a recen-
sional question arises, presumably (3), with Cyril's support,
represents Hesychius, and (4) is pre-Hexaplar. But the dif
ference appears too slender to warrant any far-reaching con
clusions. In any case the original reading of the LXX is more
closely represented by (3) and (4) than by the other texts.
The other passage (ver. 28) is interesting for a very dif
ferent reason. In xvi. 10, and again in x. 4, we found the
Armenian, gn, dpt, and other witnesses inserting some words
from other parts of the chapter. Apparently no Hebrew
equivalent had ever existed for these words. Here we meet
with the same phenomenon : " as the Lord commanded "
seems to come from verse 21, and is found in the Armenian,
gn, dpt, h (which appears to be descended from an archetype

1913.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 671
that had been glossed from some Lucianic text), and c. We
shall have to note other instances hereafter.
Table VI. presents fewer features of interest. It is to be
noted that the closest allies of gn are the Armenian, dpt, and
bw (see ver. 2, 5, 7, 14, 16, 19, 23). In verse 23 we seem to
have a pre-Hexaplar reading, while in verse 8 B and its
allies appear to present a Hesychian reading. It is to be
noted that in one case gn and the Armenian agree with the
Massoretic text against Origen (ver. 7).
Table VII., in which readings of dpt in Leviticus xxvi. are
taken as the standard, calls for more comment. Here, again,
we find a close relationship between dpt, gn, and the Armen
ian, and some considerable connection with bw. Further,
we have once more to note that c and h often go with one
or more authorities of this class. Again it may happen that
our group and its allies agree with the Massoretic text
against the Hexaplar authorities (e.g. 14). Pre-Hexaplar
readings seem to be preserved by dpt in verse 2, perhaps in
verses 11 {o-tvo-co,) 16, 19, 29, 32, and 43, and by the author
ities in column 5 in verse 11 (Siadnicnv), and perhaps in
verses 28 (h and its allies) and 44 (M, Boh). In verse 18,
Origen clearly read eirra; Lucian, en-Ta/as; and Hesychius,
irXnyaii etna. But the division of the authorities suggests
that the two latter readings m'ay both have been current be
fore the time of Origen. Here dpt seems to preserve a Greek
gloss {irepatf). Lucianic readings appear to be found in
dpt and its allies in verses 6, 14, 27, 35, and 45, in pt and
gn in verse 5, in dt and its allies in verse 13, and in gn and its
allies in verse 39 ; while Hesychius is probably represented
by h and its allies in verse 16, perhaps (but improbably) by
f in verse 20, and possibly by o in verse 22. One very inter
esting feature is the fact, that, while bw and dpt often agree,

672 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [Oct.
they are very rarely to be found in solitary agreement against
all the other authorities, including gn. Both appear to me
to be based in part on a particular recension, but it seems to
me that the use of this recension and the other ingredients
employed varied very greatly.
In Table VIII., readings of bw in xix. 1-xx. 19 form the
standard. It is to be observed that this group often-goes its
own way — sometimes from an approximation to a Hebrew
text, sometimes apparently through recensional activity sub
stituting different Greek forms or expressions for those of
the other Septuagintal authorities (e.g. xix. 7; xx. 16), or
again through textual corruption (xix. 22, 26). On the other
hand, it often preserves pre-Hexaplar readings (e.g. xix. 12.
27, 32; xx. 2, 17). * Sometimes the authorities in column 5
appear to represent the original Greek text (xix. 2, B and its
allies; 12). It is clear that c, h, gn, the Armenian, and dpt
are the most nearly related to our text; but it is to be noted
that bw and dpt will seldom be found in isolated agreement
on a non-Massoretic reading. Nor does bw often agree
with qu alone. Not infrequently it goes with the Egyptian
versions (e.g. xi. 2, ord. and M.T. Xeyovrei; bw, Sah, add
avTov}; 3, ord. and M.T. iv tol<s KTnveatv; bw, Boh, omit ;
4, ord. and M.T. cucadaprov rovro; bw, Boh, Eth, transpose
the words), and in such cases it presumably preserves pre-
Hexaplar readings. It is to be noted that in xx. 19 it joins
h, c, gn, the Arm, and dpt in presenting words that come from
verse 20, but are not present in the Hebrew, and that in xx.
6, 7, it appears to present double renderings.
1In xix. 5, StKra appears to have been the reading of Lucian,
and the nonsensical SeKarvv may have arisen through the -o of
this having been written In the margin of a MS. reading SeKrrjn,
as an alternative to the last syllable, and then having been incor
porated in the word by error.

1913.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 673
The former of these characteristics is specially marked in
gn and its allies. We have already noted several instances.
Here are some more : xx. 11, ord. ivo%oi; gn, Arm, dpt, pre
fix r/a-eftnieao-iv Kai (dpt omits the Kai) from verse 12; i. 3, ord.
Bcktov {avTco); gn, Arm, dpt, add i%iXao~ao-6ai from verse
4, while h substitutes it for avrco- ii. 4, ord.afwjtoi?; g, Arm,
dpt, add e« o-e/itSa\et»?( which occurs immediately before
(the whole phrase is missing in n) ; 11, ord. napirioo-ai ¦ gn,
dpt, add Bvaiav (cp. the beginning of the verse) ; Arm ren
ders fructum in sacrificium; viii. 16, ord. to areap 2° : gn,
Arm, prefix irav from earlier in the verse. In this pecul
iarity bw does not generally agree with gn and its allies.
The text of gn as it stands often incorporates Hexaplar
notes (e.g. ii. 16; iii. 8; iv. 3; vii. 8); but this is probably
to be attributed to the process of copying, and therefore it
must be eliminated in any estimate of the recensions.
On the whole, the evidence appears to me to point to the
following conclusions as to the groups. The testimony of
the Lucianic fathers and the Armenian version makes it cer
tain that either gn or dpt is our principal Lucianic group. Of
these, gn is nearer to the Armenian, and has long been re
garded as practically the text of Theodoret. It would seem,
therefore, that this is descended from a Lucianic copy. If
that be so, dpt represents a text that is partly Lucianic and
partly pre-Hexaplar, but has been influenced very little by
independent study of a later Hebrew text. It must not be
forgotten, however, that in Deuteronomy x. 6 f. it substitutes
the Samaritan for a Jewish text. On the other hand, bw
contains, in addition to a Lucianic element, a large number
of pre-Hexaplar readings and a strong infusion of a later
Hebrew, together with a greater amount of verbal recasting
than any of the other main types.

TABLE V

Lev. VIII

Armenian Reading

Authorities agreeing with it

Alternative readings

Authorities presenting alter
native readings

Remarks

2

(tos oro\as)ai5Twi'

gn dpt bw i Eth Chr

ai5rovvacat

BAyha2 x r Sah
ord Boh Latr Or-lat

v is missing through
out the chapter.
MT = ord.

