IRLF 
 
 TDfl 
 
806l'l2 
 
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 THE LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE 
 OLD TESTAMENT AS ILLUSTRA- 
 TED FROM JEREMIAH 1-3 
 
 BY 
 
 BOYDEN KEITH YERKES 
 
 A THESIS 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN 
 
 PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 
 
 THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 Reprinted from the 
 
 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 XXXVII (1918), III-IV 
 
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 THE LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE 
 OLD TESTAMENT AS ILLUSTRA- 
 TED FROM JEREMIAH 1-3 
 
 BY 
 
 BOYDEN KEITH YERKES 
 
 K 
 
 A THESIS 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN 
 
 PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 
 
 THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 Reprinted from the 
 
 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 XXXVII (1918), III-IV 
 

Reprinted from JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, Vol. XXXVII, 1918. 
 
 THE LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE O^D 
 
 AS ILLUSTRATED FROM JEREMIAH 1-3* 
 
 ROYDEN KEITH YERKES 
 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 The quest of the Lucianic text of the Greek Old Testament, 
 which was undertaken with such vigor a generation ago under 
 the able leadership of Field and Lagarde, has become little more 
 than an avocation among scholars since the death of those two 
 pioneers. The importance of this work consists in the fact that 
 the Lucianic version was one of the three great Christian recen- 
 sions of the Greek Old Testament in the third and fourth 
 centuries. 
 
 * CHRONOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY. 1798 Holmes, Praefatio in Pentateu- 
 chum; 1864 Vercellone, Variae Lectiones; 1875 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum 
 quae supersunt, Prolegomena, ch. IX; 1876 Nestle, Eeview of Field's 
 "Hexapla," ThLZ, I, 7, pp. 179-183; 1882 Hort, Introduction to the N. T. 
 in Greek, p. 86; 1882 Hollenberg, Eeview of Lagarde J s ' l Ankiindigung, " 
 TliLZ, VII, 7, pp. 145-147; 1883 Lagarde, Librorum Veteris Testamenti 
 Canonicorum Pars Prior; 1884 Lagarde, Mittheilungen, I, pp. 122-124; 
 175-176; 1884 Smith, Eeview of Lagarde 's " Septuagint, " 0. T. Student, 
 Sep., pp. 37-39; 1886 CoVnill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, Prolego- 
 mena, pp. 65-66; 1886 Nestle, Septuaginta Studien; 1887 Eeckendorf, 
 "tiber den Werth der altathiopischen Pentateuchiibersetzung fur die Eecon- 
 struction der Septuaginta," ZATW, VII, pp. 61-90; 1890 Driver, Notes 
 on the Hebrew Text of Samuel; 1892 Stockmayer, "Hat Lucian zu 
 seiner Septuagintarevision die Peschito beniitzt?" ZATW, XII, pp. 218- 
 223; 1893 Harnack, Die altchristliche Literatur, pp. 526-531; 1894 Har- 
 nack, Dogmengeschichte,- Eng. Tr., IV, pp. 3-7; 1895 Mez, Die Bibel des 
 Josephus; 1896 Nestle, Septuaginta Studien II; 1896 Burkitt, The Old 
 Latin and the Itala, p. 9; 1898 Wendland, "Zu Philos Schrift De Posteri- 
 tate Caini," Philologus, LVII, 249-287; 1899 Nestle, "Zur Eeconstruction 
 der Septuaginta," Philologus, LVIII, 121-131; 1899 Smith, Samuel, pp. 
 402-407; 1900 Swete, Introduction to the 0. T. in Greek, pp. 80-85; 
 1901 ?, " Lucian 'B Eecension of the Septuagint," Ch. Quar. Rev., pp. 
 379-398; 1902 Harnack, Lucian der Mdrtyrer, Hauck's Eeal-Enc.; 1902 
 Liebmann, Der Text zu Jesaia 24-27, ZATW, pp. 285-305; 1910 Harnack, 
 Lucian the Martyr, New Schaff-Herzog, VII, 53-54; 1910 Procksch, Septua- 
 ginta Studien, pp. 76-87; 1913 Srawley, Antiochene Theology, Hastings 
 ERE, I, pp. 584-585. 
 
 444334 
 
164 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 Jerome, writing less than a hundred years after the death of 
 Lueiar. ivn'.'irked, Alexandria et Aegyptus in LXX suis Hesy- 
 laudat auctorem. Const antinopolis usque Antiochiam 
 &j*tyHs. e'xemplaria probat. Mediae inter has provin- 
 ciae Palaestinos codices legunt quos ab Origene elaboratos Euse- 
 bius et Pamphylius vulgaverunt: totius orbis hac inter se trifaria 
 varietate compugnat. 1 About the same time he wrote, In quo 
 illud breviter admoneo, ut sciatis aliam esse editionem, quam 
 Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores 
 Koivrjv, id est communem, appellant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque 
 nunc AovKiavos dicitur. 2 
 
 With the early life of Lucian we are not concerned; at best 
 the facts are so meager and so obscured that little can be said 
 with certainty. He first appears at Antioch as a vir disertis- 
 simus Antiochenae Ecclesiae presbyter. 3 He may have been the 
 leader of the theological school centered there; his was at least 
 a dominating influence, and it was under him that the Antiochene 
 school of theology first came into the clear light as actuated by 
 distinctive principles. 
 
 Theologically this school was marked by the early use of 
 Aristotelian philosophy. In biblical work it was characterized 
 by principles of literal interpretation, as contrasted with the 
 allegorical method of the school of Origen, while it made free 
 use of textual criticism as far as possible. That Lucian was 
 influenced by these suspect principles may be inferred from the 
 fact that he lived for nearly thirty years apart from the Church. 4 
 He was finally restored to communion, and suffered martyrdom 
 under Maximian in 311 or 312 at Nicomedia. 5 
 
 While at Antioch Lucian was famed for his biblical learning. 6 
 In company with the Hebrew scholar Dorotheus he undertook the 
 preparation of an edition of the Old Testament in Greek. 
 
 1 Jerome, Contra Rufinum 2:26; Praefatio ad Paraleipomena. 
 
 2 Jerome, Epistola 106 Ad Sunniam et Fretelam. 
 8 Jerome, De viris illusinbus, 77. 
 
 * aTrocrvvaywybs %[iet.v e rpiwv ewiffKOTruv TroXuerous xpoyou. Theodoret, if. E. f 
 1: 3. 
 
 5 Eusebius, H. E., 8: 13; Sozomen, H. E., 3: 5; Georg. Ced., 517; Theo- 
 phanus, Chronographica, 9 ; Nicetas, Praef. Cyr. Alex. In Psalmos; Jerome, 
 De viris illus., 77 ; Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis Sacrae Scripturae. 
 
 6 Eusebius, H. E., 9 : 6. 
 
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 165 
 
 Pseudo-Athanasius, in the Synopsis Sacrae Script urae, describes 
 
 his work as follows : OOTIS KOL avros rats Tr/ooyeypa/A/xerats luSo^em /cat 
 rots 'EjSpaiKOts VTV)((i)v Kat eTroTrreixra? ^aer' aKpt/3etas TO, XeiVovra rj Kat 
 TreptTTa T^S dA?7$ias prjfJLara /cat Stop#wcrajuevos ev rots owcetots rwv 
 ypac/><ov TOTTOIS eeSoro rots xptoridVots dSeA^ots. Simeon Metaphrastes, 
 
 writing about 965, suggests that the Greek texts were quite 
 corrupt at the time of Lucian. These corruptions had arisen 
 partly by the accidents of translation and retranslation, and 
 partly from deliberate efforts to pervert the meaning of the 
 text. Lucian is said to have retranslated the whole of the Old 
 Testament into Greek from the Hebrew, of which he is described 
 as having had a very accurate knowledge. His work gained 
 great prevalence in the region of which Antioch was the center, 
 and was of such importance that Pseudo-Athanasius speaks of 
 the translation as 17 e/?8o'/^, while Jerome ranks it with that of 
 Origen. 
 
 Since Lucian 's version, and all copies which were possibly 
 made from it, have long since been lost, it becomes necessary, 
 before any estimate of his work can be given, to attempt to make 
 a restoration of his recension by a study of existing manuscripts. 
 It may then be possible to judge whether Jerome's description 
 of his work was not too meager and whether Simeon Meta- 
 phrastes did not err on the other side by attributing too much 
 to the work of the Antiochene scholar. It may also be possible 
 to form some idea of the Greek translations with which he was 
 familiar, and of the Hebrew text from which he made his 
 corrections or his translation, as the case may be. 
 
