On the question of the relationship between the Greek translation of the LXX and the Hebrew text of the Old Testament

The question of the mutual relationship between the Greek translation of the sacred Old Testament books, known as the LXX-ti, and the accepted Masoretic text is one of the most difficult and most important in biblical scholarship. True, it has long been considered resolved in one specific sense of the exaltation of the second and the neglect of the first, but this verdict cannot be considered final, unshakably justified and objectively impartial. What is also important here is that from the beginning it was not “taco”, and therefore the motives for the turn in favor of the exclusive preference for the creation of Masoretes are interesting. And from this side no small doubts and suspicions are aroused. As in many other things, the scientific world owes this cult of the Hebrew Bible to Protestants, who were guided by considerations that were far from purely scientific. During the period of the Reformation, its leaders felt the need to find support for their narrow doctrine of faith as the only means of justifying a person, and for this they rejected the previously dominant biblical authorities, arrogating to themselves the right of infallible judgment ex cathedra, which biblical books are canonical and which are not. For the same purpose, they eliminated the old Bible and replaced it with the Bible of the Jews. It is clear from this that this was done to a large extent tendentiously, according to the needs of confessional polemics and apologetics, which is why the question we posed requires a calmer study and an unbiased revision. We have seen that what is generally accepted does not necessarily mean disagreement. For Orthodox Russian thought, this conclusion is especially important because we are enlightened by the Slavic Bible and keep it in church use, and it reproduces the LXX version. And it must be regretted that in our country this subject still remains undeveloped and is obscured by foreign and tendentious theories 1 . This is all the more regrettable because the dignity of LXX has solid foundations and can be supported by completely objective arguments. Several examples of this were presented by the English scientist Henry H. Howorth in his letters published in 1893–1894. on the pages of The Academy magazine 2. In his opinion this is a question of the greatest importance, and has no equal in the whole field of biblical criticism. And the author boldly declares that only by re-examining it can we discover the true Alexandrian translation and secure for ourselves the best text of the original books of the Old Testament. At the same time, he thinks that from this point of view the LXX edition is a more satisfactory authority than the Masoretic one. Such conclusions, naturally, should attract special attention, and we find it not useless to briefly present the justifying arguments with the addition of some of our comments. But first it is necessary to say a few words about the accepted form of the Alexandrian version. In this regard, it is regrettable that it has been studied too little, despite the development of biblical Old Testament criticism. Almost everyone and without any hesitation accepts that its most perfect text is preserved in the most ancient Greek manuscripts of the Alexandrian (A), Vatican (B) and Sinai (). And all publications take them as an unshakable basis in the conviction that, since this is the Greek Bible, it is the best representative of the LXX translation. According to this plan, the newest enterprise of the Society of Cambridge Scientists, edited by Heinrich Swet, is being carried out, 3 who wants to give us the original LXX according to a few ancient codes (A, B, D, E, F; - C, R, T, U), although, in our opinion, the result is only a mixtum compositum of heterogeneous types and, moreover, not of the original formation. In any case, such an assumption is not without many weaknesses and arouses justified mistrust. We know, for example, from the testimony of the blessed one. Jerome 4 that even in the early era of the Christian era, the Alexandrian translation of the book of Daniel was withdrawn and replaced by Theodotion's. Naturally, authoritative manuscripts report only the second, but not a copy of the LXX. This must also be assumed a priori by the very nature of ancient manuscripts. To give them predominant and exclusive importance in the question of the LXX is to forget about Origen and unlawfully disparage his overwhelming influence on the current form of the Greek Bible. With his “exaplams” and “tetraplas” he tried to provide a uniform biblical appearance for the Christian world and adopted a consolidated text with borrowings from “other editions” of the then Jewish, marking them with asterisks, and fencing off what was unnecessary against it with ovels. Over time, these icons were mixed and destroyed, and the eclectic summary of the great Alexandrian spread everywhere as the self-authentic original of the LXX. This is how we find it in ancient codes. There is no doubt that they contain a huge part of the Alexandrian translation itself; however, it cannot be denied that this included quite a few sections from the versions of Theodotion, Symmachus and others, and they represent the Jewish tradition, but not the LXX. Therefore, for the question posed, admiration for the illustrious uncials is necessarily not unlimited and should not bind freedom of judgment. To solve this, Mr. Haworth takes the second book of Ezra 5, which, in his opinion, represents the Alexandrian version of the canonical text. In support of this, he also finds facts in the Syriac translations. The oldest of them, the Peshitta, is known to be drawn directly from the Hebrew and very satisfactorily. True, the original has not survived to us intact - without later changes and corrections; nevertheless, it can be taken for granted that - in its content - it coincided with the so-called Palestinian canon 6. The latter is well known to us from extracts from Aphraates, who quotes all biblical books except the Song of Songs. Since the Palestinian canon is established in Jamnia, and the Hebrew text of the Masoretes follows the edition of Akiba and his disciples, it follows that the Peshitta did not appear earlier than the second