5

to pvpa iaTiv

y

iartv to prjpa

ord

vacat
ord Boh Sah Eth Lat
Or-lat Chr Cyr
TOUTO iSTlV 2°
BAa2
MT = ord.
9
iiri tvv KapaXijv abrov
tvv jxirpav
gn
tvv furpav iiri tvv Ketpa-
Xvv abrov
ord
MT = ord.
10
Xaflwv
gn Latr
i\aj3ev
ord
i
MT = ord.
ii
vacat
gn Laf
Kai i°
ord
outok (Arm-codd :
y Mmob2 Fl dpt r qu
abra
BAha2 Gackx (abro)
MT = abra.
Arm-ed is not
Boh1
gn bw fi: earn Eth
quoted.)
vacat
Latw
16
irav (to iiri)
gn
vacat
ord
MT = ord : the Arm.
reading is a palpable
error, repeating the
earlier 73-
»7
vacat
h km bw
abra
ord
MT = Arm.
'9
vacat
h p bw Ethc
Mw(v)trrjs 2°
ord
MT reads it on its sec
ond occurrence in ord.,
but not on its first.
Co
ft.
2
Cos 8.
sr
— K
"3
O o
kvk\w tod BvaiatSTij-

n Eth (vid): kvk\w iiri

iiri to BvauLtrrvpiov kv-

ord

MT = ord.

ptov

to 6vaiatTTvpiov g

kXw

27
abro
ob2 r Boh Eth : w fi
abra
ord
MT = ord.
28
vacat
ord Boh Eth Lat
Mw(v)orjs 2°
BAy Gacx Fl gn dt
MT = ord.
vacat
bw
itrriv 2°
ord
MT = sin.
(Kvpiw) KaBairep ive-
h c gn dpt
vacat
ord
MT = ord.
Teikaro ks
3°
\afiwv
gn Lat
iXafiev
ord . )
ord J
cp. io f. supra.
vacat
gn Lat
Kai 30
abrwv
d f(+jneT ai5Tou) Boh1
Sanc-cod
twv vlwv abrov 1°
ord
MT = ord.
3'
(pioi) KS
hya?ackm gn dpt ejszf
Sah Ethc Slav Ostrog
Georg: Boh dominus
for p.oi
vacat
ord
MT == ord.
32
panis
diro twv dprwv g
twv Kpewv
ord )
ord J
MT = ord.
carnis
tup Kpewv gn
twv dprwv
cp. 9 supra.
mt nsba cv.
33
rjpxpas irXvpwoews
gn pt ejsz bw : irXvpw-
rjpepa irXvpwBij
ord: pr v Chr
oews d
ijpepas ir\vpwBv
Vftepa irXvpwtrews
irXvpwBv
A cox
b2h Spec
ijpepwv rcXeiwoews
g ejsz bw: n dp omit
reXetwtrews iws ijptpas reXeiwaews
rjpiepa reXetwaews
B*Ay m Chr: pr tvs f
tord Boh Lat Cyr Spec
mt ca-Nbia "»\
35
Kai (tpvXa^etrBe)
GMb2 1 ejsz r
vacat
ord
MT = Arm.
Kvpios
ord Boh Sah Eth Lat:
+ 6 t?eos
BAyhaj
Not in MT.
Co sft.
to
*3r- s
ft
frq
s
C-)
OS
TABLE VI

L v. XXIV

Readings of gn

Authorities agreeing
with gn

Alternative readings

Authorities presenting alter
native readings

Remarks

2

<rot

ord Arm Boh Sah Eth£

pot,

BAy Flm Eth0

j and q missing in

Or-lat Cyr \

vacat

fCyr*

this chapter.
MT = ord.
a is missing up to the
last clause of ver. 23.

vacat

p r Cyr-ed \

iXatvov

ord

MT = ord.

iva Kaivrai Adx1*05
dpt Arm-codd (et ura-
tur lucema Arm-ed)
Kavtrat Xvxvov
ord
Iva Kaivrai Slav Mosq.
3
iawBev
i£w8ev
ord
MT = ord.
S
iK Svo
dpt bw Arm (vid)
Svo
ord
MT = ord.
7
iviBvcreis
Arm
^10170" ere
iiriBijcerai
ord Aaj o Boh
MT = gn.
els dprovs
BAy*Nh*a2 ex dpt bw
oi dproi
ord Boh Eth" Slav
mt onbb.
els dvap.vv?tv
ord
dvap.vnp.aros
bw Arm
mt n-orsb-
8
SiadvKij alwvios
ord Slav Georg
SiaBrjKvv alwvtov
BAyha, M f Boh (vid)
Sah (vid) Cyr
9
vacat
ord
twv i°
BAyNa2 Fklm Cyr
MT = ord: according
to a Hexaplar note in
v 0' read twv.
n
vacat
bw
T1JS4°
ord
14
vacat
bw Arm
AiravTes
co esvz fi u )
ord S
MTb3.
iravres
s
ft.
Co o>sft
¦a
S
o
is

16

!9

23

(&v$pairos) bs (iav)

XiBophXta

dvBpwiros

iroiv8vaeraiKai 6 TVTTTWV KTVVOS
iirav aveXij diroTiaarw
abro iyw its gn(of)Tai)

KaTeXiBoPoXvaaviv (XiSois)
iraaa rj o-vvtryciryi)

KaBoriivereiXaro

BAy dpt Arm Cyr f
Thdt (vid)
t Arm mgs of svz: d
omits : p has an entirely
different reading.
a2 Fkl m(-os)

bw

t(dp omit the verse) bwr
B*b Ay bw
h Mckmoxbj Fl t esvz
i u Boh Eth: f Arm
place after at/roc

a t u mgs of svz
a u mgs of svz

vacativbs
XiBoa

TIS waavrwsabrwsvacat dvrnroivBrjoeraiKai 6 TVTTTWV KTVVOS dlTO-
Titrarw abro (abrw G*)
KaivacatiXiBofioXvoavvacatvacat

xaBaKaBairepavvera&v

Na2 mb2 r Sah (vid)
Or-lat Cyr J.
ordord

ordord ( + odtws N)
f bw ord G (sub*) ck(mg) x Sah
(+idet)
t Arm Boh Eth
ordordordord

B*Ay F bw f
ord ord

MT = ord.

MT am
MTp.

Note in F1 6' (?) am.
MT = G.

dp omit the verse.
MT = ord.: accord
ing to a note in v the
words do not occur in
the LXX (i.e. a Hexa
plar text) & the other
translators.