 It has usually been assumed that all the manuscripts of the 
 Greek Old Testament can be traced, or could be traced if the 
 means were accessible, back to an original " Septuagint, " or 
 translation of the Old Testament into Greek ; or that early trans- 
 lators, as, e. g., Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Origen, Hesy- 
 chius and Lucian, had some such uniform copy upon which to 
 base their efforts. From this assumption much Septuagint work 
 has proceeded. 
 
 Now it has long been noticed that no two manuscripts of the 
 Greek Old Testament agree with each other, although some show 
 greater kinship than others. A study of a single manuscript, 
 however, e. g., the B text, reveals some interesting facts. There 
 
166 JOURNAL OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 are certain parts of the Old Testament which, in the Masoretic 
 text, are duplicates of each other. If any one Greek manuscript 
 were a consistent and uniform translation, or copy of such trans- 
 lation, it would be expected that these duplicates would be 
 translated somewhat alike. As a matter of fact, an examination 
 shows that even in these parts there are such variations as to 
 lead to the conclusion that two entirely different hands were at 
 work in the two places. 
 
 In the Appendix to this paper will be found a table of six 
 columns of which the second and the fifth will occupy our atten- 
 tion at present. In these columns will be found readings from 
 the B texts of 2 Kings 19 : 1-6 and Isaiah 37 : 1-6 in which the 
 Hebrew texts are repeated practically verbatim. In these six 
 verses there are thirty variants. Six are differences in gram- 
 mar; three are differences in number; one is in the order of 
 words ; eleven are differences of vocabulary ; there are six omis- 
 sions in Isaiah as against Kings and four in Kings as against 
 Isaiah. 
 
 This table is followed by a similar one comparing 2 Kings 
 24 : 18-25 : 8 with Jeremiah 52 : 1-12 which are alike in the 
 Hebrew. The B texts of these two sections reveal the following 
 differences: twelve in grammar, ten in vocabulary, two in the 
 spelling of proper names, one in the order of words, one in 
 number, four in the forms of verbs, two in the reading of the 
 original Hebrew, four omissions in Kings against Jeremiah, 
 while Jeremiah omits two whole verses and two minor words 
 against Kings. A study of these readings and variations leads 
 to two conclusions : 
 
 1. The Hebrew texts, while they are alike at present, were 
 certainly not alike at the beginning. 
 
 2. The Greek translations were made not only from different 
 Hebrew texts and by different hands, but probably by different 
 schools and at different times. 
 
 The probability is that there was not in the early centuries 
 any such thing as ' ' The Septuagint, ' ' but that the Greek version 
 of the Old Testament came into life very like the English Bible. 
 It was probably preceded by various translations of single books, 
 or groups of books, contributed by different hands who worked 
 over the space of several centuries. The first part to be trans- 
 lated was undoubtedly the Torah, which may have been rendered 
 
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 107 
 
 in an official, or semi-official manner, as the letter of Aristeas 
 suggests. This was followed by translations of other parts as 
 need arose or as men had the inclination. 7 
 
 Even in the first century of our era there was no uniform ver- 
 sion of the Greek Old Testament, as is borne out by a comparison 
 of the New Testament with any known version or manuscripfTof 
 the Old Testament. Endeavors have been made 8 to ascertain 
 what version or versions the New Testament writers used, but 
 Avith little more than tentative hypotheses as results, and with no 
 unanimity of opinion. 
 
 Philo~ to be sure, refers to an annual festival 9 on the island 
 of Pharus commemorative of the completion of the translation 
 of the Old Testament into Greek, but this would connote no 
 more than the fact that all the books had been translated. 
 
 There is no evidence of an attempt to produce a uniform 
 rendering of the Old Testament into Greek until the second cen- 
 tury of our era and after that time there were two different 
 influences at work. The first was the Jewish-Ebionitic influence 
 which produced the versions of Aquila, Theodotion and Sym- 
 machus ; the second was the Christian influence which animated 
 Origen, Hesychius and Lucian of Antioch. 
 
 In tracing the lineage of the Greek texts of the Old Testament 
 it must be remembered that there was probably no uniform 
 Hebrew text from which the earliest translations were made. 
 There may have been an official Hebrew text of the Torah at the 
 time this part was translated into Greek. This was, in all prob- 
 ability, before the composition of many parts of the Nebiim and 
 certainly before the completion of the Kethubim. As these later 
 Avritings were produced, translations of them were made into 
 Greek, possibly long before they were accorded the dignity of 
 canonicity, and certainly long before the Hebrew text had become 
 fixed. Swete 10 calls attention to the fact that "no official text 
 held undisputed possession in the first century or was recognized 
 by the writers of the New Testament." And inasmuch as the 
 content of the Hebrew Canon was not fixed until the end of the 
 
 7 Nestle, in Philologus, vol. LVIII, came to the same conclusion, but 
 based his arguments upon entirely different grounds. 
 
 8 Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greelc, Part III, ch. ii. 
 Quotation in Swete, op. cit., p. 13. 
 
 10 op. cit., p. 439. 
 
168 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 first century of our era, and the Hebrew text until much later, 
 it would be surprising if there were any such thing as a uniform 
 Greek translation. In fact, there is no evidence of any attempt 
 at a uniform rendering of the whole Old Testament, or rather 
 a uniform collection of the Graeco-Jewish literature until the 
 version of Aquila. By this time both the Hebrew texts and the 
 Greek translations of individual books had been copied so often 
 that there was already a considerable disparity between them. 
 
 The translations of the third century Christiaa scholars are 
 analogous, in a general way, to the King James, the Douay and 
 the Revised versions of the Bible in English. 11 Attempts were 
 made to render the entire Bible into the vernacular. These 
 attempts were based upon whatever former translations were 
 accessible to the scholars as well as upon the studies of these 
 scholars in the original texts. Their results were never univer- 
 sally recognized and their use was locally or theologically con- 
 fined to those who were in sympathy with the translators. Any 
 attempt to restore an original Septuagint, therefore, becomes 
 impossible. At Alexandria, at Antioch and at other metropoli- 
 tan cities there were probably collections of rolls of translations 
 made by entirely different hands and -at different times. 
 
 Our present problem is the construction, with the aid of known 
 manuscripts, of a hypothetical text which we may assume to 
 resemble somewhat the translation of Lucian, and, from this 
 hypothetical text, to estimate the character of the work of Lucian. 
 
 The efforts to recover the text of Lucian are largely the work 
 of scholars of the last generation. Robert Holmes called atten- 
 tion 12 in 1798 to the similarity existing between the Compluten- 
 sian Polyglot and codices 19.108.118. Vercellone 13 wrote in 
 1864 that codices 19.82.93.108. unum idemque avn-ypafov ad 
 singularem quandam recensionem spectans representare. Neither 
 of these writers, however, suggested a connection between the 
 codices mentioned and the recension of Lucian. 
 
 The first stride toward an attempted recovery of the recension 
 was made by Frederick Field in 1875 in his Origenis Hexaplorum 
 
 11 Nestle, op. cit., makes the same comparison with the various German 
 translations of the Bible. 
 
 12 Praefatio in Pentateuchum. 
 
 13 Variae Lectiones 2 : 436. 
 
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 169 
 
 quae supersunt. A note prefixed to the Arabic translation of 
 the Syro-Hexaplar read: Lucian compared with greatest care 
 these Hebrew copies, and if he found anything lacking or super- 
 fluous he restored it to its place, prefixing to the part amended 
 the initial letter L. This method of marking, absent from most 
 manuscripts, was found in the Syro-Hexaplar. A single example 
 will illustrate Field's method. 
 
 4 Kings 23 : 37 reads avrjp Kara r-^v orvvrL/A-rjcnv avrov eSw/cav ; 
 
 the Syro-Hexaplar gives a marginal reading Kara Sum/up avrov 
 and indicates that it is Lucianic. A reference to Holmes-Parsons 
 in loco shows that this reading is supported by codices 19.18. 
 93 . 108 and the Complutensian. Careful study led Field to the 
 conclusion 14 certissime concludi arctam propinquitatem, nedum 
 identitatem, inter Luciani editionem et codices 19.82.93.108. 
 