Christian century, for it shares with this text both its variants and its errors. It was previously asserted that this Syrian version did not have the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah - and Bull 7 defends this thesis to this day; however, Afraat points out the opposite. And the venerable expert on Syrian biblical writing, Dr. Gwynne states that the oldest and best manuscripts of the Peshitta contain both the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah. It follows that it was in the 2nd century that 2 Esdras was already removed from the Hebrew Bible; but was she in it originally? The Greek codices of the LXX point to a satisfactory answer, as do some other facts. Let us turn to the Syriac translation, published at the beginning of the seventh century (617-618) by the Monophysite bishop Paul of Tell, which - admittedly - transmits the LXX text according to Origen's "exaples". MS is important to him. 12.168 British Museum. This is a catena with extracts from various books of the Old Testament as edited by the now named Paul. Among the many excerpts, some present not the first book of Ezra, but the second - with excerpts from paragraphs about Darius, the three young men, etc. This, according to Haworth, serves as proof that the second book of Ezra is a translation of the LXX and that it also gives the text of the canonical scripture of this name. And Dr. Gwynn deduces from these facts that in Origen’s “exapla” there was a second book of Ezra, which - therefore - has, in any case, solid authority next to the first, which also has a prototype in the Hebrew Bible. This means that Protestants rushed in vain to exclude it from the canon out of respect for rabbinic tradition. On the contrary, “it not only represents the true translation of the LXX, but also in its content and arrangement of parts is incomparably higher than the Hebrew text; he did not preserve the ancient tradition, but mutilated, shuffled and changed by the Jewish rabbis in Jamnia 8, to whom traces of these manipulations go back” (No. 1.115, p. 233 p.). We will not go into all the details of the complex and difficult question of the mutual relations of the first and second books of Ezra. This is a very serious matter, requiring special and detailed research, which is impossible in a short note. Moreover, the author’s considerations are largely confusing, not always safe and require careful verification. We will take from him only a few visual details to illustrate the conclusion about the merits of the Greek text of 2 Esdras. So in 1 Ezra. 4:9-10 we read: (Rehum... and companions) “The Dinaeans and the Afargathheites, the Tarpelites, the Aparsians, the Arehyans, the Vibilonians, the Susanians, the Dagi, the Elamites, and other nations, whom Aznaphar the great and glorious removed, and settled in the cities of Samaria and in other cities beyond the river, and so on.” This obscure gloss is not found in 2 Esdras or Josephus - and is probably a later targum adopted by Jewish editors. In 1Ezra. 1:9–11 the vessels taken by Nebuchadnezzar from Jerusalem are counted, but here the sum (5,400) does not coincide with the terms (30† 1.000†29† 30†410†1.000 2.499). In 2Ezra. 2:13–14 the arithmetic is completely correct (5.4691.000†1.000†29†30†2.410†1.000). In 1Ezra. 4:2 says that the Samarian foreigners were sent by Asardan. king of Syria, but this testimony is not confirmed by 2 Kings 17 (cf. 18:11) and Josephus (Antiqu. XI, 2:1), who call Shalmaneser, and is generally historically unacceptable. According to 1 Ezra. 1The Jews returned under Cyrus under the command of “Sheshbazzar, prince of Judah”; however, Belle also stated that only the reading of 2 Esdras is authentic. 2 (and Joseph XI, 1:3) "Shalmaneser." List of those who returned under Zerubbabel 1Ezra. Chapter 2 not complete compared to 2 Esdras; 5 words of 1 Esdras. 1:1–3, but represents a strange repetition of 2 Chron. 36:22–23. Omitted from 1 Esdras. the story of Darius and the three young men (2 Ezra ch. 3–4) bears all the signs of primacy and deserves all respect 9 . The chronology of 1 Esdras is very doubtful and inferior to the testimony of the second 10. For all these reasons one cannot but agree with Kecknicott's opinion that the latter is a "work of great importance," and Jerome unnecessarily displaced it from the canon in favor of the version of Theodotion (no. 1.079, p. 13c-14a) or some other person (no. 1.081, p. 60). But it is very characteristic that Josephus read the 11th creation of Ezra from the Greek text. This is clear from the chronological indications, the mention of the story of the three young men, the inscription of names, etc. No doubt this was the generally accepted biblical type in his time. In this case, it is not far off to think that the 2nd book of Ezra reproduces the translation of the Seventy, which - in turn - accurately reflected the original. Therefore, the Orthodox Church is right if it holds it along with the first. The same doubt regarding the authentic Alexandrian original applies to the books of Chronicles. In one Syriac version, the text of these books was revealed to be very different from the accepted Hebrew. Frankel subjected them to a thorough and detailed analysis, and the difference turned out to be so enormous that he recognized the Syrian fragments as independent of the Jewish-Masoretic redaction and admitted that they reproduced the Jewish Targum compiled by the Edessian Jews of the third century. But the existence of targums on the books of Chronicles in such an early era is extremely improbable - and there is no other evidence for this. Rather, it is permissible to look for this prototype in a special list of the LXX translation, which here, as in other cases, significantly deviated from the accepted Hebrew text. This can be seen by comparison with the extracts of Aphraates and part of the books of Chronicles, known in the Syriac version of the second book of Ezra, from which the first appears to be the Peshitta, and the second - the LXX. So: it is not at all surprising that the original text of the LXX does not agree with the Hebrew. This only gives room to the guess that the latter was not preserved in its original form, but suffered many modifications and metamorphoses and deviated far from the normal type. From here Mr. Haworth explains the fact