CO Co s
a,S
«¦+¦s-naCo
*&¦ *¦+.aa
Cft,

OS

<1 S

TABLE VII

Lev. XXVI

Readings of dpt

Authorities agreeing with
dpt

Alternative readings

Authorities presenting
alternative readings

Remarks

j is missing in this
chapter : q is missing
1-20 ; a, 1-9. Some
passages are preserved
in d2.
mt asb.
I
(bpuv) iavrois
h Mc gn esvz bw
vacat
Gox fi u Boh (vid)
aiVois
BAyNa2 kmb2 Fl r
xetpoToivra
ord
X«O0TT0i7rr01'
gh bw
yXvirra
ord
yXvirTov
NhGckxgnbwmgsofsv
Bvaere
ord
arvaert
M esvz bw fi
mt nnn
elpa
BAyNha2 kmb2 Fl gn
vacat
GMcox esvz bw fir u
Eth (vid) Spec-cod
In the case of the inser
tion or omission of el/u
I only give one or two
instances as samples.
2
etp.i
BAyNha2 kmb2 Fl gn
vacat
GMcox esvz fir u Eth
(vid) : bw omits the
whole phrase.
(ks) 6 Beos vawv
Boh Eth"
6 Beos
m Lat
vacat
ord
MT = ord.
3
iv tois (pt only of this
group)
gn fi Or-gr Cyr
rots
ord
s 1
dAoT/ros
ord
dpir/ros
B*Ay Eth
co
COaft
ss-
£
to "3
a to
O
1913.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 67!)

•a

o ll

J2
j. "3.

5- &>
3 O

fl

CA ID
"3

1
>c

-e- 3

p-

1 0)

& CIS

» ^1

c "d
r-3
L Pi
£ x
2c
oc
b b
¦8.
(A O
6 II
.9 fi
V*
O >_
n
II a
!3
1-
3
-d P-t-
m H
w
H
H H
(U
ti
*S
g i.
tfl
S
s s
X
~o
3.
^ a]
« ¦a
..a
-a O
S
« k. .a
p
J3
9
I & 9
•a [x,
o J3
•a o
•a O
6
<
-a «
gs
.O
T3
.K
¦a a
J3
CO —
H^
5 -°
is
H °
•a PQ <
J2
.Q O.
O O -3 P9
C
o
-a
3 a.
to 3
¦a g.
c ;»
rt in
3
g <-
-ci \o
3
3 &
ii CO * <& «Q
3 -A8f
» -B f
» cfi V-
P O o
I: it g
b >¦ K
ccm
,0 x o
§O &
is
< s
H o
•=• d 3
M M tc! M
= 3 ^
T3 9
0 6
-a o
e
<
Mamox* Boh (sub*)cki rm
£>-2O 0
?«h too
fi
3a.
3
3.
p fc
t-
I
3a.
3 bP-
J2 *"
.3.
I ii e i I
I 3 t "I -fe
TABLE VII {continued)

CTJ00o

Lev. XXVI

Readings of dpt

Authorities agreeing with
dpt

Alternative readings

Authorities presenting
alternative readings

Remarks

16

Kai 4°

B*Abw Eth (vid) Or-gr

vacat

ord Arm Boh Sah Lat

atpaKeXtjpvras (atpaXe-

ord

tr<paKeXi^ovra

Na2 Makmxb2 gn fr

Xijpvras d)
Bohw Sah (vid) Eth
(vid)
(e'Sojroi) abra
N Gcxv* gn bw Arm
Boh Sah Lat
vacat
ord
18
tov (iraiSviaai)
B gn bw
vacat
ord
irXvyais iirra irepais
&TTOKIS,iirra
irXvyas iirra \
irXvyais iirra
irXljyatS eTTTOKl!
BA gn Arm bw Lat
Gx
huNa2 acb2 fir Boh Sah
Mkmo Fl esvz
mt jnt».
'9
aiSrjpovv
ord
pr us
aj Mackmob2 F esvz fir
u d2
1 Boh (vid) Sah (vid)
mt bras.
us aiSvpov
Eth (vid) Lat Syr-ap
Barh
zo
tnropov
ord
xapirov
f Boh1
mt rh<n\
21
ptera ravra iav
Boh
iav pxra ravra ir.
ord
MT omits p. t.
(iropevrjaBe)
iav ir. pjera touto
Gcx Syr
iropevwade
ord (with unimportant
variations)
+ irpos px
bw qu
MT + >ay,
Cos ft
Coa
Coo *^- a
O o
koc irpoo-Bijata

w Boh1

TrpooBtjow

ord

MT = dpt.

22

TTOIVOW

BAha2 b2gne

irotvaa

ord Boh1 Sah Eth

iprjp.01 itrorrai

ord

itrorrai iprjpoi
ipijfiwdvtrorrai

oBoh BAdhaj Arm (vid) Sah
(vid)

23
iav im tovtou
Mao esvz fir qu Arm
Boh Lat
im tovtovs iav
ord
MT = dpt
25
¥
mo gn esvz r Eth
els 2°
ord
MT -pro.
26
BXupai
iv tw BXapai
ord
27
(iav Se) rat
gn Arm (vid)
vacat
ord
MT = ord.
28
Kayw
Kai iyw xb2
vacatiyw
h m b' Arm Sah
ord
MT = dpt xb2.
29
Kat 2° (dp only of this
group)
h Arm-ed Lat
xai tos aapKas 2°
ord
MT = ord.
vacat (dp only of this
h m e bw Arm-ed
<payetr0e 2°
ord
MT = ord.
group)
32
vacat
h gn Arm e f Boh Lat
iyw
ord
MT = ord.
35
koi trajUpaTiet
gn Arm Eth Thdt
cra/3(3oT«i
ord
MT = ord.
39
abrwv Kai Staras dfiap-
ord Boh Eth Lat
VJIWV 2°
BAb'
MT = Gcx and their
rias twv irpwv abrwv
'
abrwv
yNha2 Gcx gn Arm £w
allies. According to a
Hexaplar note in v o'
Tax/ irpwv abrwv
i*
= G.
(ixBpwv) abrwv pjer
bpuov
f
d and e omit eV(39) —
abrwv (pt)
vacat abrwv Kai Sia ras dpap-
rias twv irpwv abrwv
pier abrwv
w h c gn Arm
abrwv (40).
cch-1
CMCosft,
2
CoPas
a
or.
TABLE VII {continued)

Lev. XXVI

Readings of dpt

Authorities agreeing with
dpt

Alternative readings

Authorities presanting
alternative readings

Remarks

39

abrwv Kai iv tois a/iao-
Tiais irpwv abrwv p.er
abrwvabrwv

Gx
ord

MT = Gx : according
to a Hexaplar nou in
v o' = G.

43

ivKaraXeitpBijoerai ij
yv

A Mao esvz fir qu Lat

rj yv ivKaraXatpBvaeTai

ord

MT = ord.