 Meanwhile Paul de Lagarde had been working upon an entirely 
 independent line and his conclusions were published in his 
 Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum Pars Prior in 1883. 
 Commencing with the suggestions of Holmes and Vercellone,- 
 he established the relationship between codices 19 . 82 . 93 . 108 . 118 
 and the Complutensian Polyglot. He collected Old Testament 
 quotations of Chrysostom and found that his readings were 
 supported by members of this group of codices. He then made 
 use of the statements of Jerome concerning the three families 
 of Greek recensions and assumed that, of these three families, 
 the Lucianic would be the one most likely to be used by Chrysos- 
 tom and Theodoret. He also found that, as far as he was able 
 to compare, the Gothic variants were supported by the same 
 group of codices. This led him to construct the text published 
 by him as the Lucianic recension. 
 
 An examination of Lagarde 's work shows that there is no 
 exact agreement between the manuscripts upon which he based 
 his text. The following examples from Ex. 1 : 1-10 will suffice 
 to illustrate : 
 
 1 tio-rjXOoo-av B ewnyAflov 19. 108. 
 
 4 Ne<0aAi B Ne^flaAa/x 19. 108. 
 
 5 i/^xai B at i/^x<u 19. 82. 108. 118. 
 9 CITTC Se B KCU eiTre 19. 108. 
 
 e#vei B yevet 108. 
 
 14 p. Ixxxvii. 
 
170 JOURNAL OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 yevos B e$vos 19. 108. 118. 
 
 /xeya B /xeya TTO\V 118. Com. 
 
 10 TrXrjOvvr) B TrXiyOvvuHriv 19. 108. 118. 
 
 ovrot B avroi 19. 108. Com. 
 
 yrjs B yr;s >;/x,toi/ 19. 108. 118. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that there is no single manuscript which 
 gives all the readings adopted by Lagarde. Codex 82 is closely 
 related to B in the Pentateuch, while 93 does not contain the 
 Pentateuch. Of the others it will be noted that, out of ten read- 
 ings adopted by Lagarde, two are not given by 19, one is not 
 given by 108, while five are not given by 118 and the Compluten- 
 sian gives only two. At best, then, Lagarde 's text is but a ten- 
 tatively hypothetical restoration of what may have been the text 
 approximating that of Lucian. 
 
 An examination of his comparisons with the readings of 
 Chrysostom shows no closer agreement. Codices 19 . 93 . 108 . 118 
 in the main support the readings of Chrysostom, but every one 
 of them is absent occasionally, while 82 very seldom agrees. The 
 result, then, is but tentative and hypothetical, although as a 
 tentative hypothesis it has not been displaced. 
 
 The important fact is that Lagarde and Field, working inde- 
 pendently of each other and on entirely different lines, reached 
 practically the same conclusions, excepting the fact that Field 
 makes no mention of codex 118 which Lagarde found so 
 important. 
 
 It had been the intention of Lagarde to publish a second part 
 containing the remaining books of the Old Testament, but his 
 death in 1891 left his work unfinished and no scholar has since 
 undertaken the task. Field, however, laid the f6undation for 
 the study of the Lucianic version of the prophets. Upon the 
 basis of the similarity between readings of Theodoret and the 
 group of codices 22.36.48.51.62.90.147.231.233, he classified 
 these codices in the same family. Oomparison of marginal notes 
 on codex 86 indicated by the symbol X showed kinship with 
 this group, to which he therefore assigned Lucianic influence. 
 
 Cornill, in the Prolegomena to his Ezechiel, published in 1886, 
 discussed the subject at length and came to certain definite con- 
 clusions, as far as Ezekiel was concerned. He agreed with Field 
 in attributing the group 22.36.48.51.231 to Lucianic influence. 
 
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 171 
 
 To this group he added the fragment called Z c which contains 
 but a small portion of Ezekiel. He rejected 62.90.147.233 
 because sie theilen mit Lucian erne Anzahl von hexaplarischen 
 Zus'dtsen, gel) en aber nicht die Recension Lucians. 
 
 The most recent investigation of the subject has been pursued 
 by Dr. Otto Procksch of Greifswald 15 who divides the manu- 
 scripts into three general groups which he styles the Hexaplaric, 
 the Prehexaplaric and the Lucianic. In Jeremiah he assigns 
 33.87.91.228 (41.49.90) to the first group. To the second 
 group he assigns 26 . 86 . 106 . 198 . 233 . 239 . (41 . 49 . 90) . To the 
 Lucianic group he assigns 22.36.48.51.96.144.229.231. 
 
 The grouping by the several scholars of the manuscripts which 
 are said by them to show more or less of Lucianic influence may 
 be summarized as follows : 
 
 Field 22.36.48.51.62.90.93. 144.147. 231.233.308 
 
 Cornill 22.36.48.51. 231 
 
 Klostermann 48. 62. 147. 231 
 
 Nestle 22.36.48.51.62.90.93. 144.147. 233.308 
 
 Liebmann 22.36.48.51.62.90.93. 144.147. 233 
 
 Procksch 22 . 36 . 48 . 51 . 96 . 144 . 229 . 231 
 
 Burkitt 22. 36. 48. 51. 96. 229. 231 
 
 In determining those texts of the prophets which show traces 
 of Lucianic influence and which would therefore be of assistance 
 in restoring the Lucianic text, the work of Lagarde in the 
 Octateuch is of real service. Lagarde 's text is a hypothetical 
 restoration of the Lucianic recension and the critical apparatus 
 is given only in the book of Esther. For the purposes of the 
 present study, however, it will be assumed that it approximates 
 the text of Lucian. 
 
 Two passages in 4 Kings, to which reference has already 
 been made, are reproduced practically verbatim in the Masoretic 
 texts of the prophets. 4 Kings 19 : 1-6 = Isaiah 37 : 1-6 and 
 4 Kings 24 : 18-25 : 8 = Jeremiah 52 : 1-12. 
 
 In the first pair of passages there are twenty-eight instances 
 in which the B text of Kings differs from that of Isaiah 
 while the Masoretic texts are alike. In seventeen of these 
 twenty-eight instances, the text of Lagarde agrees with the B 
 text of Kings. Of the eleven variants between B and 
 Lagarde 's text, four of the readings of Lagarde agree with the 
 
 15 Studien zur Geschichte der Septuaginta, 1910. 
 
17 "2 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 B text of Isaiah. Three of Lagarde's readings are sui generis, 
 while the remaining four are confirmed in Isaiah by four or more 
 members of the group 22 . 36 . 48 . 51 . 62 . 90 . 144 . 147 . 228 . 233 . 308. 
 
 In Kings there are fourteen readings of Lagarde which 
 vary from B. Four of these agree with all the texts of Isaiah ; 
 six are sui generis readings of Lagarde, while four are confirmed 
 in Isaiah by members of the group Q. 22. 36. 48. 51. 62. 90. 91. 
 144 . 147 . 198 . 228 . 308 . Comp. 
 
 In Isaiah there are seventeen readings in which two or more 
 members of the group Q-Comp. give a reading different from 
 that of B. Six of these agree with all the texts of Kings; 
 two agree with the B text of Kings as against Lagarde; five 
 are sui generis readings; four are confirmed in Kings by the 
 text of Lagarde. 
 
 From this comparison it would seem that some of the manu- 
 scripts forming the group Q-Comp. give evidence of the same 
 influence which is seen in the manuscripts of the Octateuch which 
 Lagarde called Lucianic. 
 
 In the second pair of passages there are forty-seven instances 
 in which the B text of Kings differs from that of Jeremiah. 
 In twenty-four of these the text of Lagarde agrees with the B 
 text of Kings. In the remaining twenty-three instances there 
 are nine cases in which Lagarde's reading agrees with all 
 the texts of Jeremiah, one in which it agrees with the B text 
 alone, and six in which it is supported by members of the group 
 Q. 22. 26. 36. 48. 51. 62. 88. 90. 91. 96. 106. 144. 198. 228. 231. 233. 
 239. Comp. 
 
 In the same pair of passages there^are thirty-three instances 
 in which Lagarde's reading differs from the B text of Kings. 
 Of these there are five instances in which the B text is supported 
 by all the texts of Jeremiah, ten in which Lagarde's reading is 
 supported by all the texts of Jeremiah, eleven in which Lagarde 
 gives a sui generis reading and seven in which Lagarde is 
 supported by members of the group Q-C. 
 