that the most conservative among the Syrian Christians and precisely the Nestorians excluded the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah from the canon; We find the same among one part of the Jacobites. As far as one can penetrate to the roots of this phenomenon, its primary culprit was Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was the actual founder of the theological system of the Nestorians and was always extolled by them with the most magnificent doxologies. And regarding him, it is undeniable that he did not accept the indicated books into the canon: Leontius of Byzantium speaks about this directly and decisively 12. The question arises: what motivated this Antiochian in such a massacre? According to all data, Theodore had at hand and used the Syriac translation of the LXX, and his biblical quotations are made according to the Alexandrian edition. At the same time, he noticed a great difference between this text and the Peshitta edition of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Unable to reconcile them and explain the differences, he excluded these books as non-canonical. From all that has been said, it follows that - in relation to the group of biblical writings under consideration - the oldest Greek manuscripts are far from reliable guarantors of the LXX edition, with the exception of the second book of Ezra with a clear Alexandrian writer. Most likely, they are under the direct and stronger influence of Theodotion or Symmachus and reflect the Jewish, rather than the original Greek tradition. Given such observations, a promising question naturally arises: should the Hebrew text continue to retain the despotic dominance that it retains in Protestant theological works and - through them - in science in general, or is it obliged to give pride of place to a translation of the LXX, more complete, more correct and more accurate both in the content and in the order of the sacred narratives? Mr. Haworth answers this more directly and definitely when analyzing the books of Daniel, Job, Jeremiah and Esther. As is known, the first of them - in addition to the Jewish Masoretic text - has many additional sections, namely: the prayer of Azariah and the song of the three youths in the fiery furnace (chapter 3, vv. 24-101), the story of Susanna (chapter 13), about Bel, the dragon and the casting of Daniel into the den of lions (chapter 14). In the Greek lists they form no less an ingredient part of the whole than all the other chapters. They are considered the fabrication of the Alexandrian translators, who added their fabrications or apocryphal legends to the original and issued these arbitrary supplementa under its authority, but this is a purely dogmatic prejudice of a thought frozen in its respectful reverence for the work of the Masoretes. Meanwhile, Origen 13 boldly accused the Jews that they deliberately released the news about Susanna and hid them from the people. And this is not just the audacity of the Alexandrian scientist: his opinion is also justified by objectively impartial considerations. It is enough to just briefly mention them. Furst, in his essay on canon 14, already in 1868, spoke very definitely in favor of the Greek “additions” in the book of Daniel. And the fact that Susanna and the elders, Bel and the dragon, the prayer of Azariah and the song of the three youths are reported in the Talmud and Midrash clearly indicates that these sections previously existed in the Hebrew or Aramaic edition. For prayer and song, the author indicates Peras 118a and Karmel II, 3.166, for Vila and the dragon - Ber rab p. 68, etc. In turn, De-Vette-Shrader found many Chaldaisms in these parts and assumed a Chaldean original for them. Equally, Fürst categorically noted: “it is more than doubtful that their original language was Greek.” Indeed, it is extremely difficult to admit that the Alexandrian Jews of the time of the Ptolemies decided to arbitrarily insert their prologues into such a well-known and widespread book as the book of Daniel. Neither the content nor the nature of these stories correspond to this offensive theory. All of them bear the stamp common to this creation, and, it seems, formed an integral part of the original work, and in the Alexandrian text of the book of Daniel the order is more logical, whereas in the Hebrew the paragraphs are altered and confused. If this is true, then the closest guess will be that these revered additions were released during the revision by the Yavnite rabbis, who excluded the story of Darius and the three young men. Apparently, this was done in the interests of adapting the contents of this book to public opinion, since, for example, the story of Susanna seemed offensive to the priestly class, and for other pedagogical edifying and caste considerations. Another question is, what was the actual original language of these passages - Hebrew or Aramaic? It is more likely that the latter is the case for most of them, as in general in the book of Daniel 15, although regarding the prayer of Azariah, Bertolet noted that the Hebrew names of the three youths are used in it, and Persian names are used in their songs. Now, regarding all the Old Testament books considered, the result is that the translation of the LXX, in terms of the order of material and in terms of authority, far surpasses the Masoretic text, which was greatly changed by the Jewish rabbis and, most likely, the Jamnite school. To illustrate this, let us take another book of Job. In his letter to Africanus, Origen 16 states that in his days the Greek edition of this work differed significantly from the Hebrew. These differences consisted mainly in omissions of verses of three or four, sometimes in fourteen, sixteen and nineteen. Blazh. Jerome 17 counted such omissions of up to seven to eight hundred verses septeagenti ferme aut octingenti versus στίχους desunt), allegedly due to a misunderstanding of the original. These omissions were filled in by Origen from Theodotion’s version, and in his “exapla” he protected them with asterisks. But over time, these icons fell out, and the summary text began to be accepted as the original LXX 18. Fortunately for this book, the asterisks have been preserved in two Latin (in Tournay and in the Bodleian Library) and two Greek (in the National Library - Colbert 1.952 