44

dvrwviyw yap

akmob2 Fl esvz fir qu
Lat

bvrwv abrwv
ori iyw
iyw

ord ord M Boh

MT "W •'3.
According to a Hexa
plar note in v o' and X
read 6ti iyw.

45

¦jravrwv twv

gn Arm esvz bw qu

TWV

ord

MT = ord.

46

to SiKaiwpara Kai b
vopjos

Thdt

6 vopjos

ord

N Mo qu insert t. 5. k.
earlier. So too Lat.

TABLE VIII

Reference

Reading of bw

Authorities agreeing with
bw

Alternative readings

Authorities presenting
alternative readings

Remarks

Lev. xix

q is wanting through
out' this chapter.
a COto
Cois ft.
•8.
tt>Co O
t^
O
2

irocrj; tv (avvaywyv)

ord Boh1 Sah Eth Slav

TViratrv

BAyNha2 gn Arm-codd
Bohw
cm dt

MT = bw.

r—
I-1 CO

TUIji

ord

vacat

Gcx gn dpt

Co

5

Scleras

SeKTTJV

N GMackox dpt s fi u

o' SeKTijv v.: a' rij ebSoKia

8ft.

SeKarrjv
BAg*a2 F*lm
bjxwv : 8' as Scktov b/xwv :
<V
SeKrv
r
a' els to ebSoKvBvvai
Co
SeKra
h gn Arm (vid)
vp.iv v.(u/uch*c z f Boh):
s
Scktov
ejvz b2
mt Drsmb.
*¦+¦>
7
ABvtos
ddvrov
ord
Co8
8
abra
kgn
abro
ord
9
tou iKBepiaai
c
ixBepurai
ord
10
tos (pwyas)
c
TOUS
ord
a3'
g.
n
Kai ob
Nha2 GMackoxb2
ob 2°
BAy Flm p Boh
neque Arm Eth Lat.
gn ejsvz fi u Phil Spec
Sahz Luc
MT sbl.
obSe
dt r Sahc (vid)
(tov irX-naiov) abrov
r Arm Boh Sah Spec
vacat
ord
MT = bw.
12
to r)co/ia
BAyNha2 Gacx gn
to dvoaa to ay tov
ord Boh Eth Spec
MT = bw.
*-*
Kvpiov
KVptov tov Beov vpwv
tov Beov bpiwv
gn Arm Luc
ord
MT -f^nb«.
Co
!3
apiral-eis
dpira dpiratras
B
ord
s.
16
irpotreXevtrij
iropevtrv
ord
mt -jbn.
18
Kvpios o Beos bp.wv
ord Boh Ethf Lat Luc
Spec Slav Georg
Kvpios
BAyNha2 Gacx gn
MT = G & its allies.
aCo
20
abrwv
h z(mg)
abrois
ord (sub -r- G: k omits)
MT = k : Sam lb.
airvXevBepwrai
h
dirvXevBepwBv direXevBepwBij
BAyNa2 b2 ejsvz
Flm
OS00CM
TABLE VIII {continued)

Reference

Reading of bw

Authorities agreeing with
bw

Alternative readings

Authorities presenting
alternative readings

Remarks

Lev. xix

ijXevBepwBv

GMakbxgn pt ir u s (mg)

3
HXtvBepwBv
c k*o d f
22
Kaipw
Kptw
ord
MT = ord.
Kai irepi
irepi
ord
MT = ord.
23
((Spwatpov) vacat
gn Arm Eth Phil Cyr-ed
Kai 2°
ord
MT = ord.
cVtoi
Phil Cyr £
+ bjuv (2°)
ord : gn inserts later.
MT = ord.
26
iaeo-Be
ioB(i)ere
ord
MT = ord.
27
obSe
Eth
ov
ord
MT = cid: 1 MS Sam
Vulg = bw.
28
<//vxv
ax 1
i>vxvsy,vXv
Ao
ord
bjuv b (not w)
ejsvz Eth Lat
iv bjuv
ord (including w)
oV iv vpxv v.MT D23.
29
dSiKias
F* n Armed
dvopuas
ord
MT nt T.
3'
tois (ivyaoTpijxvBois)
vacat
ord
MT = bw.
paavBijvai
Ngn
iKfxiavBijvai
ord
32
Kvptov tov Beov
y Fklm Eth Latw Luc
Spec
toc Beov
ord
MT = ord.
33
iv bp.iv irpotrvXvros
irpotrvXvros iv bp.iv
y
MT 13 -JHS:
irpotrvXvros bpuv
BANaj (bpjuv) a Fkl
Sam Vulg Syr Targs
irpoovXvros
m
-a arms.
irpos bpias irpotrvXvros
h
vpuv irpotrvXvros
ord
SSDO
CO sft
Co s a
o
3435 37

Tpoiropevo/xevos*»3°ra vofxtfxa
vacatatira

\a\y<rov tois viois *Lr-
pa.7}\ \eyoiv

irpoo'yjKvTujv rtav Trpotr-
K€tf/£VU)V

VfJ.IV{£vya.<TTpip.vdoii) i) re-
pCLTOO-KOTTOlS Kai ayta(r&7)<r£<rde (kcu
iaetrOe oVyioi)

a Phil Spec
yd
1 (ras 3 litt)
k

Arm Sah

Boh (vid) Sah (vid)

jrnmg cx gn Arm dpt

ad vos advena
irpooiropevopievos Kai iv
to^ vopjov
pjov i°
+ iyw (elp.i) Kvptos b
Beos bp.wv
+ iyw (elpi) Kvpios
(i) XaXijcrox tois uiois
'lopavX- (2) Kai tois uiois 'lopavX
XaXijaeis (3) = (2) + Xcyw
Trpocr^XuTwi' twv irpotr-
yeyevijpxvwv yeyevvp^vwv irp.

'ItrpavX 2°
vacat
vacat

Arm Boh Eth Lat*
ord
ord ord )
ord i
ordcoxb2 gn ejsvz fir u Boh
Eth*
am (-trees) Eth
BAy Nha2 (om. Kai)
Mco Fl ejsvz: Boh and
Cyr-cod om. rat.
kxb2 gn dpt fi"?r u Lat
Cyr-ed

B ac : ord subject to va
riations in the verb, the
most common form be
ing wposyeyevvpievwv
ordordord

MT=bw:Gendsin36.MT: \-|pn.
MT = c & its allies.

MT->EHn VabNV

mt -on -on.

MT = ord.
MT = ord.
0' . . . xai ayiatrBijoetrSt
Kai iaeaBe dyvoi v.
MT = ord.