 At the same time there are twenty-four places in which mem- 
 bers of the group Q-Com. give a different reading from that of 
 the B text of Jeremiah. Four of these are in agreement with all 
 the texts of Kings, eleven are sui generis readings and seven 
 are supported by Lagarde. These seven readings are given by 
 the following texts : 
 
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 173 
 
 22. 36.48.51.62. 96. 198. 231. 52:1 
 
 22. 36.48.51.62.88.90.91.96. 144.198.228.231.233.239.Q.Com.A. 52:1 
 
 22. 36.48. 96. 52:1 
 
 26.36. 51.62.88.90. 96. 144.198.228. 233.239. Com.A. 52:4 
 
 22. 36.48.51.62. 96. 198. 231. 52:4 
 
 22.26.36.48.51.62. 90.91.96.106.144.198.228. 233. Q.Com.A. 52:12 
 
 36.48.51.62. 91.96.106. 198.228.231. A. 
 
 The classification of the variant readings gives the first step 
 toward the grouping of the manuscripts. For this I have 
 examined the text of Jeremiah 1-3, noting the variant readings 
 of Q. A. Comp. 22.26.36.48.51.62.88.90.91.96.106.144.198. 
 228.229.231.233.239. and Theodoret. This study is based 
 upon the collation of Parsons which scholars have all recognized 
 as very faulty. I have compared his collation of A and Q with 
 those of Swete and have found errors on every page. On the 
 other hand, Swete 's collation is far from faultless, so that final 
 results can be obtained only by a study of the manuscripts 
 themselves or of photographic plates. Parsons' collation of the 
 readings of Theodoret I have compared carefully with Theodo- 
 ret 's Commentary upon Jeremiah, and the numerous errors of 
 Parsons are only errors of omission. 
 
 There are, in the first three chapters of Jeremiah, four classes 
 of variations which are here given in detail. 
 
 I. Agreement with the Masoretic text against other Greek 
 texts. 
 
 II. General agreement of Greek texts against the Masoretic. 
 
 III. Difference from both the Masoretic and other Greek texts. 
 
 IV. Difference from other Greek texts in Greek. 
 
 I. Agreement with the Masoretic text. 
 1. Exact restoration of omissions. 
 
 a. Proper names. 
 
 1 : 11 Practically all the manuscripts collated 
 by Parsons agree in this restoration. 
 
 b. Substantives and adjectives. 
 
 1:3; 2:6; 2:19; 3:11 22.36.48.51.96.231 
 are constant. 62 and 88 agree three times; 
 228 twice ; 144 . 198 . 229 . 233 . 239 each once. 
 
 c. Pronouns. 
 
 1:16; 1:17; 1:18; 2:21; 2:28 Nearly all the 
 manuscripts occur. 22 . 36 . 48 . 51 . 62 alone are 
 
174 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 constant. 88 agrees in all but one and gives 
 one in 2 : 2 where it is alone with Q. 
 
 d. Verbs. 
 
 1 : 4 ; 1 : 19 All the manuscripts appear. 22 . 
 36 . 48 . 51 . 62 . 88 . 96 . 231 are constant. In 3 : 1 
 is a restoration given only by Q. 88. 233. 
 
 e. Conjunctions. 
 
 1 : 3 Restoration given by 22 . 26 . 36 . 48 . 51 . 62 . 
 88.96.144.231. 
 
 f . Phrases, clauses and verses. 
 
 1:11; 1:13; 1:16; 2:1; 2:2; 2:9; 2:17; 3:7; 
 3:8; 3:10..; 3:16..; 3:17 The constants 
 are 36.48.51.96.231. 22 and 62 each occur 
 in every instance but one. 26.88.106.144. 
 228.229.233 agree occasionally. In 2:9 all 
 the manuscripts agree. 
 
 g. Particles. 
 
 2:15; 2:16 The constants are 36.48.96.231; 
 22.51.229 each once. 
 
 2. Partial restoration of omissions. 
 
 1:13; 2:25 22.36.48.51.62.96.229.231 constant ; 
 unaccompanied by others. 
 
 3. Person and number. 
 
 1:4; 3:6; 3 : 11 The last two are supported by 
 most of the manuscripts. In the first only 51.88. 
 90. 91. 106. 198. 233. Comp. 
 
 4. Correction of different reading or mistranslation by 
 
 other texts. 
 
 2:6; 2:11; 3:2; 3:25 22.51.62.96.231 constant. 
 36 and 48 each agree three times. 88 . 90 . 91 . 106 . 
 144. 228. 239. A once each. 198.229.233 twice. 
 II. Agreement of Greek texts against the Masoretic. 
 
 The evidential value of these instances is chiefly nega- 
 tive. They illustrate the fact that none of the Greek 
 texts is in complete agreement with the Masoretic. The 
 instances are of interest chiefly as showing exceptions 
 to the preceding class. 
 1. Retention of omissions. 
 1:18; 2:7; 2:30; 2:34. 
 
YERKES: LUGIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 175 
 
 2. Retention of plus. 
 
 1:1, 9, 15, 18 ; 2:1, 10, 13, 19, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31 ; 
 3 : 6, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 21. 
 
 3. Person and number. 
 
 1:2; 2 : 1, 11, 12, 18, 20, 25, 30 ; 3 : 13, 18, 19. 
 
 4. Spelling of proper names. 
 1:2; 2:18. 
 
 5. Different reading or mistranslation. 
 
 1 : 7, 14, 15, 17 ; 2 : 2, 6, 13, 19, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34 ; 
 3 : 1, 4, 7, 8, 15, 19, 20, 22. 
 
 III. Difference from both Masoretic and other Greek texts. 
 
 1. Additions. 
 
 1:8, 2:2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 28, 31 ; 3:2, 20, 22, 23, 
 24, 26, 27, 29 No constant. 22.36.51.96 are 
 omitted each once. 48 and 231 omitted twice. 62 
 omitted three times. The others occur irregularly. 
 
 2. Omissions. 
 
 26 . 48 . 51 . 106 occur each once and alone. 22 . 48 . 51 . 
 96.231 agree in 3:2. 48.51.62.96.106.144.231 
 agree in 3:24. 26.90.91.198.228 agree in 1:8. 
 The other omissions are chiefly in 229 which is so 
 fragmentary that the omissions signify nothing. 
 
 3. Miscellaneous. 
 
 2 : 3, 14, 31, 34 ; 3 : 22, 24 The constants are 22 . 48 . 
 51.231. 36.96.229 are omitted once each. 26. 
 88.90.106.144.233 occur twice; the others once 
 each. 
 
 IV. Differences from the other Greek texts in Greek. 
 
 1. Declension of proper names. 
 
 1 : 2, 3 . . . ; 3 : 22 But little agreement. 106 the only 
 one absent. 88 . 144 . Comp. agree in four instances. 
 48 . 96 . 231 occur four times each and agree in three. 
 
 2. Form of verb. 
 
 1:2,7,19; 2 : 11. ., 16, 22, 33 ; 3:17,24 96 is the 
 only constant. 36 and 231 appear in every 
 instance but one. 51 occurs in all but two. 22 
 and 48 in all but three. 62.144.229 occur with 
 a fair degree of regularity. 90 occurs twice, 
 once with 88 and once with 91. 
 12 
 
176 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 3. Second aorist ending. 
 
 1:6,11,13,17; 2:5,6,8,17; 3:2,7,19.. 22.36. 
 48.51.96 constant. 231 appears in every instance 
 but one. 62 agrees six times; 144 and 229 seven 
 times each; 233 five times; 198 and 228 twice 
 each. No others. 
 
 4. Different spelling. 
 
 1:18; 2:3,8,13,21; 3:5 36.48.51.62.96.144. 
 229.231 agree five times. 22 and 106 occur four 
 times. All others appear once or twice. 
 
 5. Use of particles. 
 
 1:7..; 2:6, 10; 3:8, 12, 25 22.36.48.231 agree 
 in all instances ; 26 . 62 . 144 in six ; 90 . 91 . 96 occur 
 in four each ; the others once or twice. 
 
 6. Vocabulary. 
 
 1 : 10 ; 2 : 3 . . . , 7, 10, 15 ; 3 : 5, 7, 13 22.51.96 agree 
 in all; 48.229 in all but one; 231 in all but one: 
 36 in all but two ; 144 in all but three. The others 
 appear irregularly. 
 
 7. Omissions. 
 
 2 : 27 22 . 36 . 48 . 96 . 231 . 233 agree. 
 