and in the Vatican - 346) manuscripts and in the Ambrosian copy of the Syrian exaplos, published in the photolithography of Ceriani 19 . It goes without saying how important these monumental witnesses are, but until the last days they were suppressed, since Protestant disciples declared the LXX text falsified, recognizing the Hebrew as the only true one. And De Lagarde rightly complained that these incomparable monuments did not find a worthy assessment corresponding to their significance. However, at that time, an impartial study of the Jewish edition of the book of Job showed that its text is not always reliable and makes one guess about interpolations. So in the speeches of Elihu another hand is noticeably visible. And in 1863 (Marburg), Beckel, in his dissertation “De indole ac ratione ver-ionis Alexandrinse in inlerpretando libro Jobi” clearly revealed that variations of the Hebrew text of this book were indicated in Origen under the ovels, and that its original and pure form according to the LXX must be sought in those parts that in the above-mentioned codices do not have asterisks. The English scholar Hatch came to a similar conclusion, but independently of this, when studying passages from Job in the works of Clement of Alexandria, who, of course, wrote earlier editions of Origen's exaplos. One recent discovery addresses this issue more directly and conclusively. In the journal Monitetir de Rome for October 26, 1883, Monsignor Agapios Baciai reports that in the library of the Propaganda fidei, in Rome, he found a copy of the Sahidic or Thebaid translation of the book of Job; Then several more sheets were found in the same city. De-Lagarde, who saw them, attached great importance to this version and pointed out that it preserved the type of edition of the LXX pre-Origene formation, and there were no current Jewish additions in it. Meanwhile, Bickel again examined the text of Job with critical care (Carmina V. T. hebraica melrice. Oeniponte 1882; Job. Dialog über das Leiden des Gerechent, Inusbruck 1885) and, based on the properties of its poetic structure, argued the idea that the sections missing from the LXX constitute the fruit of a later interpretation. This observation is interesting in many ways. It follows from it that if we want to have the text of the book of Job, free from any inventions, then we must turn to the editors of the LXX, and not to the Hebrew one. It also follows that the last replacement was changed by the Jewish rabbis. Finally, this determines the time when these additions and “corrections” occurred; they fall on the period after the publication of the Alexandrian translation and before the appearance of the works of Aquila and Theodotion. In connection with other arguments, this convinces us that what we have before us is the work - closest of all - of the Iamnian school of Akiba. Using the words of Mr. Dillen, we can say that these changes were made, among other things, with the goal of “dulling the sharp blade of criticism of the author (of the book of Job) and making his poetic creation acceptable to Jewish orthodoxy with the help of significant exceptions and even more significant interpolations, by transferring glosses from the margins of manuscripts into the text itself” 20 . A similar conclusion is given by a careful examination of the book of St. Jeremiah. Regarding it, Origen (in a letter to South African) pointed out the differences in the placement of prophecies. In the preface to his commentary, Bl. Jerome testifies no less clearly to this, but, as is his habit, he attributes all the blame to the confusion of the Greek and Latin Bibles and does not mention how he restored the text to its original form. The ideas of this reenactor still have many ardent supporters - especially in Germany; however, even here, attentive criticism sometimes leans towards a more sensible view. Suffice it to mention the works of Black and Hitzig and the special monograph of Scholz. For England, Mr. Haworth mainly praises the research of Workman, who analyzed the entire issue, taking into account the opinions of opponents 21 . The most significant variations lie in the arrangement of the prophecies and their individual parts. On both these points there are important authorities in favor of the Greek translation. Thus, the Dean of Canterbury, Payne-Smith, writes about 25: “LXX places words differently. They put an end to the book and then begin: “This is what Jeremiah prophesied against Elam.” But in the Hebrew text this prophecy (on Elam) is read at the end of the prophecies about the fate of pagan foreigners and, moreover, with a title that, if authentic, would prove that it was not at all in the scroll itself.” Title 45 of LXX is completely omitted. And this order seems more natural to P. Smith. He also emphasizes that the Greek version does not have 25:14. And since this verse refers closer to 50:9, 41. 61:27, 28, and these chapters, of course, were all not written in the fourth year of Joachim, but; probably eleven years later, then he admits it is clear “that in this place LXX preserved the text as it was in the scroll of Joachim. Other convincing considerations in this direction are given by Black, Scholz and Wornman. The latter even directly states that “the position of the prophecies (in the LXX) is not only natural, but also original (initial), which means that their arbitrary placement is not the work of the Alexandrian translators, but was allowed in the Masoretic reviews or in the text itself by a later publisher or copyist.” Regarding the order of the prophecies among themselves, he also notes. “It is not probable that it was “arbitrarily composed” in the Greek translation, as the Count thinks; it is much more likely that in Hebrew it is deliberately organized according to a principle - partly geographical, partly chronological. When discussing other differences, we will again only refer to the provisions already expressed. In Davidson we read: “LXX does not have 10:6, 8, 10,” and this is quite fortunate. The same is true for 17:1–4, which is missing from the Greek. Likewise, instead of 27:19–22, there are only a few words in Greek. On this score, Mowers also noted that here one can see a ranting commentator, but not a prophet, speaking with his contemporaries about things that are well known. Jeremiah, no doubt, did not tell them which vessels Nebuchadnezzar left in the church and whom he carried captives to Babylon. Of course, he would have done so in Art. 21 will repeat what was mentioned above.” The Dean of Canterbury states that what is not found in LXX in 25 "and Nebuchadnezzar" is grammatically difficult. In article 11 they say: "and the Jews will serve among the Gentiles for seventy years" without "the king of Babylon." In article 12, the king of Babylon and the land of the Chaldeans are again omitted. In article 13, "this book" quite accurately refers to Jacob's scroll, which contains prophecies against the pagans, and in the title there are words placed in the Hebrew. 