Mto

Co
s
S:5

Co

£
5

<2

<1sCo

C2CO

TABLE VIII {continued)

Reference

Reading of bw

Authorities agreeing with
bw

Alternative readings

Authorities presenting
alternative readings

Remarks

Lev. xx 9

iav Se dvBpwiros dvBpw-

iav dvos dvos

Macx ejsvz u

MT = M and its allies.

iros

iav dvos
dvos dvos 6s dv

gn Sah Or-gr
ord

10
Kai dvos dvos
t Eth*
Kai dvos
gn dp Sah Ethc
MT = gn.
dvos
BAyha2 ra u Spec
y ends in this verse.
dvos dvos
ord Boh Or-lal
16
eureXevtrerai
irpooeXevaerai
ord
17
vacat
ei
Kai iSv rvy apxrivoavvvv
abTijs
ord
MT = ord.
Kai (i^oXeBpevoovrai)
kmx
vacat
ord
MT = bw.
'lijX
abrwv
ord
MT = ord.
Koptovvrai
BANha2 gn
Xvpiperat
ord Bch
MT = ord.: Vulg Syr
plural : f omits the
phrase, p the clause.
18
rov yevovs
B*Ti»Ah c gn
tijs 7€feas
ord
'9
vacat
b2 ejsz f
KOt 1°
ord
MT = ord.
aVeKaXur'as
Af
aireKaXvipev (av)
ord
(dTrotcroPTac) dreKvoi
h c gn Arm (pr el)
vacat
ord
MT = ord.
airoBavovvrai
dpt (with Xvp-'povrai for
dTTOtCTOITOt)
05 CO05
Co
a
0-c,
O
o r.
STUDIES IN THE SEPTUAGINTAL TEXTS
OF LEVITICUS

NUMBER THREE

80 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [Jan.

ARTICLE v.
STUDIES IN THE SEPTUAGINTAL TEXTS OF
LEVITICUS.
BY HAROLD M. WIENER, M.A., LL.B., OF LINCOLN'S INN,
B ARRI STER- AT-LAW .
III.
In dealing with the groups that remain to be considered
we must take a short course on account of the deficiencies of
the apparatus. The group fir cannot be satisfactorily treated
because its members separate so often that it is frequently
impossible to discover what its true reading was. It should,
however, be remembered that, as was shown in the Biblio-
theca Sacra for April, 1913, the MS. f in particular often
has readings which are independently attested by the Latin
Vulgate, and that, however carelessly it may be written, it
must always rank as one of the most important Septuagintal
authorities. I desire here to indorse the remarks made about
it by Dahse in his " Textkritische Materialien zur Hexateuch-
frage " (vol. i.), with the reservation that I do not agree
with his attribution of it. The group seems to me to be, in
the main, either Hesychian or pre-Hexaplar.
Moreover, the method of treating the Egyptian versions,
to which allusion was made in the first article of this series,
renders the task of dealing with texts that are possibly or
probably Hesychian much harder than that of handling the
Lucianic groups. Of the three groups that remain — the B
group, the F group, and qu — the third seems to present a
text that is in some ways akin to the texts of Mob2. A very

1914.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 81
important passage for our purposes is to be found in chap
ter v. 2. The text of B ends with dKadaprcov, but Ft>GMacb2,
gn, dpt, esvz (j is here missing), qu, Arm, Ethc, Or-lat, and
Eus read, with minor variations, tcov aKaffaprcov r) 0vvo-ip,aiov
eprrerov aKadaprov Kai Xadrj drr' avrov Kai avro<: /jie/j,iavrai
Kai TrXwp/JLeXvtTr]. This is clearly an addition to the
original Septuagintal text; and, in fact, the asterisk is
found in some MSS., though it is differently placed. The
words are present in the Massoretic text. Now it happens
that, in the minor variations, Mqub2, Ethc, an(i Or-lat hold
together almost continuously, reading ra>v aKadaprmv Kai Xadn
air' avrov Kai [Ethc omits this word] piefiiavrai. (It should be
remarked parenthetically that the Greek translators appear
to have read yp& for the Massoretic pe> earlier in the verse,
and to have found it differently placed : and the displacement
has led to some of the trouble.) Here the addition as found
in qu, etc., is not so faithful to the Massoretic text as the
reading of the Lucianic authorities; while G and Eus follow
a middle course, omitting the words r\ to aKadaprov, but re- •
taining the other words which qu omit. Therefore we have
here four important types of reading: —
(1) The original LXX, omitting these words: this" is here
represented by BAy(h)a2, F*klm, ox, bw, fir, Boh, Lat. (In h
the first few words of the addition are found; but, as we
have previously had occasion to notice, this MS. gives us a
text which has been glossed from some Lucianic source.)
(2) The Lucianic reading, agreeing most fully with the
Massoretic text, represented with minor variations by Fbac,
gn, dpt, Arm, and esvz.
(3) The reading of Eusebius and G, giving us the Pales
tinian text.
(4) The reading of Mqub2, Eth°, Or-lat, which is here

82 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [Jan.
more remote from the Massoretic text than either of the
other two. This reading is at least as old as Origen, whose
quotations are not always Hexaplar.
Clearly Hesychius must have followed either (1) or (4) —
probably the former. The passage is interesting for the his
tory of the LXX as a whole and for the antecedents of the
text of qu in particular. It may now be recalled that in
chapter xvi. 10 qu and Mob2 were among the non-Lucianic
authorities that presented the Lucianic addition, which in
some form was probably older than Lucian, as it occurs in
the Latin.
On the whole, however, I see no reason to suspect qu of
presenting a text that is in the main Hexaplar or Lucianic.
It appears to me to be one of the least distinctive and inter
esting of those that have come down to us. The fact that it
seems to be strongly Egyptian in certain chapters of Exodus
of course proves nothing for Leviticus, and it is noteworthy
that it seldom seems to present readings in this book that
appear to be - Hesychian. My studies have led me to agree
with Dahse's conclusion that this group does not bear a
recensional character, and I think it goes back to an arche
type wnich presented the koivv, more or less influenced by
the general mixing of texts. It is thus largely pre-Hexaplar.
In Tables IX. and X., certain readings of the B group
in Leviticus xxii. and Fl in Leviticus xxv. are respectively
taken as the standards. A number of the readings given
merely illustrate the peculiarities of other groups (gn, dpt,
etc.), which have been discussed in the previous articles and
are cited for this purpose only. Such are readings in xxii.
3, 6, 10, 12, 19, 21, 23, 32 ; xxv. 2, 5, 6, 14, 29. It will be
seen that the various groups fully retain the mutual relation
ships that we have already noted. Two readings in chapter