 8. Order of words. 
 
 1:13, 15, 16, 19; 2:5, 27, 35; 3:9, 17 22.36.48. 
 62 . 96 agree in all ; 231 in all but one ; 51.88. 144 . 
 198 . 229 . 233 occur irregularly ; 26 twice ; 90 . 106 . 
 228 each once. 
 
 9. Miscellaneous. 
 
 1:2; 2 : 8, 28, 32 . . . ; 3 : 12 96.231 constant. 36. 
 48 in all but one instance ; 62 in all but one ; 51 . 
 144.229 each in all but two; 22 three times ; 106. 
 233 each once; no others occur. 
 
 In the preceding analysis the agreement between 22.36.48. 
 51.96.231 is so general as to warrant the grouping of these 
 manuscripts together as descendants of a common parent. This 
 same grouping is also found, on page 170, of the texts with which 
 Lagarde agrees. For the purposes of abbreviation I shall call 
 this group L. 16 Of the texts which constitute this group, the 
 
 36 This study, and the conclusions drawn from it, were made before I 
 had seen Procksch's Septuaginta Studien. It was at first somewhat sur- 
 
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 177 
 
 first four have been classified by all scholars since Field as 
 unquestionably Lucianic, and the evidence from the present study 
 simply confirms this opinion. Nestle and Liebmann were the 
 only ones who did not include 231 in the group. 
 
 Codex 96 is described by Parsons as follows: 17 Codex Hexa- 
 plaris, ex Bibliotheca cl. Moldenhaweri Hafniensis. Continet 4 
 Prophetas Majores; quantivis, ut videtur, pretii. Nevertheless 
 it was collated only in Jeremiah and Lamentations, and accurate 
 studies have not been made of it. In Jeremiah its readings 
 practically coincide with those of 22 . 36 . 48 . 51 . 231 ; its absences 
 are fewer than those of any of the others and it has fewer sui 
 generis readings than any of the group. Burkitt 18 called it 
 Lucianic but gave no evidence for the classification. Procksch 
 gives but a few readings from it in Jeremiah alone ; he includes 
 it in the list of Lucianic manuscripts at the head of his collations 
 of The Twelve but does not quote it once. The collations in 
 Parsons indicate 96 not only as a Lucianic text, but as the best 
 Lucianic manuscript for Jeremiah. 
 
 Codex 229 contains the text of Theodoret's Commentary on 
 Jeremiah. It is very fragmentary and there are many lacunae 
 in it, but as far as can be judged its readings agree in the main 
 with those of L with which it should be grouped. 
 
 62 was classed as Lucianic by all the earlier scholars except 
 Cornill. Procksch finds it with all three of his groups but 
 mostly with the Lucianic; nevertheless he declines to class it 
 with this group. As a matter of fact the codex is present with 
 the group oftener than not and it occurs more frequently than 
 144 which Procksch classes as Lucianic. On the other hand it 
 shares a number of sui generis readings 19 with 144 with which 
 it should be classed. 
 
 Field, Liebmann, Nestle and Procksch all class 144 as Lucianic. 
 Like 62 the codex occurs with L oftener than not but its numer- 
 ous absences are worthy of note. In the 64 selections of Lucianic 
 readings given by Procksch 144 occurs only eight times, while 
 
 prising, but not a little gratifying, to find that Procksch came to exactly 
 the same conclusions, although his studies had been pursued upon a different 
 line and by a different method. 
 
 17 Praefatio ad Jeremiam. 
 
 18 The Old Latin and the Itala, p. 9. Wrongly quoted by Swete as p. 91. 
 19 In Jer. 1-3 these are 1: 5; 2: 9; 2: 14; 2: 15; 3: 1. 
 
178 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 22.36.48.51.96.231 are almost constant. The variations given 
 by 144 are largely Lucianic but the text is far from a reliable 
 witness to Lucianic readings. 
 
 Comparing L with the Masoretic text on the one hand and with 
 the family of texts represented by B on the other, these facts are 
 important : 
 
 1. In the Masoretic text of Jer. 1-3 there are 33 instances of 
 readings absent from the majority of Greek texts. In 29 
 instances L supplies this material; in four instances L agrees 
 with the other Greek texts. 
 
 2. In every one of the 20 instances in which the Greek texts 
 supply material absent from the Masoretic, L agrees with the 
 Greek texts. 
 
 3. In 28 instances the Greek texts are either mistranslations 
 or translations based upon a reading different from the Masoretic. 
 In 23 of these L agrees with the Greek texts; in 5 it follows 
 the Masoretic. 
 
 4. In 14 instances the Greek texts give a different person or 
 number from that of the Masoretic. In 11 of these L follows the 
 Greek texts while in three it follows the Masoretic. 
 
 5. In 11 instances L furnishes material found in neither the 
 Greek texts nor the Masoretic, while in two instances L omits 
 material found in both the Greek texts and the Masoretic. 
 
 The editor of the parent text of L appears to have used as the 
 basis of his work a Greek text somewhat similar to the family 
 represented by B although differing from it in many details. 
 For purposes of correction he seems to have used a Hebrew 
 manuscript, or manuscripts, approximating the present Masoretic 
 text although differing slightly from it. His assumption was 
 that, in process of copying, much material had been omitted 
 from both the Greek and the Hebrew manuscripts, but that none 
 had been added in either. Therefore, in his resultant text he 
 retained all the Greek pluses and restored all the Hebrew pluses. 
 This method naturally gave rise to conflate readings, and such 
 will be found in the text, e. g., 2:2 and 2 : 25. The changes 
 which he made in the Greek were all stylistic or rhetorical, 
 designed to make more euphonious reading for those for whom 
 he did his work. In Jer. 1-3 the following are to be noted : 
 
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OP THE OLD TESTAMENT 179 
 
 (1) Form of verb 1:7; 2 : 16 ; 3 : 17 and the numerous restor- 
 ation of classical second aorist endings to which attention has 
 already been called. 
 
 (2) Spelling 2:13; 3:5. 
 
 (3) Vocabulary 2:3; 3:7, 13. 
 
 (4) Order of words 1 : 18, 19 ; 2:5; 3:9. 
 
 (5) Gender 2: 7, 28. 
 
 (6) Classical use of genitive 2 : 32 ; 3 : 12. 
 
 These characteristics can all be explained by the assumption that 
 the editor of the parent text of L was Lucian of Antioch. 
 
 What Lucian did was probably to take the group of manu- 
 scripts at his disposal, carefully compare them with other works 
 to which he had access (including that of Origen), and at the 
 same time compare, with the aid of Dorotheus, the Hebrew texts 
 at hand. He then endeavored to give a more or less uniform 
 translation of the Bible as he knew it. This text, together with 
 the more or less accurate copies made from it, became a sort 
 of Authorized Version for the region from Antioch to Constan- 
 tinople, especially for the men of the Antiochene School and 
 for the early Arians. 
 
 The Lucianic recension indicates that the Hebrew text was 
 not yet fixed at the close of the third century, although it had 
 assumed by that time a form closely resembling the present 
 Masoretic. The majority of instances in which Lucian supplied 
 Hebrew pluses to the Greek text are supported also by hexaplaric 
 readings. These additions were therefore in existence by the 
 year 250. In Jeremiah 1-3, however, there are four readings of 
 Lucian supported by the Masoretic text but unnoticed by Origen. 
 These readings are : 
 
 1 : 16 K/oto-cw? pay. Masoretic = 'CDfifiPQ . Other Greek texts = 
 
 2 : 25 avSpiovfjuiL ov ftov\ofuu. Masoretic = iff? t^NU . Other 
 
 Greek texts = avSpuwfjuu. Here Lucian does not give an 
 exact restoration but indicates a different reading. 
 3:7 rj a$\<f>rj avTys. Masoretic = nrnnK . Other Greek texts 
 omit. 
 
 3 : 17 TO) OVOJMITI Kv/oiov cts lepovaraXrjjj,. Masoretic = 
 
 Other Greek texts omit. 
 
180 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 It would seem that these additions came into the Hebrew text 
 some time between the years 250 and 300, that is, between Origen 
 and Lrucian. 
 
 There are, in the same three chapters four Masoretic pluses 
 which were not noticed by Lucian. These are as follows : 
 
 1 : 18 Y "^H ^D ty Omitted by Greek texts. 
 