61 with the mention of the king of Seshach and Babylon - and they are indeed difficult, because why did the prophet covertly (in a digital way) what is directly mentioned in verses 9 and 12? And Davidson thinks that this phrase is not genuine and does not fit the context. For his part, Payne-Smnt states: “In all likelihood, the LXX preserved for us the most ancient text, in which all direct references to the king of Babylon were omitted, and seventy years were allotted to the duration of the captivity of Judah, and not to the Babylonian Empire.” Joachim of the Masoretic text in 27 is, of course, Zedekiah, as we see in the Syriac version and as, apparently, it was also in the LXX, although this verse is not read in the current copies. Art. Chapters 19 and 22 27 in LXX are stated more briefly; but the Jewish additions were still interpreted by Mowers and Geeting as interpolations. The words 68 “at the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah” do not give an intelligible meaning and are removed from the Greek; equally, v. 16–20 of Chapter 19 are not present here. And, according to Davidson, “it is obvious that they disrupt the connection of speech. Without them, it flows continuously and harmoniously, and v. 21 is consistent with the 15th. Therefore, Gitzig thoroughly argues that the additional verses are not are original and were not found in Jeremiah’s writings.” We do not find them in LXX and vv. taken from 23:5-6, as Hitzig also noted. Therefore, we suspect that this entire section is indebted to the later hand.” Michaelis, Ian and, it seems, Mowers agree, and Payne-Smith emphasizes many difficulties in them. It is not found in the LXX and verses 4–13. 21. “According to Davidson, they are undoubtedly false and disrupt the connection. Even Oswald admits it." There could be a huge number of similar examples, but the ones mentioned are enough to understand the strength of the general conclusions. Their prof. Davidson puts it this way: “The advantage belongs to the Greek text, although it was expressed extremely unfavorably by Küper, Gephernik, Keil, Wichelhaus and Neumann, who stubbornly defended the Masoretic text on every occasion. Also: “Analysis of individual passages serves to convince us that the Greek review is generally preferable to the Jewish one. Even if it is not always correct, in the vast majority of cases the Alexandrian translation is superior because it seems authentic.” Workman judges much more directly and decisively: “From the mass of internal signs it follows that by its nature the Masoretic text of Jeremiah is: - pitifully unsatisfactory... It is also justified by a multitude of external data. There is no doubt that in different ways and at different times the Hebrew text has undergone significant changes... A critical comparison of Greek and Hebrew shows that the latter has changed systematically and on an extensive scale.” “The Greek translation of Jeremiah bears all the features of the original form of this book; therefore, we should not correct and restore it according to the current Jewish, but put it as the basis for reconstructions.” Dr. Henry Smith, in his treatise on the comparative merits of the two texts (see Hebraica, July 1887), writes: "The cases we have considered lead to the conclusion that the LXX was translated from a better text than that preserved by us in the synagogue." It is conceivable, of course, that in the Greek version there are many errors - translation, transcription, etc. It is also possible that the manuscripts, fenced with ovels, etc., are not alien to the influence of Origen and his eclectic theories. With all this, there is every reason to think that in them we have a relatively pure text. And if so, then Kühl’s decision seems solid: “The translator used a shorter and better text. Therefore, in all difficult critical questions, the decisive vote should belong to the LXX” 22. In addition to all this, Mr. Haworth himself draws attention to the last (52nd) chapter of the book. Jeremiah. It especially confuses exegetes and plunges them into extreme bewilderment. It is not at all connected with the earlier parts of the book and is simply a condensed paraphrase from the book. Kingdoms, added to a series of prophecies completely mechanically. This is obvious to every sighted person according to Art. 64 ch. 51, which concludes with these words: “Hitherto the speech of Jeremiah.” This expression not only indicates the end of a special story, but can inspire the idea and compilation of the entire Jewish edition that is very far from the original type of prophetic creation. Otherwise, this phenomenon can hardly be explained. If we turn to LXX with confidence, then in this version we will find the necessary key to the obvious riddle. Here, “The Lamentations of Jeremiah” does not begin so ex abrupto as in the Hebrew Bible, but is preceded by a proper introduction: “And it came to pass that Israel was carried into captivity, and Jerusalem was laid waste, and Jeremiah the prophet sat down, weeping: and he wept with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said” (see Glorious translation). This is the only difference between the Hebrew and Greek texts of Lamentations. Of her, Payne-Smith says: “It is difficult to admit that the LXX were mistaken in such a matter, and the tradition they communicate in the above verse was undoubtedly accepted by the Palestinian Jews: Josephus states (Antiqu. X, 5u Niese II, 347) that “the prophet Jeremiah composed (on the death of Josiah) a funeral hymn, which is preserved to this day.” These words convince us that Joseph identified the “song of lament” of 2 Chronicles. 