1914.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 83
xxv. are quoted because of suggestive resemblances between
Egyptian versions and particular MSS. The first is xxv.
14-15, where the misplaced Kai in f and the Bohairic is very
important. No sense can be made of the word in this posi
tion; and the improbability that it should have been mis
placed in this way independently in two different texts
strongly favors the view that we have here a copyist's error
that originated in Egypt. In the other passage (xxv. 29),
the Sahidic, a2, and x present traces of a common origin.
Next, as to the relationship between the B group and. Fl.
If these tables be carefully considered, it will be seen that,
on the whole, these two groups are extremely alike, and that
the differences between them in these two tables (apart from
the usual sources of scribal error) are chiefly due to two causes :
(1) Hexaplar or Hebrew influence on one of the two types
(e.g. on B in xxii. 21; xxv. 2, 7, etc., on F in xxii. 5, 7, 18,
etc.) ; and (2) slight grammatical revision of the F text (e.g.
xxv. 10, iariv, 54). Generally speaking, the two groups be
long to one and the same family. As has previously been
remarked, m and k go closely with Fl, though k is in many
respects one of the most Hebraized of MSS. But there is
one other fact to be noted, viz. that the F group rarely shares
the readings of B that appear to be specifically Hesychian.
This suggests that the F group goes back to an archetype
which presented the koivtj in a form similar to that on which
Hesychius worked.
In Table IX.; we have the readings of a new witness, A6.
This is a fourth-century Sinaitic vellum text. In the readings
quoted it always agrees with one or more members of the
B group, except where it has a text that is peculiar to itself
and may be due to individual scribal error (ver. 4, 13). It
is to be observed that in verses 11, 13, and 28 it is the only

84 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [Jan.
other MS. that supports members of this group; while in
verses 10, 18, 19, and 31 it has readings that help to establish
its close relationship to the group.
In chapter xxii. some of the more important pre-Hexaplar
readings preserved by B and its allies appear to be in verses
3, 7, 9, 12, 13, 18, 24, 28, and 31. In verse 22 the authori
ties in the fifth column seem to have kept the original LXX.
In verse 30 airy is a second rendering of Sinn, which is already
represented by iKeivn. In chapter xxv. F seems to have re
tained pre-Hexaplar readings in verses 2 {orav), 7, 32, 35, 36,
and .52 ; while in verse 9 B and its allies appear to have a
Hesychian reading, and the authorities in the fifth column
have pre-Hexaplar readings in verses 10 (gn and its allies),
32, 33, and 50 (B and its allies). The addition to the text
of dpt in verse 2 represents a not infrequent characteristic
of this group, which seems to contain a certain number of
Greek glosses over and above the class consisting of repeated
phrases, which it shares with the Armenian and gn.
On the whole, it seems to me that the B group in Leviticus
is descended, in the main, from a Hesychian text, though it
has been influenced from other sources — particularly by the
Hexaplar readings.
It may be well to .note a few readings that appear to be
specifically Hesychian. In ii. 13 the words Kvpico ra> dew vp-cov
appear (with minor modifications) in BAyha2, fi, bw, and
Cyril; but they are omitted by the Massoretic text, all the
other Cambridge MSS., the Armenian, Bohairic, Ethiopic,
Latin, and Philo. It is noteworthy that the best pre-Hexaplar
authorities here are on the side of the Massoretic text, and
so lend special importance to Cyril's reading. In iv. 22 Kai
d/xaprrj occur in BAha2 (y is missing), x, b, fi, Bohw and
Cyr y2, being omitted in the Massoretic text, all the other

1914.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 85
Cambridge MSS., Arm, Boh*, Eth, and in Cyr y2. In v. 15
rav dyiiov is read by BAy, Boh, and Cyr-ed; while most MSS.,
Arm, Ethc, Latw, Or-lat, and Cyr-cod follow the Massoretic
text in reading rco dyiw. In vi. 30 (23) for rco = Massoretic
text, A, ko, b', f, qu, M(mg); Or-lat, and Cyr-ed, read roirco.
The testimony of Or-lat proves that this reading was pre-
Hesychian, but Cyr-ed shows that it was adopted by Hesy
chius. In iv. 7 BAha2, w, Boh, Latz (vid), and Cyr have
rcov 6XoKavrco/jLaro)vi where all the other Septuagintal authori
ties and the Massoretic text have a singular word. The
fact that w here seems to present a Hesychian reading is not
important, as this MS. goes back to a text that had been
heavily glossed. Thus in Leviticus i. 13, 14; ii. 4, for oXo-
Kavrmfia, it reads p,vpov} a corruption of Aquila's irvpov, and
in iii. 16 it actually presents Xeycov p,vpov (" meaning fivpov")
as its text. But the other points of contact between Hesy
chius and bw may have importance in the ultimate tracing of
the bw text.
Summing up the main results of our inquiry, we may say
that, of the non-Hexaplar groups, qu and Fl do not appear
to have a recensional character. Of the others, ejsvz seems
to be a late recension, and,gn and dpt have close relations to
the Armenian and the Antiochian fathers. They show the
impress of two minds, not of one; and, though nearly con
nected, must not -be treated as a single recension. Ranged
against them are BAyN Agha2 (which is largely Hesychian),
and fir. Of this last group it is impossible to say much,
owing to the vicissitudes which its text has undergone in
transmission. Of the Hexaplar group,- c has special rela
tions to the Antiochian authorities, Mob2 are connected with
qu; and k and m, with Fl; o and x probably embody some

86 Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. [Jan.
Hesychian readings. Of the B group, h has been largely
glossed from some Lucianic source. Lastly, the group bw
preserves a recension that has a marked character of its own,
strongly influenced by the later Hebrew and largely recast,
but containing many pre-Hexaplar readings and interesting
points of contact, alike with Lucian and Hesychius. All our
MSS. and groups contain pre-Hexaplar and Hexaplar read
ings, and all have been influenced by the general mixing of
texts. It is important to observe that the results we have attained
for the book of Leviticus agree very largely with those
reached by Rahlfs for the Psalter. This is the more interest
ing, as I had done most of the work for these articles be
fore looking at his volume.1 He holds that, in that book,
B is Hesychian, that 55 (= h) contains many Hesychian
readings, and that Hesychius took as the basis of his work
an Egyptian text similar in character to that which formed
the foundation of Origen's labors and altered it very little
(p. 235). This latter finding entirely agrees with the facts
we have had occasion to notice in Leviticus regarding the
resemblance between the text of the B group and the F
group, Mob2, qu, etc., and also the frequent separation of
the authorities into two main types of text — those represent
ing a Lucianic form and all others, either with or without
Origen's asterisked or obelized passages. Further, Rahlfs
points out that Lucian corrected a text that perhaps differed
from the others to agree with the Massoretic, and freely al
tered it in many details (p. 236). This, again, fits in with
the observations we have made for Leviticus. When he fur
ther adds that a Lucianic text with some modifications be
came the official text of the Greek Church, we are reminded
1 Septuaginta-Studien, vol. ii. (1907).