 2 : 7 ^ETOil jHN Greek texts read 
 2 : 30 DDDIH . Greek texts read 
 
 2 : 34 D"p3 DOVDN Greek texts read 
 
 This would indicate that these additions had not come into the 
 Hebrew text by 300, or at least that their reading was not 
 general. 
 
 There are also six instances in which Lucian gives a plus over 
 both the other Greek texts and the Masoretic. These are : 
 
 2:12 , yr,. 
 
 2 : 31 
 
 3 : 2 
 
 3 : 20 /cat Iov8a. 
 3 : 22 cyto. 
 3 : 24 /cat 
 
 In 2 : 34 Lucian reads a second person where both the other 
 Greek texts and the Masoretic read a first person. 
 
 All these Lucianic pecularities indicate a Hebrew text which 
 was yet in process of formation, but which, in the two or three 
 generations after the time of Origen, had approached more 
 closely its final form as represented in the Masoretic text. 
 
 In addition to those manuscripts which have been classified as 
 Lucianic there is another group of texts showing strong rela- 
 tionship with L but differing from it in many details. 26.88. 
 90. 91. 106. 198. 228. 233. 239. Q.A. and the Complutensian Poly- 
 glot (abbreviated as Co.) often appear with L, are often regularly 
 absent from L, and appear alone in the following thirteen places 
 in Jer. 1-3 : 
 
 1:2 Q. 26.88. 106. 
 
 1:4 Q.A.Co. 88.90.91.106. 198.228.233.230. 
 
 1:8 Q. Co. 26. 90.91. 198.228. 
 
YERKES! LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 181 
 
 1:8 Q. 26. 90.91. 198. 
 
 2:10 88.90.91.106. 198.228.233. 
 
 2:21 90.91. 
 
 2:24 91. 144. 228. 
 
 2:31 Q. 26.88.90.91. 228.233. 
 
 3:1 Q. 88. 233. 
 
 3:6 26. 90.91. 144. 
 
 3:10 90. 106. 233. 
 
 3:12 Q. 26.88.90.91.106.144.198.228.233. 
 
 3:12 Q. 26.88.90.91.106.144.198.228.233. 
 
 88 has been generally regarded as hexaplaric. Cornill found 
 it akin to the Syro-Hexaplar. It occurs quite often with L when 
 no other manuscript is found, and upon the assumption of its 
 hexaplaric ancestry its occurrences can be explained. 
 
 26 has been generally classed as of Hesychian descent although 
 no direct evidence has yet been found which gives definite aid 
 in identifying the Hesychian recension. The regular appearance 
 of 26 in Jeremiah with Q. 90. 91. 106. 233, both with and without 
 L, suggests that it should be grouped with these texts. 
 
 Cornill groups 49.68.87.90.91.228.238 as Hesychian in Eze- 
 kiel and one cannot fail to note the similarity between this group 
 and Q. 26. 90. 91. 106. 198. 228. 233 which are kindred in Jere- 
 miah. Ceriani considered 26.106.198.306 as Hesychian. 
 Procksch classes 26.86.106.198.233.239.306 as prehexaplaric 
 and assigns 91 to the hexaplaric group 20 while 90' is assigned to 
 both. Of the hexaplaric group he says, Hier tritt ndmlich als 
 vornehmster und greifbarster Charakterzug eine enge Beziehung 
 zum Typus AQ hervor. For purposes of abbreviation I shall 
 call the group Q. 26. 90. 91. 106. 233 by the initial letters He 
 because of the possible connection between them and the 
 Hesychian recension. 
 
 198 and 228 rightly belong with this group but give in a few 
 places readings that are peculiar to L. 21 Cornill classed 228 
 with this group and in general this classification is supported 
 by the readings in Jeremiah. Klostermann, however, noted 22 
 
 20 Procksch has erred here ; 90 and 91 should be classed together. 
 
 21 e. g., second aorist endings 2: 8, 27; 3 : 2, 7. 
 
 22 Analecta, p. 13. 
 
182 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 that in many instances 228 seemed to follow Lucianic readings 
 and he suggested that the manuscript originally belonged to an 
 Hesychian group but that it had been corercted later from a 
 Lucianic text. From the readings in Jeremiah this is the most 
 satisfactory explanation offered for this text. 
 
 The Complutensian Polyglot was classed by Lagarde with the 
 Lucianic texts although the evidence for this is far from con- 
 vincing. In Jeremiah whenever it agrees with L there are always 
 present one or more members of He while it often agrees with 
 He when no member of L is present. 
 
 The accompanying diagram represents a suggested lineage of 
 certain of the groups of texts with which we have been dealing, 
 and an endeavor to show their relationship to the Masoretic, the 
 Vatican and the Alexandrine texts. 
 
 At first there were a number of Hebrew texts the number and 
 exact content of which will never be known. Probably no two 
 of these texts agreed. Some were copied and transmitted in 
 Hebrew ; others were translated into Greek. With each recopy- 
 ing and translation there were omissions, additions and altera- 
 tions. The first Greek texts that represent an endeavor at uni- 
 form translation were those of Aquila, Theodotion and Sym- 
 machus, all of which, together with some Hebrew manuscripts, 
 were used by Origen who represents the first effort to produce 
 a critical text. At the same time uncritical texts were copied 
 and recopied. The descendants of these can be found in B 
 and A. 
 
 To explain the connection between L and He, as well as the 
 hexaplaric influences in both, I have suggested a parent text, 
 abbreviated as PT, which must have been the basic text with 
 which Lucian worked and upon which he made h'is corrections, 
 as well as the basic text from which was prepared the recension 
 from which the group He is descended. This must have been 
 an uncritical text. Traces of influences at work both in B and 
 A are found in it. The anonymous writer in The Church Quar- 
 terly Review 2 * pointed out the irregularity with which readings 
 pronounced Lucianic in the Octateuch agree with B or with A 
 or with neither of them. This fact is also noticeable in the 
 prophets and is just as true of He, both with and without L; 
 it can be explained only upon the basis of a common uncritical 
 
 28 Jan., 1901, p. 388. 
 
SUGGESTED LINEAGE OP SOME GROUPS OF GREEK MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 Earl y H e b 
 
 Earl y G r e e K t r a n 3 1 a t lone 
 
 Aquila J 
 
 n 
 
 r i g i 
 
 Parent text 
 
 Lucian of Antioch 
 
 I J I I I I i 
 
 22 36 ts 51 96 229 23 
 
 A 
 
 Hesychius 7 
 
 U 
 
 62 14-4 19S|_ 
 
 I ) if n f 
 
 p CoP26 90 91 106 
 
 Masoretic 
 
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OP THE OLD TESTAMENT 183 
 
 parent text. After the appearance of the Hexapla of Origen, 
 and before the work of Lucian, that is, between the years 250 
 and 300, copies of this text must have been made. This would 
 be the only explanation of Origenic influence in both L and He. 
 That this text was not the Hexapla itself is evidenced by the 
 fact that both L and He give readings not supported by Origeniu 
 texts. Instances of these readings are as follows : 
 
 3:2 eprjiJioviJLevrj B. ev ep^/xw juony L.He.A.Co. 
 
 3:6 tTTOpevOrjvav B. tTropevOr) L.He.Q.Co. 
 
 3:8 on B. Stem L.He. 
 
 2 : 8 vo^ov B. vonov fjiov L . He . Q . A . 
 
 This is an interesting case of a simple dittographic mistake 
 in an early text of the A family, copied in PT and recopied by 
 both L and He but corrected by Origen. 
 
 PT served as the text of Lucian who, at the same time, had 
 access to the text of Origen, as well as to some Hebrew text or 
 texts. The same text served as the base of He, the author of 
 which made other corrections suggested by some source as yet 
 unknown. These texts have been transmitted in the following 
 groups : 
 
 L = 22. 36. 48. 51. 96. 229. 231. 
 L2 = 62 . 144. Based upon Lucian, but not as faithful transmis 
 
 sions. 
 He = 26 . 90 . 91 . 106 . 233. Kinship not so close, but close enough 
 
 for grouping. 
 198 and 228 may have been based upon a text belonging to He, 
 
 but they were both corrected from a text of the L family. 
 