35 with the current book “Lamentation”. It is assimilated by Jeremiah both in the Targum of Jonathan, in the Talmud (Baba Bathra XV, 1) and in the Syrian version.” The same view is supported by Wellhausen. But that's not all. If - according to the named authorities - the Greek verse is reliable, then it is interesting to note further that it continues and concludes the story of the last chapter of the book. Jeremiah and that all together formed a successful preface to Lamentations. It is indisputable that in many Greek codes the book of Baruch is placed between Jeremiah and Lamentations, this only confirms the previous guess that in them we have some kind of later Greek review, processed according to the eclectic text of Origen. The true order connecting the books of Jeremiah and Lamentations was preserved in other Greek manuscripts, in the Vulgate - by authority until Jerome's translation of Italus - and in the Slavic. This is the explanation for Chapter 52. Jeremiah seems to satisfy all the requirements, and one can only be surprised that it did not triumph completely - due to the fault of microscopic criticism, erasing and overlooking the most tangible facts. Meanwhile, external data also points in this direction. As far as it is permissible to guarantee, all the fathers - before Origen - who quoted the Lamentation, mention it under the name of the work of Jeremiah and without any differences. Therefore, it seems natural to think that in the original text of the LXX Lamentation continuously followed the book. Jeremiah and that only the rabbis separated him and classified him as a hagiographer. Hence the exception is that initially both books were in close proximity. As for the book of Baruch, Jerome rejected it because it was not in the Hebrew Bible. But this judgment is rather hasty. The Apostolic Constitutions directly state that it was read in synagogues. And in 1 there is a hint of reading it in the church. Jerome's testimony concerns only the Judeo-Palestinian practice of that time and does not prejudge the previous one. And in favor of this are the patristic authorities before the Origen era, who refer to it as an integral part of the work of St. Jeremiah. Athenagoras quotes Baruch as a prophet (Legat. pro Christ. 9), and Irenaeus (Adv. haer. V, 35) - under the name of Jeremiah. Also in Clement (Paedag. I, 10; II, 3) and in Dionysius Alex. And Origen himself considered this book to belong to Jeremiah. But everything says that the Greek text is a translation from the Hebrew. In his article in the Encyclopaedia Britaunica, Prof. Davidson lists enough examples that, due to their characteristics, cannot be attributed to the typical style of the Hellenistic author. In his opinion, there was also a Hebrew original, which had fallen out of use and by the time of Jerome had been replaced by the Greek version. He also points out features that indicate the Palestinian origin of the book. And in the Syriac version of the exaplo in the margins he finds constant references to the Hebrew text, which, therefore, still existed under Theodotion. And the edition of Baruch in the LXX - in construction, phrases and words - coincides so closely with the translation of the book. Jeremiah, which, according to Davidson, is unthinkable and there is no doubt about the unity of the translator of both works. In some manuscripts to the book. Baruch, in the form of the 6th chapter, is joined by the so-called “Epistle of Jeremiah”. Although Davidson denies its Jewish origin, Welte (See Herbs, Einleit. I, 14–15) and Reusch argue in favor of the latter. And the “Epistle” is accepted by the LXX as an integral part of the creation of Jeremiah - along with the book. Baruch - and was specially named by Origen when listing the Jewish canon of his time. The totality of all the arguments suggests that when the translation of the LXX was completed, the book of Jeremiah embraced Lamentations, Baryxa and the Epistle, and that the division of the text and the placement of separate passages in the Bible was all a matter of refined rabbinic criticism of the last half of the second century. In conclusion, let us make a few more comments regarding the book of Esther, which also supports the translations made. Its translation in the LXX contains many paragraphs and stories unknown to the Hebrew text, in ch. 1 (Mordecai’s dream and the execution of Gawatha and Terah), 3 (list of Artaxerxes’ letter with the order to exterminate all Jews on the 13th day of Adar), 4 (Mordecai’s prayer), 5 (description of preparations for the visit and Esther’s visit to Artaxerxes itself). 8 (list of the new royal decree, canceling the previous one and very favorable to the Jews) and 10 (final news). As is their custom, Protestants attributed all these additions to the creative ingenuity of the LXX and removed them from their Bible as apocryphal 23 . But what is especially characteristic here, in our opinion, is that most of these additions are purely documentary in nature, and in such cases fabrication is most difficult and incredible. And Mr. Haworth testifies that all these supplementa closely resemble the so-called interpolations in the book of Daniel. The only difference is that they were accepted only by an orthodox and learned Jew, such as Josephus, who uses them in his “Antiquities” 24. A Palestinian Jew, devoted to the church and belonging to the priestly aristocracy, Joseph was persona ingratissima for his people, since he went over to the side of the hated Romans. Standing apart from the rabbinical schools, he was not bound in his judgment, did not see free adjectives in the Alexandrian edition and, without any doubt, puts them on the pages of his work, the seriousness and criticality of which is increasingly confirmed by scientific research. And by all accounts, when he wrote, the book of Esther, according to the LXX edition, was everywhere accepted in Palestine as a self-authentic text, which - like other biblical works considered - was later circumcised by the Jews for polemical and other interests. Among such changes, in all likelihood, one should include the replacement of Artaxerxes with Agasverg - in the name of the king who took Esther to himself. All the observations we have reported are extremely important for solving the question posed, which, in turn, is of extreme importance