1914.] Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus. 87
•of Dahse's view that the lectionary d2 follows the text of
•dnpt in Genesis. But I think that in Leviticus there are more
types of text than in the Psalms, and that this complicates
the problem. In Kings he holds that the Ethiopic is pre-
Hexaplar, in the Psalter mainly Hesychian. From what we
liave seen, it would appear that in Leviticus it certainly has
a pre-Hexaplar basis. Undoubtedly in the readings we have
liad occasion to examine it has had none of the specifically
Lucianic characteristics. Neither, on the other hand, is it
•quoted for distinctively Hesychian readings; but it often pre
sents pre-Hexaplar characteristics, and is frequently seen in
isolated agreement with groups or MSS. that appear to con
tain the koivv in a more or less unmixed form.
Further, though we have been unable to make much study
of the Egyptian versions, for the reasons already noted, I
think it not improbable that the remarks Rahlfs makes re-
^specting the Sahidic in the Psalter may prove to be true of
Leviticus also. He thinks that this version represents a pre-
Hexaplar text which had not been influenced by a recension,1
¦and shows with what license the text was treated. Now we
liave seen an addition in xxv. 2 and may note a couple of
readings in the last verse of the book. To " Lord," Sah adds
Deus; and for " to the children of Israel in Mount Sinai,"
it reads " in Mount Sinai to announce to the children of Is
rael," with Eth, which has " that he might speak " for " to
announce," and f, which, however, has only the Sahidic or
der without its addition. 1Op, dt., p. 219.

TABLE IX

00 oo

Lev. XXII

Readings of BAyNha2

Authorities agreeing with
this group

Alternative readings
where material

Authorities presenting
alternative readings

Remarks

2

(to Svo/ml) to dyiov
p&v (BAha3)

b2 Flkm js bw i u

jxov to dyiov

gn Arm dpt f Sah

mt ^rrip (etc).
y begins in ver. 4 : q

rov dyiov pjov

N Mac (pr twv) ox evz r

is missing throughout
the chapter : frag
ments of AB survive.

3

ayiafaoiv (BA)

ord : -ovtriv 2^ k r

dytatrwtriv

Nh A„ ex F gnbw

dir' ipav
ord
diro irpoowirov pav
vacat
gn(om. p.ov) Arm dpt
b2 Eth°
mt sasba
6 Qeos bpiwv
A„ Flkm dpt
vacat
ord Arm Boh Sah Eth
MT = ord.
4
Xeirpa (BNha,;)
ord -av Aa
Xeirpos
A kmx gn dpt s bw f u
5
6<ttis (BAy)
¦h 6s
piV
bw ord Arm Boh Sah Eth
Cyr
MT t^N IN
6
abrwv (BAyh)
b2 Arm-ed Cyr
abrov
Na2 A6 ord Arm-codd
Boh Sah Eth
MT 12
oi)k iSerai
ord
ob tpayerai
ejsvz
0' 0-' Bf obx iSerai v.
7
twv (BAyha2)
A„b2gn Cyri
pr diro
Nord
MT7J3
icnv abrov (BAy)
bw
abrov itrriv
Nhaj A6 ord Arm Boh
Sah Cyr
MT = ord.
8
ob tpayerai (BNa2)
ord (with variations to
rpayere)
obK iSerai
Ay mgs of sv.
Co8a.
CO s
s «,-.
a
9

atfro (B*Ay)

Ann

(iav) Se (BAy)

krEth

6 0eos (BAyha2)

Flkm dpt

10

ob tpayerai i°

A6 ckmb2 Fl bw

>5

ord

oi3 0a7erai 2°
A8 cmb2 Fl bw
ii
At (twv dprwv abrov)
(BAy)
\
12
™i' dirapxtov
ord
• '3
iepews (ByNha2)
ord
iKfiefiXvpievv (BAy
Flm fir
Na2)
¦hv (BAya2)
bw : v ov A6
top irarpiKov (BAyN)
A6(vid) Cyr-cod
ob tpayerai (BAyNaJ
ord
18
(o"wa7W7jj) 'IirpaijX
(BAyha2)
ord
twv vZuv 2»(ByNha2)
A6(vid) n t
Cyr-cod : post
irpoovXvTwv g
tw Bea (BAyha2)
A6 Flkm : icw
tw Bew f
TQ
viuv (BAyha,)
cb, gn dpt bw
abra 2°
vacatvacatovk iSerai
Kai
obK iSerai
dir' (abrwv)
vacat
tvv dirapxv
pr dvov
pr V
V -j- avrvs
obK iSerai
pr twv vlwv
pr vlwv
pr filiorum
pr diro
pr iK
vacat
ord
A2 ord Arm Boh (vid)
Cyr N ord Arm Boh Eth
Cyr-ed
ordgn Arm dpt bw Eth
ord
h ord Cyr
gn bw
A A6 gn Arm mgs of sv
h A6 ord Arm Boh
ord Arm Boh Cyr
ord Arm Boh
hga mgs of svz
gn dpt
N Fl akm bw Cyr
Arm Eth
Akd
ord Arm Boh Eth Cyr-
ed N ord (bw om. tw)
Arm Boh Eth Cyr-cod
N AR ord Cyr-cod
MT 12
MT>2
MT = ord.
MT^2
MT = ord.
MT = ord.
Co
MT = gn.
Co
S
MT 12
0>
mt nnnra
Co
cp. LXX ver. 12: MT
= ord.
s
MT 1-
«1
c s
*.. Sto
coC3
TABLE IX {continued)

too

Lev. XXII

Readings of BAyNha2

Authorities agreeing with
this group

Alternative readings
where material

Authorities presenting
alternative readings

Remarks

'9

d/iw/ta clpcreva

Ae(vid) cx F Cyr:
dpjapa dpaeviKa b2

dpoev du.up.ov
dpaeva dpuopa

gn Arm dpt Eth
ord Boh

20

de/crop

ord

SeKra

gn dpt bw Boh

21
0wrta>/ (BAyNa2)
ord
pr ra Swpa abrov Kara
h Mc g Arm dpt ejsvz
Ex 18 : not in
MT:
iraaav bpoXoyiav abrwv
Lat
Mvz prefix an asterisk.
ij Kara iratrav aipetriv
abrwv
pr ra Swpa abrov
n
pr Swpov
bw
+ Kara 1° . . . abrwv
r
koto (B*Ay)
b2bw
pr V
ord Arm Boh Eth Cyr:
A8 ij . . .
ord
MT = B.
<?k 1° (BAyNa2)
cxb2 gn bw u
+ TC
MT = B.
iv 2°
ord
iir'
Flm dpt ejsvz r Eth
MT12
22
Kl'pfW 1°
A6 cmb2 Fl gn bw
Bw
Makox dpt ejsvz fir u
Cyr-ed
MT = B.
23
¦h 1°
ord
Kai
gn Arm v(mg)
TpotrSexBytrerai
n
SexBvoovrai
ejz Arm-codd
(B*A"?y)
Sexdvoerai
ord
= 1
irpooal-eis (B)
l*(vid) gn Arm
irpooa^ovtrivirpotra^ere
bwEth ord Boh Lat Cyr
MT = ord.
27
pvrepa
m gn Arm Lat
-f- abrov
ord Boh (vid) Cyr
Cosa.
S"
Co
a
Oc,
«tto"
sCo
a
Kvpiw (BAyha;,)

b2 bw •

pr tw

ord Cyr

28

to iraiSia (BAyha2)

A6(vid) Arm Boh

to iraiStov

ord Lat Cyr

MT = ord.