 The readings and variations in Jeremiah 1-3 may be classed 
 thus: 
 
 1. Readings common to L, L2 and He. The source of these 
 is to be found in PT and is often hexaplaric. 
 
 2. Readings common to L and L2, to be traced to Lucianic 
 influence. 
 
 3. Readings peculiar to L, likewise Lucianic. 
 
 4. Readings common to L2 and He, due to PT readings cor- 
 rected by L. 
 
 5. Readings peculiar to He. The source of these cannot be 
 determined at present, but if Cornill is right in his deductions 
 
184 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 from comparisons with Cyrill of Alexandria, Hesychian influence 
 is strongly indicated. 
 
 Whether any of these readings is peculiar or due to hexaplaric 
 influence must be determined in each individual instance by 
 comparison with recognized hexaplaric authorities. 
 
 The chief value of the Greek versions of the Old Testament 
 is the aid which they give in determining the quantity of the 
 first Hebrew text, its vocabulary and the form and meaning of 
 its words. For the first of these purposes the value of the 
 Lucianic version is entirely negative. In 1886 Nestle wrote, 
 Die Recension des Lucianus, auf deren Herstellung nach einer 
 mir unbegreiflichen Weise Lagarde zundchst seine Bemuhungen 
 gerichtet hat, ist gerade die uribraudibarste fur diejenigen 
 Zwecke fur welche wir die LXX am meisten brauchen und 
 gebrauchen. 2 * This statement was repeated by him ten years 
 later and was severely criticized by Wendland. 25 The study of 
 the text, however, shows that Nestle was correct in his estimate. 
 We find Aquila giving certain pluses over other Greek texts; 
 Origen uses all of these and adds still others; Lucian includes 
 all of the pluses of Origen and adds others ; finally, the Masoretic 
 text has more pluses than any of them. The fact that these 
 are in chronological order leads to the supposition that the ten- 
 dency of copyists was to add to, rather than to omit from previ- 
 ous versions. This means, then, that of all the Greek versions, 
 that of Lucian is the least authentic witness to the quantity of 
 the original Hebrew. We may go farther and say that if the 
 only evidence for a given reading is the version of Lucian there 
 is a strong probability that this reading is a later addition which 
 may be discarded. Of course this principle cannot be adopted 
 as fixed and unvarying; accidents are always to be looked for, 
 and the evidence must be weighed in each individual case. 
 
 On the other hand, there are instances, e. g., 2 : 11, 31 ; 3:2, 
 25, in which Lucian evidently endeavored to render the Hebrew 
 more literally than the texts with which he was familiar. While 
 he took the suggestion in some instances from Origen, in others 
 he apparently acted upon his own initiative. For questions of 
 vocabulary and of the form and meaning of words the Lucianic 
 
 24 Septuaginta Studien, I, p. 9. 
 
 25 Philologus, vol. 57, p. 286. 
 
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 185 
 
 version is a more reliable witness. The contention of Nestle, 
 then, is too sweeping, for there are cases where the version of 
 Lucian throws valuable light upon textual study. The service 
 of Lucian, however, is not of enough importance to warrant 
 the labor entailed by an endeavor to complete the work of 
 Lagarde. A more useful work would be a catalogue of Luciamc 
 readings, prepared upon more strict principles than the work 
 of Lagarde, and accompanied by notes which would indicate the 
 source of the readings. 
 
186 
 
 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 
 CO w 
 
 I s 
 
 HH CQ 
 
 Q 
 % 
 
 4 
 
 *s 
 
 I p. 
 
 w 
 
 P s 
 
 y 
 
 i- 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ? w 
 
 
 
 
 
 1111 
 
 br ^ JS- tf *x/> 
 
 S c, ^ w 
 
 Z ^ 3 
 
 1 
 
 Ta ijiiaTia 
 avTOV 
 
 * * * 
 
 1- ! i 
 
 b (y< *vJ> 
 
 33 S H 
 
 Pui 
 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^> 
 
 ^ 
 
 b 
 
 h 
 
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 187 
 
 C> CO 
 ^ CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 Lucianic texts 
 
 rl 
 
 
 
 fc ? 1 
 
 J 8 : ili 
 
 t7T<us eicraKOVcreTcu 22. 
 
 51. 62. 90. 147. 22 
 308. 
 
 eiTToas etcra/covcrai, 91. C 
 >s TOUS Aoyovs 
 
 CO 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 G^ 
 
 . T 1 
 O < 
 
 j* 
 
 c/> CO 
 
 !}s 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o ^ 
 
 GC 
 
 O ."-, 
 
 CO ;o 
 1 ^ 1 
 
 liis 
 
 
 
 *~* 
 
 5 
 
 |" 
 
 s- 1 f J S 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 ik 
 
 w 
 
 S3 
 
 
 
 
 
 rr . i a i- i 
 
 Ss 
 J^ S> 5> K 
 
 O 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 (/i 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 fc 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iO 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 kq 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 n 
 
 t: 
 
 i! iif 
 
 g^ g. ^ 2 g l - 
 
 0" 5_ 3 ?=3 
 
 i" ^ I I ' 
 
 t7ro>s etcraKOVcr 
 
 ^< 
 
 
 i 
 
 ov - - avrov 
 
 1 
 
 d 
 
 M 
 
 O 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 9k 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 2 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 b 
 
 i 
 
 i- 
 
 
 
 
 
 KINGS 19 
 
 03 
 
 h 
 i 
 
 ir Jf 
 
 | 3 ^ 
 
 1 1 J I ! P 
 i ^ i 
 
 o 
 3 
 
 Travras rovs Ac 
 
 ov - - aurov 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 M 
 
 O 
 
 I" 
 
 C 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 e- 
 
 I 
 
 <M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 % 
 
 i^ 
 
 J^, 
 
 
 Hebrew 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 n 
 
 j^ 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -44 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
188 
 
 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 k) $ 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 ! 
 
 7rpo<rtvxr)<: 
 
 V7T.p TOV Act/ 
 
 1 
 
 g 
 
 1 i 
 ill 1 . I 
 
 | 
 ^ 
 
 g 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 
 , 
 
 | 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 QQ !2 
 
 o |. 
 
 i i ^ 
 M d 
 
 1 
 
 J 
 | 
 
 9 
 t= 
 
 S 
 
 1 1 
 
 g ~^- 
 
 c 3 d b 
 * w : ^ 
 
 8S1 i t 
 
 1 
 
 g 
 g 
 
 c/ 
 
 i 
 
 (M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 j^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'i ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tS a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 189 
 
 
 
 rH CO* CO O CO* <+ <3J 
 
 
 
 
 
 05 CC ~ 05 ^ 
 
 Q < 
 
 
 
 ^ rN? ^ ^ co ^ 
 ^ Io C5 ' * 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 co' S w co 2 S 
 
 CQ . O 
 
 co* c: <5 ^ 
 
 
 
 w co ^ . ?5 co . . cc* ' 
 
 CQ^JL CO J CO^"^ rn 
 
 42 ^ . ^ ^ 4 ' co^. 
 
 . co co 22 
 cc TH as "* 
 
 
 
 ^ 0? ^' CO ^ CQ ^ ^ g ^* ^ 
 
 co' e % 
 
 s 
 
 .1 
 
 2 W .GQCOc^CoSS 'dCQ K 
 *5 -COCQCQcQO g t^r^' S 
 
 1 -I 5 i*?{ ill 
 
 j H ^f4 K IE 6* O 41 > 4 r^ 
 
 W V SUW O^hHhHW 
 
 CO 
 
 GQ co S 
 
 MN^r 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 H? 
 
 K 
 
 1 1 -< 1 
 
 
 A 
 
 1-5 
 
 vu CjQ_ 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 oi g ^ e s a a 
 
 fc 4" 5 oo 
 
 a' a" a" a 
 
 o o o 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 
 1 s 
 
 
 ^H 
 
 
 -o 
 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ce 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 i-l CQ CO 
 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 i i 
 
 S p 
 * o 
 
 cc 
 H 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 b 
 
 
 ^ - s ? 
 
 "g , 1 C, | 8- 
 
 s 8 *" 1 ^ i g ^ " 
 d^ I 1 ^ | fc 
 
 f* X T>vT ?J O S 
 
 ft! i 
 
 3- 3 di 
 
 O 
 
 
 ^PW W^^^HHSS* 
 
 i- S a 5> 
 
 fe 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 cu 
 
 ci 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 
 : 
 
 i 
 
 5 
 
 71 
 
 05 i g . | s- 
 
 g : ! K g 2- ^ 
 * 3 1 ass 6 
 
 I S S 1 I- 
 
 8 | s 
 
 N ?> 
 
 t/ O MJ 
 
 f S 6 ^ 
 
 
 
 IB 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 H3 
 
 
 
 
 co o: o 
 
 
 
 
 1-1 rH. C? 
 