in biblical science. If it can be proved that the Hebrew Bible (of the Masoretic type) has been altered and distorted by the Jews, should not Christians return to the most ancient theories and sounder methods, and should they not accept both the canon and contents of the Greek Bible as immeasurably superior to the Hebrew in these respects” (No. 1.118. p. 295 c)? The authentic edition of the LXX is a more satisfactory authority 25 than the Jewish one (No. 1.115, p. 233c). In this case, “the Hebrew text of the Bible, before which so much incense has been burned in modern times, should be eliminated in favor of the LXX. This is necessary not because the Alexandrian translation was the Bible of Christ and the early Christians, but because the Masoretes did not preserve the original text, but was processed and published by the Jews already in the second century for polemical and other purposes, and because the Hebrew text is not reliable, for it is shuffled and in other respects distorted by its publishers. Otherwise, there will be a reversal not from the Greek translation to the original text of the Bible, but from the venerable Greek translation (LXX) to the Bible, perverted by Rabbi Akiba and his disciples - for various reasons, some not critical and partly malicious” (ibib.. p. 234 a-b). How long will we, together with the Protestants, hold on to the Bible, which has been systematically changed and distorted according to the prejudices and polemical needs of the Jews (No. 1.128, p. 550 b; cp. No. 1..137, p. 149c)? The final conclusions of the author, who promises to continue his work, and from whom it would be desirable to see the work systematic and furnished from all sides, are not devoid of some harshness, but one cannot help but say that they successfully outline a new fruitful task for science and serve as a good refreshing shower against the general and stupefying enthusiasm for the Jewish-Masoretic text of the Old Testament. Given the current direction and in the conditions of the carbon dioxide atmosphere, in the near future it seems possible that an unfortunate time will arise when in the biblical area we will find ourselves in shameful bondage with the Jewish “inquirers,” although, it seems, there is no reason to trust only them, and together with the Jews 26, humiliate the Alexandrian translators in every possible way 27. Indeed, with the death of the phenomenal De Lagarde, the study of the Greek edition died out and, apparently, will not soon be resurrected in its spirit and strength. The publications undertaken in England by the Cambridge Syndicate are hardly normal on manuscripts that deviate from the original LXX type - and this “Hebraized” mixtum compositura threatens to acquire exceptional authority, if only thanks to the latest Hutch-Redpath concordance 28 . At that time, the best forces from all over the world were attracted to study the Hebrew-Masoretic text, and its critical editions were published with the insane luxury of which only a crazy dollar of American Croesus is capable 29 . It is not useless to provide for yourself in advance against the bitter slavery that comes with such violence. And Russian Orthodox science especially should not recklessly sacrifice its best traditions, in which, perhaps, lies the truly scientific triumph of all truth. And the reviewer ends his report with the reassuring hope that Mr. Haworth’s thought will find among us worthy successors who will be able to reveal the proper price for translating LXX interpreters... For, according to the indisputable judgment of Metropolitan Philaret, “in it one can see a mirror of the Jewish text, as it was two hundred or more years before the birth of Christ; therefore, it should be “acquired a dogmatic dignity, in some cases equal to the original, and even elevating it above the type of Jewish text that appears in the publications of modern times.” This question was posed more directly and decisively in our country in the 70s, when a lively and heated debate arose between two Russian writers on the pages of the “Orthodox Review” and “Soulful Reading”. But the subject was discussed more theoretically, and the opponents did not come to an agreement, although the defender of the Hebrew Bible ascribed to himself a complete victory. "The True Septuagint Version of Chronicles - Ezra - Nehemiah" in No. 1.107 (July 22, 1893), pp. 73c-74b. "The Septuagint versus the Hebrew Text of the Bible" four articles in Nos.: 1.115 (Sept. 16), pp. 233b-234 1.118 (Oct. 7), p. 295 a-e; 1.128 (dec 16). The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. edited for the syndics of the University press by Henry Barclay Swete. Two volumes have been published so far (Cambridge 1887. 1891) on the book of Tobit inclusive; there still remain prophets and apocrypha. Hieronm. Comment, in Dan.praef. (Migne lat. XXV, 515); Prol. in Dan.: enf. in Dan. IV, 6 (M. XXV, 537). See Orig. in Mattb. tom. XV, 14 (Migne gr., ХШ, 1293) et ad Afric. 5 (M. XI, 60); cp. Hieron. Praef. 1 in Pavalip., ad Sunn, et Fret. cp. CVI, 7 (Migne lat. XXI, 840), ad Aug. CXII, 19, Prolog, in Dan. (M. XXII, 928; XXV, 493). The author speaks of “the First Book of Ezdras”, according to the nomenclature of the Greek editions (no codes. Vatik., Alexander., Sinaisk., and others: and in ancient Latin, Ethiopic, Armenian and Syriac in De-Lagarde, Libri U. T. apocryphi syriace, Lips. 1861, p. 138), but in the Slavic-Russian translation This is the second book of Ezra, not preserved in the Hebrew text, while our “first” is also in it. This is the name of the canopus adopted by the Palestinian Jews, who traced it back to the time of Ezra, which is why it is also called Ezra. About him, see † Rud. Cornely. Historica et critica intrdluctio in U. T. libros sacros in "Cursus Scripturae Sacrac", V. T. pars prior, I, Parisiis 1883, p. 39. F. Buhl. Kanon und Text des Alten Testamente, Leipzig 1891. Wed. from M. Philaret: “The Jews came under suspicion of damaging the Jewish text,” which “at the beginning of Christianity was in the hands of its enemies, and therefore could even be subject to deliberate damage, as Saint Justin Martyr speaks about this in a conversation with Tryphon.” For example, in the Jewish reading of Psalm. 