<r0o|as (BAyha2)

no n liquet A6

trtpa^ere

ord Arm ccdd Boh
Eth Lat Cyr: offeretis
Arm-ed

MT = ord.

29

Xappxtrvvvs

ord

alveo-ews

gn Arm

3°
abrv (BAyNa2)
ord
vacat
h Makmo Fl ejsvz ir u
Boh
29 abro 30 abrv: 0' avro
abrv : X abro abrvv \ .
It is really a second
rendering of Sinn =
iKavv.
31
abras (h abra)
A, m Bohw
-|- iyw Kvpios
ord
MT = ord : Sam = B.
32
ob
ord
+ A"7
Makmo Fl dpt ejsvz ir u
(to bvopjx) tou 071011
ord
TO dyiOV
to dyiov px>v
to dyiov pov iyw Ss
piov to dyiov iyw ks
dEth
Im bw
kgn Arm pt
MT >Wtp (DIE)
TABLE X
Lev. XXV
Reading of Fl
Authorities agreeing with
this group
Alternative readings
Authorities presenting
alternative readings
Remarks
2
bravo-o/3j3aTO
ord Eth
ord
iav
pr Kai iroiijtrere
pr/acere
BAyNhaj Gcx gn
dpt Sah
j and q are wanting in
this chapter.
MTO
MT D2t»
to
.*"
CO
aa.
«^.
Co
Co
¦3. s
I
Co
O
| SCo
TABLE X (continued)

COfc3

Lev. XXV

Reading of Fl

Authorities agreeing with
this group

Alternative readings

Authorities presenting
alternative readings

Remai ks

4

tw Se

ord

iv Se tw .

Maob2 dpt esvz ir u

rtjv dfiireXov

ord

tov dpireXwva

n Arm Eth mgs of svz

5

dypov

ord

dpvrov

gn dpt mgs of Msv

iKBepuras
BAyaj m b2
iKdepieis
ord
6
ttjs yvs
ord
+ bpwv
-\- aov
gn Arm pt (d tv yv
bpwv) bw
Fam« Gcx Sah
MT D2b y~)0,n
(irapomw) trov
Gckmxb2 Sah
vacat
ord
MT = F1.
7
tvs yvs (aov) (F)
aj esvz bw Eth
tois iv tv yv
lord
MT "|S-IN2 ntCS o'X
. . . tois iv tv yv V.
9
^{i\afl>iou
ord Thdt
IXatrpov
BAyNha2 Cyr
10
iviavrov
ord
-+- dtpeoews
vacat
bwgn dpt f Boh Sah
MT = ord.
ianv
m
iarai
ord
irarpiSa
BA kmb2 u
pepiSairarptav
bw ord Cyr
ii
avrri carat bpXv
Mckob2 dpt esvz
etrriv avrv
bw Arm (vid)
MTSin
r u : Cyr-cod (aurijs)
abrv
ord : Eth pr et sit vobis:
Boh pr vobis est
(obSe) dpnjaere
Ba2 g : -vre a u
pr P-V
GMk* : -ercu c : -vrai o
dp-vre m
/J.1J dp/ijavre
ord : Philo
•3
iv Se tw
km svz
iv TW
ord
Co
^> CO s
CO O
3
14

Kai

ord

vacat

f Bohi

dvBpwiros

ord

iKaaros

dpt

15

pera

ord

pr Kai

f Boh

23
[SefSaiwtnv
ord
fiefiijXwGiv
Nh b2 dpt bw u mgs of
Msv
27 *
birep ixa
B*Ayh km r Sah
6 birapxei
6 birepexa
bw u
ord Boh Lat
28
abrov ij xaP
a2 kmb2
TV X«P'
iv rv XelPl
rj xap abrov
bwg Arm Eth
ord
MT TT> = ord
29
TJptpWV
ord
-j- rij irpatra abrvs
1Jp£p6XeKT0Sij/xepoXeySov -}- bySoov
+ octo anni
dpt Arm : -Scktos g :
-Scktov n M(mg)
Gc : -Scktov k
a2 x
Sah
MT CB''
3°
abrijs
BA m Arm Sah (vid)
abrrj
Gkx g dpt
MTlb
Cyr-ed: post 6Xos n.
vacat
ord Boh Eth Cyr-cod
31
Kai
ord
vacat
dpt fir Boh1 Cyr-cod
MT = ord.
33
Xvrpaaapevos
BAyNha2 Gckmx
Xvrpwavrai
ord
35
(aov 1°) o pera aov
Makmob2 dpt esvz
fir(om. 6) u Boh Eth Lat
vacat
ord
MT = ok',.
36
~k~v (tok Beov) (F)
ckm gn Arm dt (p Lat
om. the verse) Boh Sah
vacat
lord
MT = ord.
43
Mox&V (F*l)
M dpt
pr tw
Flm&- ord
a ends in 43.
45
avyyeveiwv
k fi u Boh Eth
trvyyevwv
ord
46
(iKaaros) bpwv
kr
vacat
ord
MT = ord.
to
Cos
a.
3
TOCO
I"
o to
s
sCo
CO
TABLE X (continued)

to

Lev. XXV

Reading of Fl

Authorities agreeing with
this group

Alternative readings

Authorities presenting
alternative readings

Remarks

49

ti;s cap/cos

km Boh

twv trapKwv

ord : A adds tijs aapKos
later, after tpvXvsi h
reads aapKos for tpvXvs.

5°

rjpepa (F*l)

km

wsws ijpiepa

BANha2 gn bw Arm
Boh Lat
JTamg or(q Eth.

mt in'o

52

vacat

km Arm Eth

Kai 1°

ord

MT = ord.

54

Xt/Tpwcr^Tat

m : -erai k

Xvrpwrat

ord

a.

S-
TO Co TO

I" sr
-¦h TO

SCo

P

2669