 
190 
 
 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 
 
 rH O CO 
 O CS CO 
 
 co 10 ^ 
 
 Q 
 
 CO ~H 
 
 CO CO 
 
 iO CO 
 
 
 
 
 G^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 oi 
 
 ^? 
 
 ^fc 
 
 
 
 
 CO CO 
 T* CO 06 
 
 ^ J 00 . 
 
 CO 
 
 S co 
 
 . CO . 
 ^ CO 
 
 
 
 
 co c^ *^? 
 
 CO 
 
 . O* 
 
 % 1 ^ 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 06 
 
 ^ CO 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 
 C) 
 
 T 
 
 Lucianic texts 
 
 rH CO 
 
 s * m s . 
 
 v <tt o ^ 
 2 G^ fkf-j 
 
 | s o 3 ^ 
 
 ^ c<* fc 3" CD co 
 
 p co * ci c^ 
 
 3 , ^ i s ^ 
 
 | ^ GO ^ 3j ^ 
 
 3. i -: s. 1 " 
 
 ^Ji ^g 
 
 rH ^ 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ s- 
 
 CO * 
 
 ^^ p 
 
 if? 
 
 }L^apOLKCOO~V 36. 
 
 90. 96. 106. 19 
 
 pve/3a\ov C. 
 nwKoSofirjcrtv 22. 
 90. 91. 96. 19: 
 
 d 
 
 w 
 1 
 
 %T 
 
 
 
 w 2 ? 
 
 8 
 
 Jjy- 
 
 
 ^ 2~ 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ vt; u 
 
 
 &O i 
 
 k 
 
 
 3 t: 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 on 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 c 
 
 g 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 -T 
 
 CQ 
 
 d 1 
 
 O g. 3 J 
 
 V t- 
 
 O ^ w 
 
 ^ P l> 3- 
 
 p 
 o 
 
 rr 
 
 1 
 
 t 
 
 r 
 
 J 
 1 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 r 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^l 
 
 
 C 
 
 i. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 I 
 
 
 N 
 
 "N 
 
 il 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 !k 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 02- o 
 
 3- 3- 
 
 M i- 1 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 3- 3- 
 t- fe K 
 >. ?* a. 
 
 V VU \U 
 
 w v i. 6& 
 3 J *" 
 
 d 
 
 s : 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 N 
 
 4 
 i- 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 k 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 a, 
 
 t;L 
 
 r 
 
 3- S I 
 
 ,! 
 
 \j 
 
 ii- 
 
 ^b 
 
 1 
 
 S 
 ?< 
 
 
 W 
 
 
 3 S* 3 j 
 *- K 
 ^ ?* >. 
 
 W w w 
 
 - i j 
 E 1 r r 
 
 fl CO 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 I 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -o 
 
 * 
 
 
 r 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
YERKES: LUCIANIC VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 191 
 
 
 
 CO . CO rH 
 CO rH CO C5 
 CO 
 
 f ^ s 
 
 O . ^^ ji, * 
 
 rH 
 GO 
 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 u 3^ ;^ 
 co ^0 P GO 
 
 rH O 
 
 
 
 C) 
 
 Lucianic text 
 a-vvoxr) 
 
 kKCLTOV 
 
 ^ <^ fc S 
 
 3^t- 
 
 Is fs 
 f s N 
 
 S P-O 
 .. 
 
 GO P r- 1 3 
 
 (^ CO 
 
 C^? *" C^ uj 
 
 CO K CO ^ 
 
 1 
 I 
 
 f 
 
 ^~l 
 
 (/< 
 
 o ^ 
 
 ^ rf 
 
 r~ 
 
 w 
 
 lO 
 
 3 5 
 
 K w 
 
 v ^ 
 
 o 
 
 ^o 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 .' 
 
 
 JEREM] 
 
 to >5 P 
 ^* O 
 
 H co ^ 
 Q2_ w O 
 
 . ^ 
 
 1,1 
 
 fe 1 1 
 
 * ^ - 
 
 1- 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 (/> *^? 
 
 2 
 
 & i 
 
 p 
 o 
 
 <% 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 S 
 
 CO 
 
 
 *~ 
 
 
 p 
 o 
 
 p t/i 
 
 S & 
 
 
 
 
 t ' R i 
 
 N . 
 
 P b 
 g * 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 8 ^ co 
 
 2 b S 
 
 c~ 2 
 
 . 
 
 $z~ 
 
 
 !!! 
 
 ^ 3 h 
 
 J4 
 
 w 
 7T 
 
 1" 
 
 
 
 1 g 
 
 f 
 
 1 
 
 j 
 
 p 
 o 
 
 g 
 
 P- ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 fc. 
 
 S ^ 
 
 ^ b 
 
 Q^ 
 
 
 op 
 
 5- ti 
 
 ^^ ! 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 02 x S 
 
 11 
 
 -S ^O ' 
 
 QD vu O 
 
 R5 (y 
 
 1 
 
 p- 
 
 
 
 S I 
 
 ! w 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 1 
 
 
 g 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 P 
 
 om. 
 
 WV T 
 
 om 
 
 fi . 
 
 Hi 
 
 a 
 
 I 
 
 13 
 
 co 
 
192 
 
 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 
 
 ^ 
 
 ,_ 
 L 
 
 JEREM 
 B 
 
 S K 
 
 S 1 
 
 oa. 
 
 ^ b 
 
 ^ CO 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 h 7^ 
 
 CO CO CO *"H -^^ CO 
 
 
 
 !: 
 
 ^i o^ co o^ co 
 
 
 
 3 J T 1 
 
 ^ TT 1 ^ CO 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 C<i ^ CO CN HH 
 
 
 
 a 06 
 
 d of ** g 05 3 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 3- . co . & , 
 
 
 
 3 cd - 
 
 h G9 05 00 . 
 
 
 
 x< CO rH 
 
 P CO 14 "^T CO C? 
 
 
 *C 
 
 P CO 
 
 **-. . O5 
 
 
 1 * 
 
 SCO ^^ /-^ 
 
 s s 3 ^ d 
 
 
 
 c/ ^ 
 
 
 Jjl 
 
 c/. > o p 
 
 i u O ?=- O 
 
 '^ , ** -^ Oi 
 
 *j rt v 3 
 w (-ir ui rH 
 
 ^^ 1 ~ l <? jj 33 s 
 
 u; 
 
 ^ *" | I Is 
 
 . a ^ J b 
 
 M-ftj s- 
 
 5~ CD O t* CD b CO 
 TO T-M O b Ol <w ^ 
 3-> w 
 
 8 
 
 p- fc co 3 
 
 ?r- I- <1 ^ 
 
 h 00 
 
 
 4 
 
 |_ 
 
 3- 
 
 
 ^8 
 
 g ^ 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 s 1- s fc. | 
 
 =*- k w 3- a 
 
 k M H ^ 
 
 t: 
 
 3^ 
 
 >0 
 
 i 
 
 i * 1 1 ~* 
 
 co * a w d 
 
 5?- Vy P 6O 
 
 |44 *^ 
 
 & <i ^ 
 
 s r 
 
 s 
 
 
 n 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 X- 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 s i 
 
 c<? 
 
 
 
 ^ o^ 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 r ~^ 
 
 
 <" s.. 
 
 "P o 
 
 t: 
 
 
 s ^ 
 
 ^Q V 
 
 3^. 
 
 & 
 
 ij 1:1 
 
 lllfi 
 
 rf ti S 
 
 i UiJi 
 
 8 nt4 4 
 
 ^ 
 
 3- c/. 
 
 i> 1 
 
 ^ t- b 
 3- w 
 
 I- 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 i 1 
 
 S 
 
 j 
 
 1 
 
 * 
 
 & 
 
 55 ^3 ^ ?> ^S 
 
 11 J g- | 
 
 i- & J "s 
 
 <^ ^ 
 
 till 
 
 JT b ^ ". 
 fc*l 
 
 r 
 
 1 
 ? s 
 
 w 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 oc 
 
FOURTEEN DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 LIBRARY USi; 
 
 SEP 9 I9K> 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
 LD 21-100m-2,'55 
 (B139s22)476 
 
YC 29586 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 1