21 “it is not without reason that one can look for the ill-intentioned hand of a Jew who was looking for a means to evade the power of the prophetic testimony of the crucifixion of the Lord” (On the dogmatic dignity and protective use of the Greek seventy interpreters and Slavic translations of the Holy Scriptures, Moscow 1858, pp. 2–3. 4, or in the third book of “Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers” for 1858) Mr. Heworth devotes six articles to these questions under the title “The Real Character and the Importance of the First Book of Ezdras.” See The Academy for 1893 in nos. 1.079 (jan. 7), p. 13 c-14 a; 1.081 (jan. 21), p. 60 b-c; 1.083 (febr. 4), p. 106 a-c; 1.06 (Febr. 25), p. 174 a –173 b; 1.093 (April 15), p. 326 b-327 b; 1.102 (june 17), p. 324 a-b. In addition to Josephus (XI, 3) she is mentioned: Clem. Alex. Strom. I, 21 (Migne gr. VIII, 853); Orig. in Jos. hom. IX, 10, in John. tom. IV, 1 (M. gr. Xll, 879; XIV, 200); Euseh. in Ps. LXXVI. 17 sq. (M. gr. XXIII, 897): S, Athan. Do sent. Dionysii 25, – Apol. ad C nst. 11, C. Arian or. II, 8 (M gr. XXV. 517. 609: XXVI, 189); S. Basil C. Eunom. V, 4 (M. gr. XXIX, 757); S. Ioan. Damask. Sacr Parallel. I, 19 (M. gr. XCLV, 1204); Cyprian, ad Pamp. ep. LXXXV, 9 (M. lat. III. 1181); Ambros. ep. XXXVII, 12 (M. lat. XVI. 1087); August. De civ. Dei ХVIII, 36 (M. lat. XLI, 596); Prosp, Aquit. De promiss. et praedict. div. II, 38 (M. lat. LI, 814), etc. An attempt to save 1 Ezra in this regard was presented by the elderly bishop Arthur G. Hervey in his articles (“The Chronology of Ezrs 2 and 4:6–23) in the pages of The Expositor magazine (No. 6. p. 431–443; No. 7. p. 50–63). but hardly successful, because in his favor the author brings not a “cloud of witnesses” but whole clouds of assumptions and guesses: among them there are such that the text of this creation contains many all kinds of errors (eyes, hands, memory) and “unskillful” additions from other sources. Wed. and Mr. Haworth, of The Academy. 1.086, 1.093 and 1.102. Antiqu, XI, 1–5 no edit. Ben. Niese. vol.III. Berolini.1892, p. 4 sqq. To this Mr. Haworth adds (No. 1.115, p. 234 a) - in the form of a weak assumption - that the Aramaic parts of Daniel, with the inclusion of Aramaic additions, were originally part of the same Aramaic chronicle from which the second book of Ezra was extracted (cf. in No. 1.081). This is evidenced by similarities in dialect and style, so it is possible that the compiler borrowed them from this extensive work. Ad Afric, 4 (Migne gr. XI, 56) See Praef. in l. Iob y Migne lat. XXVIII, 1080. And Cornely (op. cit., p. 331, n. 1) remarks: in hodierno textu graeco Job multa ex textu hexaplari addita esse apparet. Ceriani Monum. sacr. et prof. VII, Mediolani 1874. The Ambrosian Codex, located in Amrociana bibliotheca, contains, in addition to poetic and prophetic books, Prem. Straw. and Sir., Baruch., Seq. Jerim. and the story about Susanna - Vila - the dragon. The parallel is quite close with what Mr. Haworth suggests regarding the massacre of Theodore of Mopsuestia! For relevant literature before 1874, see the dissertation of the late prof. I. S. Yakimov “The attitude of the Greek translation of the LXX interpreters to the Jewish Masoretic text in the book of the prophet Jeremiah” (St. Petersburg, 1874), and the later one by Cornel in Introductio specialisin didacticos et propheticos V. T. libros (Paris. 1886, p. 367 sq.). The differences between the LXX translation and the Hebrew text of the book of the prophet Jeremiah can be more clearly presented in the following tables: Cp. Dr. Franz Kaulen. Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift d. Alten uud Neue Testament. Zw. Thl. (Theologische Bibliothek IX, 2). Freiburgi Breisgan 1887 § 363. b. 309: “That text (the book of Jeremiah) that the Greek translator had before him, in any case, has the dignity of primacy over the Masoretic, since it was not affected by the changes that gradually crept into the latter. since in the LXX we can confidently recognize the original form, it should be used with all right when correcting the Masoretic text.” Wed. also “Kritische Bearbeitung des Jobdialogs” by G. Bickell in “Wie. Zeitschrift fur die Kunde does Morgenlandes" for 1893 and a review of this work by Dr. Billon in the Contemporary Review for July last year. The idea of ​​numerous additions to the Hebrew text of the book of Job is also supported by Prof. K. Siegfried (see note 4 on page 361). Antiqu. XI. 6:6 sqq. no ed. Niese vol. Ill (Berolini 1892). p. 45 sqq. This opinion, in addition to Bickel, was also expressed by Theins in their commentaries on the books of Kings (Buch. Samuels, S. XXIX; Euch. d. Koige. S. XVIII, in Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament. Lietf. IV. IX) and Scholz (Der massoretb. Text und die LXX Uebcisetzimg des B. leromias. Warzh. 1875. Die alexandr. des Buches Isalas, Warzh. 1878. Commentar der Proph. who often prefer the Greek text of the LXX translators to the Masoretic one. Cp. Fr. W. Farrar. History of Interpretation, London 1886. p. 118–119. It is very interesting that the Talmud praises the translation of Akiba’s disciple, Akilu (Shahbath 8). Even a long time ago, Thenius wrote perfectly and correctly: It would be one of the most mysterious phenomena if one part of the Jews (Palestinian) treated their national sacred books with the most petty care, while others (Hellenists) deviated so much from this method that in their translation of these writings they allowed arbitrary insertions. A Concordance to she Septuagint and the other Greek version of the Old Testament (including the apocryphal books) by the late Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, assisted by other molars. Three parts have been released so far. We mean “Neue hebraische Textalogahe des Alten Testaments...” The prospectuses name 35 collaborators from America, England and Germany, with the general editorship of Baltimore professor Pavel Gauckt. So far the 17th part has been released - the book of Job in the treatment of K. Siegfried (cf. and “The Academy”, No. 1.133. p. 55c) which was sufficiently presented in Theologischer Literaturseitung (1893, No. 20, S. 494-497) by Mr. K. Budde, although he glosses over that characteristic fact. as a complete disregard for Bickel's works. In this review you can find information in general about the nature and conditions of the publication. You might be interested in: