ae a DUN , @Qr5 2 C6 4 REPRINTED FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES (CONTINUING HEBRAICA) Votume XXXI APRIL 1915 NumBeEr 3 THE EARLIEST BOOK OF KINGS By A. T. OLMSTEAD University of Missouri In a previous study,! the fundamental principles which must be followed by the historian in solving source problems with the aid of textual criticism were laid down. — As illustration of this procedure, there was investigated a group of allied problems in the higher criticism of the Old Testament. Among the results secured was the discovery that the so-called “‘Septuagint”’ of at least the latter por- tion of Kings must be attributed to Theodotion and that the Greek of the Book of Kings as a whole is distinctly late. It was also pointed out that a notable fragment of the earliest Greek translation, the one we may with some degree of accuracy call the Septuagint, is found in the alternate Jeroboam story which is given in the majority of our Greek manuscripts.2 ‘By a comparison of this story with its later forms, and especially by tracing their gradual growth, it was proved that many of the most characteristic expressions of 1AJSL, XXX, 1f. 2The Ethiopic version was not available at the time the translation was made. Its reading, ‘‘ According as the people spake unto thee, speak thou unto the people,’’ is clearly better than the reading of the Lucianic text there used. I have also been able to utilize the readings from the margin of the Leon codex in C. Vercellone, Variae Lectiones, Romae, 1864. Here is given with a fair degree of completeness the first half of the story with no important variants. The latter half is mixed, as is the Lucifer text. The first part of the story of the child is given in the earlier form; the second closely follows the Massoretic text so far as we can make out from the scanty fragments. 169 170 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES the so-called ‘“‘Deuteronomistic”’ editor of Kings were in reality post-Septuagintal in date. In conclusion it was shown that all this argued strongly in favor of a post-Septuagintal date for the last general revision of Kings and that the first step toward a solu- tion of the source problems of that book lay in securing the pre- Septuagintal, that is, the pre-“‘ Deuteronomistic” edition of Kings. This last conclusion, while logically following the data presented, was seemingly based on rather scanty data. It is therefore not at all surprising that its probability has been challenged by scholars who have found no difficulty in accepting the -Theodotionic author- ship of a part of the Greek Kings or the more primitive character of the alternate Jeroboam story. It is to meet these objections and to discuss in detail the data by means of which we may determine the earliest edition we may rightly call the Book oF Kings that this study has been written.! Our tools are the various tranelanions and recensions of transla- tions that have been made from the Hebrew text. At first sight, the enormous mass of manuscript material is appalling in its complexity. More careful study shows that the broader lines which it is our busi- ness to follow are comparatively simple. Viewed in the light of our problem, we may briefly say that their history is that of progress from an original Hebrew text, translated into Greek about the second century B.c., and toward conformity with a later Hebrew text, itself constantly changing, until it was finally fixed in our present Mas- soretic edition. It is no difficult task to assign to each text its rela- tive stage in this process of development.? The textual history of Kings is divided into three sharply defined — periods with a group of manuscripts or translations for each. The first gives our nearest approximation to the original Septuagint, though this, as we shall see, is none too close. It is best represented by Codex B and may be called the B text. Codex B is by no means 1 The less accessible books have been consulted in the libraries of Columbia Uni- versity and of the Union Theological Seminary. Vercellone, Variae Lectiones, is to be found in the New York Public Library. Much of the preliminary work on the Greek text was carried on by Mrs. Olmstead. The Greek editions and texts of III-IV King- doms vary widely among themselves and from the Hebrew in their verse and chapter | numeration. As this study is intended to appeal equally to those who know no Hebrew, the English numeration, which in general is also that of the Hebrew, has been followed. 2 This process is seen at its best in the additions to Jeremiah, later to be discussed by Mrs. Olmstead. THE EARLIEST Book oF KINGS 171 an ideal manuscript. It is full of minor scribal errors and its proper names are especially untrustworthy. Often a particular reading will be better given elsewhere, although in general it gives us the text on which Origen based his Hexapla.t Most important for our present investigation, it is practically free from the hexaplaric additions.” To secure a text worthy of being placed by the side of Codex B, we must go, not to any Greek manuscript, but to the earliest transla- tion into the Ethiopic, represented by manuscripts A and 8.°. There has been much discussion as to the date and value of the Ethiopic versions. Whatever may be true of it in other books,* in Kings it is equaled only by Codex B and in a few cases it is superior even to that manuscript. 2 Still better than these two was the original used as a base for the Lucianic text. Unfortunately, this good text was “‘revised”’ by Lucian and conformed in large part to the Hebrew. Neverthe- less, much of the older text was left unchanged, and agreements between this older stratum, Codex B, and the Ethiopic fix beyond doubt the B text. The value of the Lucianic text is especially proved for individual readings, instances of which we have found in our reconstruction of the Jeroboam story. It is represented by a considerable number of manuscripts e of which has any value save as they assist us to reconstr xt.6 All but one’ have, 1 Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, III, 130. 2 Cases like II Kings 15:38, where the Codex A in a shorter text, are rare, and still more rare are additions of 3 Note the comparatively unimportant character of the variants between EthSA and G Bin Dillmann, Vet. Test. Aeth., II, 2, 2, 6 ff., 51 ff. A detailed study of these variation shows that the agreements are distributed quite impartially among all the groups. For example, there are three variations from B in II Kings 16:14. In reading rode xadxouv Ovo.acrtypiov, the Ethiopic agrees with the Lucianic text, and, with different order, with the Syro-Hexaplar and Armenian. Mere@yxev ato mpocwmov it has in common with Sym- machus. E@yxev is also found in the so-called Hebrew, Symmachus, the Quinta, MSS 52, 55, etc., and Armenian. In 16:3, the addition IepoBoapn viov NaBar is shared with AN and the two groups they usually lead. Agreement of the Ethiopic with one or more of these groups against B as a rule must mean that this reading is correct. 4In the Pentateuch, its best MSS have regularly the shortest text; cf. also McLean, in Swete, Introduction, 109 f. 5 K.g., I Kings, 12:24¢. Note its constant use by Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Siudien, III. 6 Best in the palimpsest Vat. Syr. 162 and HP 93, somewhat less purely in o (82), fairly exactly in b’ (19), 6 (108), 127, Vat. Gr. 2115. lLucianic readings are found also in the groups d (44) and p (106); i (56) and 246; 1 (59); d, (61); 71, 245; 123; 158; 243 marg.; cf. for elaborate discussion, Rahlfs, op. cit. 7123. 172 THErE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES it should be noted, the Jeroboam story. Here too belongs the Old Latin, whether it is really Old Latin or merely a later Lucianic translation. Whatever its history, there is no doubt that it often gives good readings. It is therefore all the more pity that only fragmentary remains have survived and that these remains are hidden away in books difficult to secure. The second period is represented by those manuscripts which furnish a text intermediate between that of the B group and that presented in our modern Hebrew Bibles. In the Greek the most important class is that which we may call N from its most important manuscript.2 Agreements with B are by no means rare and all but one® have the Jeroboam story. Much later in text is the R class.* Of its manuscripts, some have Lucianic elements,® and there is a group which has the Jeroboam story and a fair number of agreements with Codex B.6 Those which do not have the story have rarely an agreement with that manuscript.’ To the same intermediate period belongs the recension of the Ethiopic, represented by the manuscripts BCDMR, which is still in use by the Abyssinian church and which is commonly listed as k. There are far more agreements with our present Hebrew than with the B text and it ranks about with the best of the R class in Greek.’ Its chief value to us lies in proving the extremely late date of insertion of any passage which is not found in its manuscripts. The manuscripts which give us a text practically identical with that of our present Hebrew Bibles make up the third group. Its one great representative in the Greek is Codex A from which we may name it the A text. Codex A has practically all the plus of the Hebrew, but a considerable number of good readings—some superior to those of B—have survived in the earlier portions. In our investi- 1 Cf. Rahlfs, op. cit., III, 153, 158 ff. 2N,h (55), 119, y (121), 248, 244, possibly also 64. 3 y, which is often hexaplaric; cf. Rahlfs, op. cit., 6. 4d (44), e (52), 70, 74, 92, p: (106), 107, a (120)3) 123, 125, £134); 144 zoo Cat. Niceph. d, 74, p, t may be Hesychian as, according to McLean, Jour. Theol. - Stud., II, 306, they are in earlier books. 5d, p, 123. 6e, 70, 107, 125. 7 Cf. Rahlfs, op. cit., 7. 8 Dillmann, op. cit., II, 1, 2, 4 ff.; cf. especially II, 2, 2, 45. 8 THe Earuiest Book or KINGS 173 gation it has no value save as a convenient presentation in Greek of the later Hebrew text.! The student of the Septuagint edition of Holmes and Parsons constantly notes that the Armenian manuscript they used agrees with A and 247, even when they have no other support. The printed editions are also close to the present Hebrew.2 Whether the Armenian will ever be of any use is uncertain until we have colla- tions of the many ancient manuscripts known to exist in various oriental libraries. Hexaplaric marks are found occasionally in the manuscripts. It is generally assumed that its hexaplaric char- acter is due to direct use of Origen’s work, but the recognized agree- ments with the Syro-Hexaplar make later contamination from that source a possibility. If this be true, pre-hexaplaric manuscripts may yet be found. The Syro-Hexaplar on Kings is fortunately well preserved. It is indeed inferior to Codex Q which one may use for the Prophets, for important passages, such as the Jeroboam story, which should be obelized, are entirely omitted, and the ascriptions on the margins are not always to be dependéd upon.’ Its chief value to us is that its use of the asterisk confirms other and more trustworthy witnesses in proving that the passages thus marked were omitted in our earliest text.4 Then, too, the presence or absence of a passage in one of the three later translators gives us a clue as to the approximate date of its insertion. . Equally: close to the present received text is Codex E of the Ethiopic,® and the same is true of the Peshitto, even if pre-Christian, of the Vulgate, the Targums, and the Talmudical quotations. From the standpoint of interpretation, all are of great value, but they all represent too late a period in the history of the text to be of the slightest value in our present investigation. 1247 is a virtual duplicate of A. M, k (58), and 243 are also hexaplaric in char- acter, at least in part; cf. Rahlfs, op. cit., 32 ff. 2 Oskan’s text has been corrected to the Vulgate. Zohrabian’s edition was based on several MSS, but no variants are given. For the version, cf. Artasches Abeghian, Vorfragen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der altarmenischen Bibeliibersetzungen, Marburg, 1906; Conybeare, Hastings Dict. Bible, s.v. 3O0f. AJSL, XXX, 10 ff.; Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, III, 31, n. 6. 4 The data in Field’s Hezapla should be checked by Lagarde’s Bibliotheca Syriaca. & Of. Dillmann, op. cté., II; 1; 2; 5. 174 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES It is the B text, then, which we must take as the basis of our studies. But this B text by no means gives us the actual “‘Sep- tuagint.”” Rather, it is a hodgepodge in which are found fragments of a number of different translations. The last of these has already been proved to be that of Theodotion.! Its extent was pointed out by Thackeray? as II Sam. 11:2—I Kings 2:11 and I Kings, chap. 22 with all of II Kings. The section between was recognized as form- ing one group, though the possibility of its composite character was noted. A closer study of this section is now demanded.’ For information as to the character of the Greek texts of Kings, as well as of the underlying Hebrew, we turn to the so-called “parallel narratives.”’ Each is given twice in the B text, is given in different locations and with different Greek, and often there are serious differ- ences in the underlying Hebrew. Evidently, the B text is a sort of hexaplaric text before the Hexapla of Origen, where all the known material was collected without regard to possible contradictions. It is clear that, of any variant stories, only one can be correct, and the same must be true of the rival underlying texts. Which of the two Jeroboam stories is the earlier we have already seen. Turning now to the first inserted section in the B text, we find it to consist of the three sections, I Kings 2:35a-k; 35l-o; 46a-l. Though usually grouped together, the three are quite 1AJSL, XXX, 5 ff. 2 Jour. Theol. Stud., VIII, 263. 3It has already been pointed out that, of the comparatively few cases where the Ethiopic disagrees with Codex B, nearly all have independent support and are probable. We may note here a number of Theodotionic readings which are not found in the Ethiopic. The most striking omission is that of spovogwvos, so characteristic of that translator, in IL Kings 24:2. There are also a number of cases where the Theodotionic transliteration is missing. In 4:39, apwwé has been supplanted by aypia Aayava, the Lucianic reading as shown by Theod. Quaest. in 4 Reg. 522, quoted Field, ad loc.; 8:15, to orpoua for paxBap, following Aquila, Symmachus, and Lucian, as against the ‘‘ Hebrew,’’ the LXX, and Theodotion; 9:13, ov xaOyTo emt twv for the em to yapeun tov Of LXX and Theodotion; 25:12, yewpyoves for afr with Lucian and the Armenian. It is quite possible to explain these as corrections from the Lucianic. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that another explanation might be that these are pre-Theodotionic readings, and this would be supported by the generally early character of the Ethiopic. Note also the number of cases where Lucian agrees with Quinta against these transliterations; cf. Rahlfs, op. cit., 248. Is II Kings a Quinta slightly revised by Theodotion? Note the incompleteness of revision in I Kings 22; cf. Rahlfs, op. cit., 266, n. 3. 4 How much damage may be caused by this failure to distinguish between the different sections is shown by the case of Kittel, who, after following Klostermann in his belief that the Shimei ‘‘doublet’’ was in place and of value (Gesch., II, 47), gave it up because ‘‘es geht nicht dieses Stiick aus dem ganzen Zusatz herauszureissen’”’ (Kénige, 23). Of course that is just what the sharp differences in the Greek force us to do! & THe Earutest Book or KINGS 175 different in character as they are in origin. This difference at once becomes apparent when we note that the first two sections are in Codex A and in the Syro-Hexaplar under the obelus, while the third is witnessed only by the B text. On the other hand, the first and third are mere epitomes which have been swept into the all-embracing B text, though why the first should be also in A is an unsolved prob- lem. ‘The second is the only real duplicate and its Hebrew original is not far distant from that of I Kings 2:8f. Our passage begins, “And while David was yet alive, he commanded Solomon, saying,”’ a natural introduction to what is an entirely new paragraph in this place. Otherwise, there is no certain disagreement between the two accounts. The agreement in language of the two Greek passages is so close that clearly one is the revision of the other. Yet there are serious differences in language: ovros=kat autos; ev n nuepa=TN nuepa n; KaTreBarveyv=KareBn; €ls amavTny mor=eELs am. mou; Em TOV Iopdavnv=ers 7. 1.; Kata Tov Kuplou=ev Kuplw; PJavaTrwinoerar=Oava- TWOW GE; VUY UNn=oU UN; Ppovios=aodos e.. A mere glance is suffi- cient to show that the former, the language of the ‘“‘duplicate,”’ is idiomatic Greek, the other a revision where elegance is sacrificed for literalness, as, for example, in the oath ev xvpiw. Furthermore, our account is most naturally continued by the verses which imme- diately follow, both in the Greek and in the Hebrew. The other, like the Hebrew it represents, is a mere torso as it stands, and, what is of no little importance, the Shimei story as a whole has no con- nection with the stories of the other executions.! So far at least as the Greek is concerned, it can be absolutely proved that vss. 36-46, the second half of the story, even in the Massoretic text, belong, not to the first half according to that text, but to the so-called duplicate. This is proved, not only by the good Greek and the free character of the translation in each, but more particularly by the recurrence of the swearing Kara Tov xupvov in vs. 42 as well as by the ev n nuepa of the same verse, for these expressions are paralleled in vss. 35n and 35m respectively, and the latter occurs only in these two places. Nor does this Greek representative of the Hebrew in position agree with it in content. It adds “it shall come to pass,” in vs. 37; ‘“‘and the king made him swear on that day,” ahd.; # 1 Cf. Benzinger, Kénige, 10. 176 Tur AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES “saying,” vs. 41; substitutes “three years” for ‘““many days,” vs. 38;! ‘““Amasa’’ for ‘‘Maacah,” vs. 39; and omits “and thou saidest unto me ‘The saying I have heard is good,’ ”’ vs. 42; and “‘so that he died,”’ vs. 46. It is obvious that we have here a quite different recension from the one given in our present Old Testaments. But this is not all. Thackeray has already shown that we have a new Greek translation begun after 2:11, and this explains what has happened. One of the translations has been used to supplement the other and, in the process of joining, the editor has not noticed that a part has been repeated.? Nor is this comparison without further consequences of great.importance. Our earlier and therefore better text disagrees in weighty cases from that which is at present accepted. Yet for II Sam. 11:2—I Kings 2:11 and I Kings 22— II Kings, this later text is our only source? It hardly needs the proof that this part is from Theodotion to show that for these por- tions we lack the aid of the real Septuagint and that conclusions based on this text are of dubious value.* The same phenomenon is found at the end of our extract where again the compiler of the B text has not recognized that I Kings 16:28a-—h is a duplicate of 22:41-—50° which occurs in the first chapter of the second section borrowed from Theodotion. The differences between the two are so marked that a translation of the less known one will not be out of place: And in the eleventh® year of Omri reigned Jehoshaphat the son of Asa. He was thirty-five years of age when he began to reign’ and twenty-five years reigned he in Jerusalem. And the name of his mother was Azubah, the daughter of Shilhi. And he walked in the way of Asa his father and he turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh. 1So Marg. Cod. Goth. Leg., Vercellone, Var. Lect., II, 455. 2 Does this not prove a ‘‘selbstaéndigen Recension’’ and answer the question of Kittel (Kénige, 23) as to ‘‘ wie kame der Verf. dazu, die Simeigeschichte hinter allen den spiteren Thaten Salomos zu berichten ?’’ 3 Thackeray, Jour. Theol. Stud., VIII, 263. 4‘*The hypothesis of Kittel and Benzinger that these verses formed originally a part of the narrative of M. 2, 31 ff. is very improbable. It would be inconceivable why they should have been repeated in 2, 8. 9; moreover, they agree entirely with the general character of 2, 1-9, and their repetition corresponds to the course followed elsewhere by the compiler of the two insertions’’ (Stade-Schwally, Kings, 66). 5 GLom. 6 Tenth, Eth. 7 Thus clearly the misunderstood Hebrew original. THE EarRuiest Book or KINGS ws Howbeit, they took not away the high places, they sacrificed on the high places and burned incense. And the acts of Jehoshaphat and all the might that he showed and how he warred, behold, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And the remnant of the sodomites that remained in the days of his father Asa he put away out of the land. And there was no king in Edom, a deputy was the king. He made a ship for Tarshish, to go to Ophir, to go for gold, but it went not for the ship was broken at Ezion Geber. Then said the king of Israel to Jehoshaphat, ‘‘ Let me send out thy servants and my servants in the ship.”” But Jehoshaphat would not. And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers in the city of David and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead. Unlike the first duplicate, this is found neither in Codex A nor in the Syro-Hexaplar, though it appears in the second Ethiopic recension. Comparing the rival texts, we find that ours has but one ship—which reminds us that the Greek gives Solomon but one Tarshish ship—and it is sent by the deputy. The peace with the unmentioned king of Israel has no place in it, there is a different chronological system, and numerous minor changes. Much more striking is the absence of almost half, vss. 46-49, of the Hebrew nar- rative, from Theodotion. Codex A has it, seemingly from Aquila, to whom alone the Syro-Hexaplar attributes it. Theodotion also omits “‘king of Israel,’ in vs. 41; “‘and how he warred,” in vs. 45; the second ‘“‘with his fathers,’ in vs. 50; and reads ‘“‘Chronicles of Jehoshaphat” for “‘kings of Judah.’’ Lucian omits the entire section. The Hebrew is thus shown to be hopelessly late, while our “‘duplicate’’ is made equally early. Investigation of the linguistic evidence gives the same result, as will be clear from the following list of variants in the Greek: BaotNever= eBaoidevoev; EV TW EVLAUTW TO EVdEKATW ETEL TOU ZauPpEL= eve TETAPTW TW AxaaB; ev TH BacireLa avTOU=EV Tw BacidrEvELY aUTOV; ELKOOL TEVTE=ELKOOL KQL TEVTE; OVOLA THS MNTPOS=OVOUA TNH MNTPL; TOU TOLELV=TOU TOLnTaL; EvwWrLOV KUpLoU= EV odfadpots KUpLoV; efvov= efvovavev; Kat a ovvebero lwaoadal kat aca dvvacTeia nv EroLnoEev= Kat Ta Nowra Tw Noywv Iwoadaf Kar at duvacrerar avTov oca eEToLNCEV; Vey paupeva = evyeypaupeva. Here we have the same situation as in the other duplicate, our story is written in good, idiomatic Greek, the one which represents, though but in part, our present Massoretic text is literal to a degree. 178 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES Content, manuscript testimony, and the character of the Greek all point to our text as the earlier. The large number of characteristic phrases in our passage makes it a good test for the relations of other portions of the Greek Kings. The literal ovoua tn wnrpe never occurs in the section 2:11—21:43. ~The other form is not quite conclusive as it is found four times in II Kings, but its occurrence in 12:24b; 14:21; 15:2, 10 points to a nearness with 16:28a where it is found. Ev rw evavrw is found three times in II Kings, but in the first book, with far less opportunity for its use, in 4:7; 6:38; 10:14; 14:25; 15:9. Bao.dever is found in II Kings only in the duplicate later to be discussed, in I Kings in 15:8f., 24f., 33; 16:6, 23. It 1s also found in I Esdr. 1:44, 46, a sure sign of early date. BaotdevorTos, used only in 14:25; 15:1, is also common in’I Esdr. Ev of@aduors is never used in the section though evwroy is usedin both. Oamrerat is used in 14:31; 15:8, 24; 16:6, and never elsewhere. Ets aravrnyv with genitive is used only in Theodotionie sections, with dative in 2:19, 35n; 12:24k; 20:27, and once in II Kings. Ovovatw is never used in our section, uw only once outside it, though it is found in 3:3, 4; 8:5, 62f.; 11:8; 12:32; 18:2; 19:21. This collection of characteristic phrases, which might much have been enlarged had we not confined ourselves to those attested by the “duplicate,” proves clearly enough that 2:11—21:42, as a whole, is homogeneous. Two other passages demand consideration at this point. One is II Kings 1:18, 18a-d. Its parallelism with 1:17) may be dis- missed at once. Neither the A nor the B text support it in that place where it badly breaks the context. In the Syro-Hexaplar, vs. 18 is omitted as well. The fact that the A group gives vss. 1 Benzinger, Kénige, 104, 126, argues that our passage is correct because its data are correct. Rahlfs, op. cit., 266, also accepts it. Stade-Schwally, Kings, 148, believe it original and in its original place, yet decline to restore its original form or give it its original location ‘‘as this would obliterate one of the redactional adjustments which have given the received Hebrew text its present form!’’ ‘‘Some minor departures from the usual manner of GY (e.g., ev of@adrumors instead of evwmov .... Vv. 43) show, however, that GY exhibits here, not the original Septuagint, but a later addition derived from M”’ (ibid., 176). The doublet ‘‘suggests that the older Hebrew MSS. varied as to the place assigned to this passage, and that the transcribers ‘harmonized’ their authori- ties by giving the passage in both places’’—Barnes, Kings, xxiv. ‘‘Man wird annehmen miissen, dass wir es hier mit einem irgendwie verstiimmelten Doppelganger von 16.28 - LXX zu thun haben. Das Stiick mag von Einen, dem es auf Grund des MT in LXXB fehlte, aus LX XA eingesetzt sein; aber da er fand, dass es an anderer Stelle in B schon vorhanden war, so beschrinkte er sich auf das ihm Wichtigste’’ (Kittel, Kénige, 179). Tor Earuiest Book or KINGs - 179 17b, 18 after vss. 18a—d simply shows that vss. 18, 18a-—d are inser- tions in the original Theodotionic text, in fact, the Syro-Hexaplar expressly attributes vss. 17b, 18 to Theodotion. Vs. 170 also flatly contradicts vss. 18a—d, not to speak of 3:1-8, by giving the acces- sion of Jehoram of Israel in the second year of Jehoram, son of Jehosh- aphat of Judah, instead of in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat himself. The manuscript data in regard to the parallel 3:1-3 are equally complicated. The N and R groups agree with our present Hebrew The Lucianic text gives the second year of Jehoram as in 1:17). . A omits about half the passage, but this seems to be due to homoeote- leuton, the more surprising as 1:18a-—d is in it as well as in B. The Greek of our two passages clearly is connected, yet there are significant variations: PBaovever=eGBaoidevoev; ert Iopan\=er L.; dexaduw = dwoeka; everer... . Baoiiews=everer.... BacidreEr; Evw- Tiuov=ev opbadpuots; ovde=ovxX; aATETTELAEV= METEDTNOEV; ApapTLats = aQuapTia; ar avTwy=arauTns. Of these, two, Baorrever and evwruor, connect this passage without doubt to 16:28a-h, that is to say, with the source used in I Kings 2:11—21:43. As for differences in con- tent, it is his brother instead of his father whom he did not follow, and Nebat as the father of Jeroboam is missing, another indication that the Nebat of the later story was an invention intended to give a respectable parentage to a man whose mother was in reality a harlot. At the end of the account we are told that “the anger of Yahweh was kindled against the children of Israel.’’! Quite different is the position of the Jeroboam story. We have already learned that it is earlier and more trustworthy than its parallel in the B text, which in turn is far from being the developed form found in the Hebrew as it stands today. Yet it is equally clear that, as we find it, it is an interpolation within the Greek section 2:11—21:43,-for differences in content’ are no less striking than those in Greek vocabulary. Yet this difference is not the most 1 Vs. 17b ‘‘is an erroneous insertion and forms part of a distinct synchronistic system which appears in Luc., but of which this notice and that of I 16.23 are the only traces in MT” (Burney, Text, 264). Itis to be ‘‘cancelled because its subject matter reappears after v.18,’’ and L is to be accepted as giving the correct text, yet 18a—d are in their correct place (Stade-Schwally, Kings, 181). Kittel, Kénige, 184, 191, takes 3:1 ff. as the original location, makes vs. 176 a first Ergdnzung, and vss. 18a—d a later and more complete one. Benzinger, Kénige, 128, accepts vss. 18a—d as authentic, as does Rahlfs, OD. .cu., LEI, 267. 180 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES remarkable fact. Rather is it that the likenesses in the Greek are so close that the parallel must be considered a revision of the original Jeroboam story. Nor is this likeness confined to passages where both have actually the same translation of the same Hebrew text; there is a striking similarity in general phraseology. This comes out noticeably in the translations of DIW, “tribe.” The Jeroboam story uses oxynmTpa twice, the parallel uses it six times, and it is found twice more in near-by passages. Theodotion never uses it in the Samuel or Kings extracts. UW2W is represented by gvAn twice in the Jeroboam narrative, twice in the parallel, once elsewhere, and seven times in Theodotion. Kovdifw is found in Kings only in chap. 12 of the first book, three times in the parallel, once in the Jeroboam story. vvybpoey occurs twice in the story, once in the parallel, twice more in our section. Pyua is found eight times in the one, five times in the other, though it is also found in Theodo- tion. Karaderuua is noted once in each and zoA\eunoere mpos twice in the one and once in the other. Study of these facts makes it clear that the Jeroboam story and the parallel have much in common as against Theodotion. Yet we should not fail to notice the number of the expressions in the Jeroboam story which are unique for Kings: ovrws efamo- OTELAOV ME; OKUTAANS; ECNnTEL; drecKEedaceEvV=AIY; GuvTpodot, SO com- mon in inscriptions of the Hellenistic age, yet elsewhere in the Greek Old Testament only in the Maccabees: euaorvyou; avecxov. All this goes to show that the Jeroboam story is a fragment which has no immediate connection with any of the other documents in Kings.! Finally, we must consider the epitomes in I Kings 2:35a—-k and 46a-l. Their true nature has been well described by Swete: they “‘are summaries of Solomon’s personal history, which have been attached, probably by the accidents of transcription, to the verses which they severally follow. On examination each of these passages proves to be made up partly of translations from verses which are not represented in the true LXX., partly of fragments of - the LXX. which occur elsewhere in their true order, partly of brief descriptions gathered from other parts of the book.’ So true is this 1 Correct accordingly AJSL, XXX, 29. 2 Swete, Introduction to the O.T. in Greek, 247. THe Earutest Book or KINGS 181 description and so obviously does it fit the facts that further dis- cussion would seem unnecessary. Yet, curiously enough, professed students of the Book of Kings, whether friend or foe to the “ doublets,” have confused the issue by including the epitomes with the doublets and deciding the character of one by the other.! To begin with the manuscript evidence, the first epitome, 2:35a-— k, is in Codex A and in the Syro-Hexaplar under the obelus, the other is missing in both,? and this points to the former being the older. The first is interested almost exclusively in the public build- ings, the second in the general glory of Solomon. There is some duplication in fact, none in language. Kau edwxev Kupios dpovnouw TW Lartwuwy Kar codiay woAAnv odhodpa begins the first, Kar nv o Bao.idevs Lartwywv gdpoviuos ahodpa Kat aodos the second. II\aros Kapotas Ws 7 aumos n Tapa THV Padaocayr represents clearly a different translation from kat Iovéda car IopandX TroAXo chodpa ws yn aupos n ETL Tns Oadacons evs tAnOos. ‘The second says Kat outro ov apxyovTes Tou Darwuwy, and then actually gives a list of the leading men. The first, after beginning Kat ovTou ot apKXoVTEs OL KATETTAMEVOL ETL TA EPYa Tov Dadwuwy, gives us instead the number of workmen. It is clear, then, that we must study these epitomes separately. The first runs as follows: And Yahweh gave Solomon wisdom and understanding, exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. And Solomon’s wisdom excelled that of all the sons of aforetime and all the wise men of Egypt. And he took Pharaoh’s daughter and brought her into the city of David until he had made an end of building? the house of Yahweh first and the wall of Jerusalem round about: in seven years he made it and finished it. And Solomon had three score and ten thousand that bare burdens and four score thousand that were hewers in the mountain. And Solomon made the sea and the bases(?) and the great lavers and the pillars and the fountain of the court and the brazen sea. And he built Millo as a protection for it; he breached the city of David. So the daughter of Pharaoh went up from the city of David into her own house which he had built for her. Then he built Millo. And three times in a year did Solomon offer burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the altar which he built unto 1 Thus Benzinger, Kénige, 14, with his appreciation of the value of his-S? account, nevertheless is wrong when he uses for this reason the epitomes to decide the place of 3:1. 2 Cf. also Rahlfs, op. cit., III, 32, n. 4. 3 [his own house and] add A. 182 Tue AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES Yahweh, and he burnt incense before Yahweh. So he finished the house. And these were the chief officers that were over Solomon’s work, three thousand and six hundred who bare rule over the people that wrought in the work. And he built Ashur and Megiddo and Gezer and the Upper Beth Horon and Baalath. Only after he had built the house of Yahweh and the wall of Jerusalem round about, after this he built these cities. Such is an attempt to reconstruct the original form of this epitome. That it is a hodgepodge is at once evident; that it cannot be taken seriously as a source should be equally clear. That it is not a translation of a Hebrew original! is obvious from a closer study of the Greek. Vss. a and 6 are from 4:29 f., with whose Greek there are certain identities, though also with several important differences.? That it had dpovnots while the “Three” had coda shows that it has none of the regular Greek translations as its basis. Vs. c represents 3:1, which in the Greek follows shortly after 4:29. Vs. d is word for word the same as 5:15, but vs. eis made up from chap. 7. Though many characteristic technical words are used, we can trace none of them back with absolute certainty to any translator. Vss. f-h are taken at first sight from 9:24, 25, 28, but vss. 24 ff. are given only by Aquila and Symmachus. Yet most certainly the verses are not taken from either of these as they appear in the Syro-Hexaplar or in Codex A, and they have a different order. That the building of Millo is repeated in two succeeding verses seems to indicate that the epitome had different sources. Vss. 7-k agree roughly with 9:15 ff., but the order is different and the proper names of the epitome are closer to the Hebrew as a rule. The second epitome runs as follows: And king Solomon was wise exceedingly and had knowledge. And Judah and Israel were exceedingly many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry. And Solomon was ruler over all the kingdoms and they brought gifts and served Solomon all the days of his life.* And Solomon began to open up the dynasteumata+ of the Lebanon. And he built Tamar in the wilderness. And this was Solomon’s provision: thirty measures of fine flour and three score measures 1 As Stade-Schwally, Kings, 64. 2'To save space, only a brief résumé is given of the original detailed investigation of the epitome Greek. 3 Placed by Marg. Cod. Goth. Leg. after 4:32, Vercellone, Var. Lect., II, 465. 4 Quae occulta erant, ibid, ? Tue Earuiest Book or KINnGs 183 of! ground meal, ten choice oxen and twenty? oxen out of the pastures and a hundred sheep, beside harts and gazelles and choice fatted fowl. Was he not ruler over all the region beyond the river from Raphia to Gaza, over all the kings beyond the river? And he had peace from all his regions round about and Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his own vine and under his own fig tree, eating and drinking, from Dan to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon. And these are the chief men of Solomon: Azariah the son of Zadok the priest, and Orniah the son of Nathan, the ruler of the leaders, and he ran to his house, and Zobah the scribe and Baasha the son of Achithalam, the recorder, and Abi the son of Joab the chief general and Achirah the son of Edrai who was over the tribute and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada over the royal court and over the brick making and Cachur the son of Nathan the counsellor. And* Solomon had two score thousand brood mares for chariots and twelve thousand horses. And he was ruler over all the kings from the river to the land of the Philistines and to the borders of Egypt. Even more puzzling are the relationships of this second epitome. The first verse has no exact parallel in our source, but it agrees literally, with one exception, with 4:20 as given by Aquila and Symmachus. To our surprise, the next verse agrees neither with Aquila nor with our source rendering, and its first half is repeated in vs. k. The third verse is parallel with 9:19 and the fourth with 9:18b. Thus far, it is clear, the data have come ultimately from the same sources as have the additions in Aquila and Symmachus. The differences in the Greek, however, are so striking, for example, the use of the unique dvvacrevya, that it would seem natural to assume that we here have a separate translation of material not given in the earlier Greek source. Yet this seems quite impossible in the light of vss. e-g which so closely parallel 4:22-25 that, aside from slight omissions due to apparent condensation or trivial addi- © tion, there are only three real variants in Greek vocabulary. Vs. g has the place of 4:24b in our source, but appended to it is all the plus of Aquila and in exactly the same language, with one unimpor- tant exception. It agrees also with 10:26 in the source, save that the most unusual word in the verse, toxades, is here given as Oy\evat, and the numbers are also different, four thousand instead of forty 1 Add choice, ibid. 2 Thirty, ibid. 3 Choice laying hens and choice fatted birds, ibid. The first extract ends here. 4 Here begins the second section in Cod. Leg. 184 THe AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES thousand, which is alone enough to prove 10:26 the earlier. The list of officials roughly corresponds to 4:2-6, but it is different in order and in language, the regular Greek text being more inclined to use technical official terminology of the Hellenistic period, always a sign of early date.1 Vs. k recurs to the extent of the kingdom and is somewhat parallel to 4:21, found only in Aquila and Sym- machus. The problem of the origin of this second epitome is the one seemingly insoluble problem of the book. One section gives a list of officials quite different from the one it is supposed to parallel, and from the age of David and not of Solomon. Others parallel our present Greek source, others still that of Aquila, while there still remain verses which parallel Aquila in content but not in language. Possibly the list of names is authentic. Otherwise, the epitome has its sources in known Hebrew or Greek texts and has accordingly no independent value. As a result of this discussion, one negative result has been secured which is of value for this investi- gation. The epitomes are independent and late sketches of Solo- mon’s history which have accidentally been incorporated in the B text. They can claim no credit for being in that text nor can they gain in value by the presence of the doublets side by side with them. The converse is also true, that the value of the doublets cannot be lessened because they are found in the same text as the epitomes. Hach must stand on its own merits. We may now list the strata we have found in the Greek Kings. First, in point of time, is the single fragment of the earliest known Greek translation which has preserved us the Jeroboam story. Next comes the main source of I Kings. Evidently later is the translator of the beginning and end of I Kings and of all II Kings, whom we have learned to recognize as Theodotion. Finally, the editor who compiled the B text added the two epitomes, thus making the B text the monstrosity it now appears. Yet it is from this B text that we must begin our reconstruction. Before we begin this reconstruction, we must ask whether we may not identify the main source of I Kings with any known trans- lator. As all the “Three” are amply quoted for I Kings, it is obvious 1Clearly an entirely separate account, Benzinger, Kénige, 17. Yet note that Josephus omits entirely the list as found in MT. THE EARLIEST Book or KINGS 185 that they will not do. Our next guess would be the anonymous Quinta, which is freely quoted for II Kings but never occurs on the first book. With this agrees the relatively good Greek of our source, for it is well known that that is a characteristic of the Quinta. Typical words or phrases for comparison are unfortunately few, as the most of our quotations are of the Quinta with one or all of the “‘Three.’”’ None the less, the few which are the exclusive property of the Quinta certainly do fit well with this hypothesis. Awpa, which Quinta uses for 7272 on II Kings 17:4 instead of the typically Theodotionic transliteration wavaa, is found five times in our source.! Eyzupiopos is used for 570 in II Kings 19:26, and, by mistranslation, in 23:4 In all our “Septuagint’’ Samuel-— Kings, it occurs only in I Kings 8:37, where it represents T1270. The not very common azevav7. of the same passage occurs in I Kings 21:18, though not confined to our source. Again, its ws of 19:3 occurs once in I Kings 12:6, though common in the Theo- dotionic section. Exzos is used by Quinta in 21:16 for 7/5 boo abs) Samuel—Kings, it is found only in our source and that three times.’ Xeuuappos from the same passage occurs nine times in our source, though not exclusively here. On 23:8 we are given a long passage from Quinta. Karacraw = 03 does not occur at all in I Kings, though it is found four times in II Kings and five in Chronicles. TWyv\a =NV22 is common in I Kings as elsewhere and the same is true of apxwy. Ovons is rare, but we have seen the parallel use of the participle in our source. ‘Thus none of the facts observed speaks against the Quinta authorship of our source and some speak strongly in its favor, in fact, considering the scantiness of the data available for comparison, a surprisingly good case has been made out for the Quinta. We shall therefore assume the Quinta authorship of our source, frankly recognizing that incomplete knowledge makes it simply a working hypothesis. What, now, is the value of this source? In the one case where we have been able to test it by an earlier translation, in the Jeroboam story, its defects have been only too apparent. Save in this one 1Tt is also found ten times in Genesis, four in Judges, eight in Chronicles. Is this a hint that Chronicles is from the Quinta ? 2 Four times in Judges, five in Chronicles. 186 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES case, our Quinta, inferior as we may suspect it to be, is the best that has come down to us. Its deficiencies may later require the use of conjecture to get back to the pre-Septuagintal text. Its virtues, when compared with the later forms of the text, should be equally clear. That the three so-called “interpolations’” which parallel the Theodotion text are earlier and better should have already been diseovered from the preceding discussion. There is another series of differences from the later editions, consisting largely in a different order, where we may prove our Quinta, with all its faults, to be the superior of the later texts. This is already clear in chap. 4. After the twelve officials are named, the Quinta naturally continues, “‘ And these officials provided victuals,’ and as naturally we are then given the details of what formed the daily provisions.! The received text, on the contrary, after its list of officials, drags in the number and happiness of Solo- mon’s subjects, the extent of his kingdom, then we learn of the supplies used by Solomon, and only at the end is this connected with the officials mentioned at the first.2 At this point, we may digress a moment to note that there is one serious disarrangement which is earlier than the Quinta. After the passage just discussed, we learn of the wisdom of Solomon and the account closes with ‘‘ There came of all peoples to hear the wisdom of Solomon from all the kings of the earth, who had heard of his wisdom.” Naturally, we expect to hear of the Queen of Sheba and of her visit, but that is, according to the received text, still six chapters away, in chap. 10, where it has been broken into two parts with a highly irrelevant group of two verses between. These verses become highly relevant, as we shall see, when the Sheba story is removed, and we must therefore take the queen away from chap. 10 and place her in her logical location, after chap. 4. 1Vss. 7-19, 27-28, 22-23, in the Hebrew order. 2 Yet Stade-Schwally, Kings, 79, explain the different arrangement of the Greek as looking ‘‘as if an attempt had been made to put the text in order,’ and Lumby, Kings, 46, thinks that the change of order was made ‘‘that the wedding presents might be men- tioned at an earlier part of the narrative.’ Kittel, Kdnige, 36, rather inclines to the LXX order, yet thinks it may be only the result of ‘‘einen annehmbaren Versuch, den Text lesbar zu machen.’’ Cf.also Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, III, 213; Swete, Introd., 238, follows the Greek. THE EAaRuiest Book or KINGS 187 This story, with its introduction, the present 4:34, naturally leads up to his relations with foreign nations, and, first of all, to another woman, the daughter of Pharaoh. It is generally admitted that the present arrangement, which separates the marriage and the marriage gift by more than six chapters! is not correct, though it is not universally admitted that here is the place for the account.’ In continuation of this narrative dealing with foreign relations, we have logically the story of Hiram to connect the foreign relations with the temple building. After the introduction telling of the preliminary operations, we have the date of beginning actual work with the quarrying of the stone. This makes a perfectly satisfactory story to any reader who will take the narrative as it is found in the Greek, without looking at it through the distorting medium of the Massoretic text, as the following condensed translation will show: Solomon had three score and ten thousand that bare burdens. ... . And six hundred overseers that wrought the work. And they were three years preparing the stones and the wood. And it came to pass in the four hundred and fortieth? year after the children of Israel were come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the second month, that they hewed out great and costly stones, for the foundation of the house and stones specially chosen. And the servants of Solomon and the servants of Hiram chose them out and brought them forth. In the fourth year was the foundation of the house of Yahweh laid, in the second month.4 In the eleventh year, in the eighth month, was the house finished. is hal Wee ik bien Uae 2So placed by Kent, Student's O.T., II, 178; Kittel, Kénige, 40. Burney, Tezt, 47, emphatically states that our source ‘‘bears the stamp of originality rather than the somewhat confused account of MT.”’ Stade-Schwally, Kings, 65, would throw them out of their present place in the Greek because they are superfluous after 2:12. 3‘*The number given by M commends itself, as 480 =12 x40”’ (Stade-Schwally, Kings, 84). As elsewhere in the Greek, we have a different chronological system, in which the 480 years were reckoned to the end of Solomon’s reign. 4The varying manner in which the additional month data are given shows at once that they are the result of imperfect correction of the Greek. Ziv, the first addition of the Massoretic text, is neither in the Greek nor in Chronicles. Thus two independent sources prove it a late interpolation. The second addition, another Ziv, is the reading of the Greek as a whole, though Codex B, Lucian, the Ethiopic, and a few MSS have ‘*Nisan and’’ while Josephus and M margin have ‘‘Iyyar.’’ Thesharp variation between these witnesses shows how late was the interpolation; cf. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, III, 213. The third addition is in B, but the strange form, ev pyre Baad ovtos o nv o oydoos as against ev wyve tw Sevtepw and ev myve [Nevow Kar] tw devtepw wynve Shows that this too must be rejected as a later interpolation. 188 Tuer AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES No one would suspect from this rendering that the illogical Massoretic text had scattered, with many additions of irrelevant matter, this throughout 5:151.; 180; 6:1;- 5:17-18a;) Gale Clearly, the author of this account would tell us that the first three years of Solomon’s reign were taken up with preparing the stones and the wood. At the conclusion of this preliminary work, in the beginning of the fourth year, the foundation stones were prepared and at once laid, although the entire house was not complete before the eleventh year... Then comes the detailed description of the house and the furnishing, after which we are given, as a sort of appendix, the additions to the house.” Our present Massoretic text inserts an account of the building of Solomon’s palace in the midst of the temple narrative. The Greek has the logical order, the palace being given after the temple is completed. Further, Josephus follows the Greek order, though he is usually a close supporter of the later text, and the late date of the Massoretic form is proved by the confused internal order of the passage as found in the later Ethiopic editions, k and E. That the Greek order is correct would seem self-evident, yet most scholars have argued in favor of the traditional order. Burney believes that this seemingly illogical order may be explained by the scribe intending to give first all the buildings and then their furniture, though one would hesitate to place the ‘“‘capitals”’ in that category.’ Stade and Schwally even doubt whether ‘‘these transpositions were effected by the Greek translators or by an editor who wished to have 1So Wellhausen, Comp., 267; Burney, Tezt, 58f., for 1 ff. Stade-Schwally, Kings, 84, have some very characteristic expressions: ‘‘It is just as possible that the writer condensed this statement in v. 37, and that it was afterwards re-expanded, as that this abridgment was due to the translator.’’ The omission of the ‘‘indispensable clause’’ ‘fand they built the house to Yahweh”’ in 6:1 in the Greek ‘‘is one of the many indica- tions showing the secondary character in the arrangement of the text in G. Contrary to G.v.4... . the fourth year is thus made to refer to the year in which preparations for building began.’’ One would assume from this that G, vs. 4, gave a date which differed from that in vs. 1. As an actual fact, the Greek simply gives two events in one year and that two events may happen in one year no one will deny. Again, they refuse to admit that the author could have stated that it took ‘‘seven years to build the temple and that it was completed in all details’’ before ‘‘ these details have been given”’ (ibid., 90). Yet modern writers do this constantly. Kent, too (Student’s O.T., 180), thinks that the ‘““somewhat more logical order’’ of the Greek is ‘‘due to the translators.”’ 2**This arrangement is inferior’ (Stade-Schwally, Kings, 83). 3 Text, 78; cf. Kittel, Kénige, 56. 4 wt fy THe Earuiest Book or KInGs 189 all the statements concerning the Temple together in one section.’”! This strange refusal of the logical order seems largely due to the feeling that a late dislocation is proved “‘by the fact that v. 12b has been accidentally left behind in making this alteration, and now follows immediately after the close of ch. 6, instead of after v. 12a to which it clearly belongs.’ This is the best example of a more logical order in the Quinta. Accordingly, if there is textual evidence against it, our general case is weakened all along the line. But is there actual textual support, as is claimed’? ‘To be sure, there really is an addition in the Greek at the end of chap. 6. Taking it with the preceding verse, we have “And he built the inner court with three courses of hewn stone and a course of cedar beams (addition) round about and he constructed the veil of the court of the porch of the house before the temple.”’ The mention of the court in both verses speaks for a common unity, and the temple of the added verse fits with the frequent references to it in the preceding verses of chap. 6. Had this been found in the text of the Massoretes, no one would have dreamed that this was not the natural order. Burney himself admits that our verse only ‘‘seems to represent MT. ch. 7.126.’ But, to secure this fit, he must assume that, in the ten Hebrew words back of the addi- tion in the Greek, one is a corruption of a dittography, another is a gloss repeated from vs. 36a, still another is correctly given in the Greek but is unfortunately not found in the Hebrew of vs. 12), and the last four words must be cast out as a gloss from vs. 3. Thus, out of ten words behind the Greek in the addition, but three can be utilized to prove connection with vs. 12b. A still greater strain on our credulity is made when we are requested to believe that four words in our present Hebrew vs. 12b, which are lacking in the Greek, were originally there but were dropped through homoeoteleuton, leaving but the three for comparison. As an actual fact, we have only the identity of three Hebrew words, ‘“‘to the court of the porch of the house,” in the two verses, and this can hardly prove, in the face of so much disagreement, the identity of the two verses. Much less can the identity of these three words prove that the logically 4 Kings, 90. 2 Burney, Tezt, 78. 190 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES better order of the Greek should be abandoned. A better illustra- tion of the danger in attempting to force the Greek to fit the Hebrew could not be found.! . The next important difference in order is in chap. 8, where vss. 12 f. of the Massoretic text are found in the Greek after vs. 53. It would be superfluous to add here to the growing literature on this Ode,? but it is coming to be more and more recognized that the Greek has preserved for us a precious fragment of Hebrew poetry which the later Massoretes slurred over because of its pagan char- acter, though indeed the whole chapter is a close parallel to the Babylonian incantation texts.’ In chap. 9, the. Quinta makes vs. 26 follow immediateae after vs. 14. Omitting this and also the Queen of Sheba story, our narra- tive runs as follows: And Hiram sent to Solomon six score talents of gold and King Solomon made a ship in Ezion Geber . . . . and Hiram sent in the ship his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir and fetched from thence gold, a hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon. And the ship of Hiram brought in the gold from Ophir. It brought great plenty of almug trees and precious stones. And the king made of the almug trees bases‘(?), etc. Now the weight of gold was, etc. Then follows a summary of the building activities made possible by this gold and the consequent enslavement of nations for the work. Next comes Solomon’s wisdom and the tribute from all the earth, Solomon’s collection of horses and chariots, the extent of his territorial rule, his making silver to be as the stones in Jerusalem, and his horse trade with Egypt. All this arrangement is perfectly possible and in large part highly logical. Most extraordinary, the Chronicler proves the Greek order to be correct so far as concerns the grouping 10:26; 4:21; 10:27, while he also confirms the omission of 10:26a and 4:21ec. 1 Kent, Student's O.T., 193, places 7:1 ff. after chap. 8, but this has nothing to recom- mend it. 2Of. Schmidt, Messages of the Poets. 3 It is characteristic of Stade-Schwally that ‘‘above all it is conclusive’’ against the authenticity of the Ode ‘‘that G elsewhere in Kings often follows a Hebrew text which must be explained as a modification of our present MT.”’ 4The §¥0% of MT is difficult, cf. Stade-Schwally, ad loc. Chron. has rmibon. Should we read 35% which is represented by vrogrnprypara in II Kings 16:17 ? Tue Earuiest Book or KInGs 191 The Greek has arranged in a logical order what the Massoretic text has made 9:14, 26-28; 10:11, 12, 14-22; 9:15, 17-22; 10:23- 26; 4:21; 10:27-29. It is only when we read the Massoretic text immediately after the Quinta that we realize how illogical the later text is. According to the present Hebrew, Hiram sends his money,- then come buildings, then the story of Pharaoh, then more buildings, then the Amorites and the rest of the list, who are to be servants while the Israelites are to have the place of honor, then come the chief officials,-only after which do we hear of the bringing-up of Pharaoh’s daughter then there is more building, that of Millo, then his sacrifices, his completion of his house, then we are back again to Hiram and his Ophir trading, and then the Queen of Sheba comes to Solomon. After she has given her gifts to Solomon, we pause to note that the Ophir navy mentioned some time before brought almug trees and from them were made various objects, before we are permitted to learn that, in return for the Queen of Sheba’s gifts, Solomon gave her all that she desired. Once more we are back to the income of Solomon, his bucklers and his throne, then the navy of Tarshish brings gold, ete., then is his excelling all the earth in riches and wisdom, his tribute, his horses, the abundance of silver and cedars in Jerusalem, and finally his horses once more. Can anything be. more confused? Certainly the author of Kings must have been very illogical if he must be blamed for such a riot of confusion. But why should we make such an assumption when the Greek gives so much more sensible an order? In truth, the best argument for the accuracy of the Greek is the unparalleled disorder of the present text.! 9 The first half of chap. 11 has a strikingly different order in the Quinta. This order is so obviously superior that it has had many supporters. It is significant for the later date of the present Hebrew arrangement that the Ethiopic textus receptus, k, still in large part follows the B text. Our form runs as follows: , 1‘*The arrangement in G of M 9 15-25 is inferior both in C. 10 and C. 2” (Stade- Schwally, Kings, 111). It is ‘‘scarcely superior’’ (Burney, Text, 133). Barnes, Kings, 86, rather inclines to the Greek order. Swete, Introd., 239, makes the Greek the earlier. Kittel, Kénige, 85, has the order 10-14, 24, 15, 17b-22, 23, 26-28, 25; 10:1-13, and Kent, Student’s O.T., 193 ff., accepting to a certain extent the Greek order, gives 9:10— 15, 176-23, 26-28; 10:11-12, 14-29. But such half-way measures, as the retention of 9:15-25, which is missing in the Greek, are impossible. 192 Tut AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES Now King Solomon loved women and he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines. And he took foreign women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Syrians, and Edomites, Hittites and Amorites, of the nations concerning which Yahweh said unto the children of Israel, ‘‘Ye shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods”; unto these Solomon clave in love. And it came to pass when Solomon was old that his heart was not perfect with Yahweh his god as was the heart of David his father,! for his foreign wives turned away his heart after their gods. Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the god of Moab and for Milkom the god of the children of Ammon and for Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and so he did for all his foreign wives, who burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. And Solomon did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, he walked not after Yahweh, as David his father. And Yahweh was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from Yahweh the god of Israel.” In another case, that of the Rezon story, the Quinta, while not original,? nevertheless permits us to make the necessary correction. We have already seen that the story, as a story, is copied from the Jeroboam narrative and so is valueless to the historian. In the present Hebrew text the Rezon story follows that concerning Hadad. In the Quinta it is inserted just after the opening of that story.4 In this latter position it is universally admitted to be an interpolation. On this ground alone it is clear that it should have no place in the original of Kings. Further proof may be found in the fact that a considerable portion of the interpolation in Quinta agrees word for word with the Aquila addition which Codex A gives at the point where it occurs in the Massoretic text, although the proper names in the interpolation are of the early type, while °1‘* As was the heart of David his father,’’ om. by Irenaeus, may not be significant as he has a much reduced text, but it looks like a later addition. 2 That this order is correct has been well argued by Burney, Tezt, 153 ff., whose translation has been closely followed. Soalso Kent, O.7.,196; Barnes, Kings, 98; Swete, Introd., 239. Stade-Schwally, Kings, 121, admit that several passages of M are ‘‘given by G in a smoother form,” that ‘‘v. 5 is a later addition which has been spun out of v. 7,’ that ‘7b is a later addition,’’ and that ‘‘the text of G is still free from some inter- polations in M; nor does it exhibit the harsh constructions and repetitions,’ yet they can declare, in spite of all this, ‘‘in this respect G represents a subsequent correction of M,”’ and that G gives the text ‘‘in an older form but with secondary transpositions.”’ 3 As Benzinger, Kénige, 81. The ‘‘notice is ancient and genuine’’ (Burney, Tezt, 113). May have good data, though interpolation (Kittel, Kénige, 98). 4 Kent, O.7., 197, makes a slip when he says the Rezon story is not in the Greek. Tue Earuiest Book or KINGS 193 those. in the other are transliterations.!. The exact history of the fragment is unclear but it certainly did not belong to the original Quinta and so must be excluded from the original Book of Kings. The last of the important differences in order between the Quinta and the Hebrew? is found at the end of our Quinta fragment where chap. 21 of the Hebrew is placed after chap. 19. It is almost universally recognized that, in its Hebrew order, chap. 21 breaks the connection between chap. 20 and its sequel, chap. 22.3 Josephus, who so rarely uses the Septuagint,‘ still has our order and the same is true of the Ethiopic textus receptus. To sum up the results thus far secured on the question of the conflicting orders, we must conclude that; with the exception of one obvious interpolation, the Quinta has a better order in every case than the Massoretic text. That the Quinta does not always have the earliest arrangement is made clear by the Queen of Sheba story. A third aid given us by the Quinta in our attempt to secure the earliest edition of Kings is to be found in its omissions. Many are, to be sure, merely scribal and so are of no importance in our investigation. Many more so-called ‘‘omissions”’ are simply due to the fact that they are placed elsewhere and these have already been discussed. ‘The ones we will now consider are of importance as showing a deliberate re-editing at a time later than the Quinta translation. In other words, what are ‘omissions’’ from the stand- point of the Massoretic text are additions from that of the earlier edition of Kings. The first significant addition is that of “‘testimonies’”’ in 2:8, itself a late passage.®> In 3:2, the ‘‘name”’ of Yahweh was inserted when it was felt that Yahweh could not dwell in a house.§ In 4:180. 1 Yet the B text has the unique Aayacex, while the A text in one place has carav, in another avtcketpevos. 2A number of minor changes of no general significance have been passed over in this article. 3 Burney, Text, 210; Kittel, Kénige, 155; Swete, Introd., 239; yet even here Stade- Schwally, Kings, 164, are not quite persuaded that the Greek can be correct. 4 Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, III, 111. ’ Only in GALR gym. Theod. 6Cf. AJSL, XXX, 30; the expression is Driver 10, not in the Jeroboam list but shown to be late by this passage. 194. Tur AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES we have an antiquarian gloss,! the towns of Jair, and the same is true of 4:24b, the extent of Solomon’s kingdom.2 ‘‘His fame was in all the nations round about,” vs. 3lc, is the same glorification type.’ ; A striking passage is 6:11-13, “‘and the word of Yahweh came to Solomon, saying, ‘Concerning this house which thou art building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes and execute my ordinances and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I establish my word with thee which I spake unto David thy father. And I will dwell among the children of Israel and will not forsake my people Israel.’”” It is rarely that we have such good evidence that a passage is late, for it is not found in B, in the Lucianic text, in the earliest Ethiopic, in the Chronicles, nor in Josephus.4 On the other hand, it is not under the asterisk in the hexaplaric material, and so must date between the time of Josephus and Origen.’ In this short passage of three verses, which are, on manuscript evidence, admit- tedly late, we have four expressions which Driver® has given as characteristic of the latest editor of Kings, D.2, ‘walk in my ways” (statutes); D.3, “keep my statutes and my ordinances”’’; D.22b, “David”; D.6, “establish my word.’ Thus, one-twelfth of the phrases which he considers characteristic of that editor occur in a passage which no one has doubted was later than the Christian era. Furthermore, every one of these phrases likewise occurs in the list of expressions characteristic of the later editor of the Jeroboam story.’ That such independent evidence can be found for the late date of a quarter of the phrases already, on quite different evidence, shown to belong to the post-Septuagintal editor of that story must be considered very strong corroboration of these results. In chaps. 6 f., we have a number of additions whose purpose is to glorify the temple by adding gold, cedar, and other valuable - 1In A 247 Arm. Syr. Hex. ><. Sym. 2 Syr. Hex. . Note also that 4:1-6, the list of officers, is omitted by Josephus. 3 GAL gyr. Hex. X. ; 4 Even Stade-Schwally, ad loc., admit that it is a ‘‘late Deuteronomistic addition’’; cf. Burney, Tezxt, 68 f., for the use of these expressions in other books. 5Of. Rahlfs, Septwaginta-Studien, III, 213; also in Ethiopic k except R and in GN. 6 Introduction, 190 ff. SINERSVE DO, One BLO: THE Earuiest Book or KINGS 195 material for its adornment. Chap. 8 presents a phenomenon which seems not to have been adequately recognized. Objections have been raised to the statement in the earlier article! that the present Hebrew text of Chronicles is often earlier than that of Kings. In this chapter we have a striking series of cases where our present Kings has been deliberately revised to agree with Chronicles and this correction has been made after the Quinta translation was written. Such additions from the Chronicler are found in vss. 16, 2b, d, 3a, 4a, c, 5a, c, 6ab, 8c, 24ab, 26ba, 38ab, 41b, 49b, 63c, 65d, and a few other minor cases of a word or two. In every one of these cases, the entire B group, often supported by the Ethiopic textus receptus as well, by its omission shows them not to belong to their original. That this means deliberate revision to Chronicles ought to be evident, even without the appearance of that most char- acteristic of all the Chronicler’s pet phrases, “‘the priests and the Levites” in vs. 4c. The presence of the Levites in Josephus proves the contamination to have taken place before his time. The additions to the Quinta form of the Jeroboam story have already been noted. To 15:4 f., which itself is late enough, ‘‘ David doing right in the sight of Yahweh,” a still later writer has added the qualification ‘‘save only in the matter-of Uriah the Hittite,” and there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life,”’ which flatly contradicts both of the older accounts.? The cities built by Asa are neither in the B text nor in the Chronicles, and we seem to have contamination from Chronicles in 15:18, 19, 24. The continual war between Asa and Baasha in 15:32 is likewise missing in the B text. The utter destruction of the house of Baasha, 16:11), 12a, breaks the context and is absent from the B text. Whether the Lucianic text is justified in omitting 16:34, the rebuilding of Jericho, may be doubted. The Elijah story is fairly free from interpolation. Two striking ones, with an obvious theological reason, are 18:300, “and he repaired the altar of Yahweh that was thrown down,’ an evident attempt to connect this private altar with the cult, and vs. 36a, “and it came Paw hi AA, O, 24, 26 1., 30. 2 Thus far GL; 933%, 3 Om. Stade-Schwally. 4In A 52 92 123 242 Syr. Hex. 196 Tuer AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES to pass at the time of the offering of the evening oblation,’’! a similar attempt at connection. That we have another case of addition of the “‘name”’ of Yahweh for his altar in vs. 32 is proved by its omission in Lucian and Lucifer. The dislocation of chap. 21 has made necessary a new introduction, ‘‘and it came to pass after these things; fori: i Thus the Quinta, in spite of its inferiority to the earliest Sep- tuagint, is as markedly superior to the present Massoretic text and gives much assistance toward the recovery of the original Book of Kings. The text of Theodotion, on the other hand, agrees in all essentials with our present Hebrew. There are cases where the Hebrew is longer, but they are not numerous and none is of first-rate importance. ‘Is it because there is no god in Israel to inquire of his word ?”’ in 1:16 is characteristic of later modes of thought. The omission of 17:14b-15 might be explained as due to homoeoteleuton. But when we find here too the rejection of statutes and covenants which Yahweh had made with the fathers, so indicative of the post- Septuagintal reviser, we must explain it as a later gloss. ‘Hast thou not heard how I have done it long ago of ancient times?” (19:25) illustrates how men of the later age looked back to this period, as does 20:19, “‘He said moreover ‘Is it not sufficient if peace and truth shall be in my days?’”’. Such are the most important variants which can be found through the Greek on II Kings. It is evident that no new edition has been produced since the translation of Theodotion. Fortunately, we have another way by which we may test the originality of the text of the Hebrew II Kings, the comparison of Isa., chaps. 36-39, with the parallel passages in II Kings 18:13— 20:19.3 The Kings passage is as clearly in place as the Isaiah extract is an interpolation.4 Add to this the fact that in the last named is a psalm, 38:10-20, of decidedly late tone, and that the 1[In A Arm. Aq. Theod. 2The omission of vss. 10b-13a is clearly due to homoeoteleuton. 3 The following sections are a résumé of an unpublished study on the sources for the reign of Hezekiah; cf. ‘‘ Western Asia in the Reign of Sennacherib,’’ Amer. Hist. Assn. Report, 1909, 95. 4'The interpolation seems to have been made after the collection of prophecies had assumed practically its present shape as it divides the body of the so-called Deutero- Isaiah, chaps. 40 f., from its introduction in chap. 35. rt THe Earuiest Book or KINGS 197 next verses, 21 f., are clearly out of order and show a confusion best explained, it would appear, by assuming that they were copied from the account in Kings, and we can understand why the general consensus of opinion has been that it was really copied from the historical work. Yet lateness of insertion is a very long way from lateness of source, and there are grave objections to our taking the Isaiah passage as derived from our present Book of Kings. A glance will show that the Isaiah extract does not contain II Kings 18:14—-16. Had this been in the account which lay before the inserter of the Isaiah interpolation, it would certainly have been copied, for the Hezekiah psalm shows the willingness of this compiler to increase his narrative. Note, too, that the beginning of the story runs smoothly in Isaiah, while in Kings these three verses patently break the connection. We cannot assume that the editor of Isaiah carefully rejected just these three verses because they interrupted the connection and were inconsistent with the remainder, for he has not seen that what he has incorporated has its own inconsistencies, pointing to separate sources, not to speak of his own glaring example of inconsistency in the dislocated 38:21f. We can only assume, then, that these verses were not in the text he copied. We might, of course, still argue that he copied Kings before these verses were inserted. But that would make them a gloss of decidedly late date, and this does not at all fit with the fact that these three verses so well agree with the Assyrian account. In all probability, their source is the ‘Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah,” the only source quoted for Hezekiah’s reign, and the basis of the annalistic framework of Kings. With this agrees the dry annalistic style and the shorter and later form of the name Hezekiah. Thus far we may expect general agreement, but the necessary inference is to be drawn. If this section comes through the editor of the earlier Book of Kings and yet was not in the original of the Isaiah story, then naturally Isaiah was not copied from Kings, even in its earliest form; in other words, each was copied from a common source of a prophetic character. Our next problem is to discover what is the original form of this story, that is, which of the two accounts is the nearer to their source. 198 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES The current theory that the Isaiah recension is an abridgment of that of Kings! would be possible only if one could prove actual abridgment consciously carried out and which would omit facts, not words. In truth, the differences between Isaiah and Kings are just such variants as are likely to develop with the transmission of a manuscript text. Even the Theodotionic Greek translation is shorter than our present Hebrew of Kings, the Hebrew of Isaiah is shorter than that, and shortest of all was the Isaiah which was before the Septuagint translator of that book. Thus we can trace step by step the growth of the text. It may not be out of place to study this in some detail. In 18:17, Kings adds the Tartan and the Rabsaris to the Rabshakeh who alone occurs in Isaiah. That this is a late insertion is proved by the Greek Kings which in vs. 18 tells us that Elakim and the rest came out to him. The addition, “and they went up and came to Jerusalem, and when they were come up, they went in,” is not found at all in Isaiah and the second half was later than even the Theodotion Kings. ‘‘And when they had called to the King”’ is not supported by Isaiah. ‘‘And pierce it,” vs. 21, is found in the present Isaiah, but its absence in all the Greek but Theodotion shows it a late contamination from Kings and the same is true of vs. 22b, “Is not that he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away and hath said to Judah and Jerusalem ‘Ye shall ’”” which is only on the margin of Q under the asterisk, while “in Jerusalem”’ is not even in the Hebrew Isaiah. The passage 18:25b weakens the effect of the rhetorical question in vs. 25a and was not in the true Isaiah according to the testimony of the best manuscripts, A and Q.2 Other minor additions of the Kings editors are “the son of Hilkiah”’ in vs. 26, not in Isaiah, though $5 margin and IT’ have it by contamination from Kings; “unto Rabshakeh”’ which is not in the Greek Isaiah; ‘‘to speak these words”’ in vs. 27, not in QI; ‘‘and spake, saying,” not in ST, while the “saying”’ is not in the Hebrew; ‘‘out of his hand” in vs. 29 has never gone into Isaiah; ‘make your trust in Yahweh”’ worship before this altar, 1 Driver, Literature, 214 f. 2 For the character of the MSS in the Prophets, cf. Proksch, Septuaginta Studien, possim. THe EARLIEST Book or KINGS 199 in vs. 30 is not in the Greek Isaiah; ‘‘a land of olive trees and of honey that ye may live and not die”’ in vs. 32 and “‘ Hena and Ivvah”’ in vs. 34 are not in the Hebrew Isaiah; and the “people” of vs. 36 is missing in the Greek of Kings as in Isaiah. In chap. 19, “all” of vs. 4 is missing in Isaiah and in.A of Kings; “his master” is found in the Greek Isaiah only on the margin of Q; “that he had returned from Lachish”’ is only in B, not a very good manuscript in Isaiah; in vs. 9, the first words are omitted so that we read with the Greek Isaiah ‘for he had heard that Tirhaka, king of Ethiopia had come out to fight with him’’; the weak end- ing of vs. 11, “‘and thou shalt be delivered,” is absent from SAQ; in vs. 14, ‘‘and read it; and Hezekiah went up into the house of Yahweh” is missing in AQ; vs. 16 has been expanded, for SAQ read only ‘‘Hear Yahweh, see Yahweh, and know the words which Sennacherib has sent’’; ‘‘of its fruitful fields” in vs. 23 and “with the soles of my feet will I dry up all the rivers of Egypt” in vs. 24 are not in the Greek Isaiah; “strange”’ in vs. 24 is not in the Hebrew Isaiah; from vs. 26 the Greek omits “‘inhabitants,’”’ ‘ confounded,”’ “as the grass of the field, and as the green herb,”’ “‘before it is grown up”’; ‘‘and he shall not come into this city”’ in vs. 33 is omitted from SAOQ; in vs. 34, “‘to save it”’ is not in B on Kings; in vs. 35, “‘it came to pass in that night’’ is not in Isaiah; and, in vs. 36, “and returned” is not supported by the Greek Isaiah. In 20:4, “and it came to pass that when Isaiah was gone out into the middle court” is not in Isaiah and is an attempt to make the account more vivid. The variations in the Massoretic text between “‘city’’ and ‘‘court”’ is still another proof of the lateness of this insertion. ‘‘Was gone out” is missing in the Greek of Kings. In vs. 5, Isaiah omits ‘‘the prince of my people.” It is well agreed that T’A2 is a late term which proves at least the exilic date of its context. ‘I will heal thee; on the third day thou shalt go up to the house of Yahweh,” not in Isaiah, is another attempt to add vivifying details. SAQT in vs. 6 omit “and this city’’ while Isaiah leaves out “‘for mine own sake and for my servant David’s sake.’’ The latter expression we have already seen was added by the “Deuteronomistic”’ reviser of the Jeroboam story, and its absence in the earliest witnesses to this passage once more proves the late 200 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES date of another expression, Driver, 22a, which has been considered characteristic of the later editor of Kings.! Vss. 7-11 are of the utmost importance for our study since here we have the greatest divergence between the rival texts and here has been found the strongest argument for the copying of Kings by Isaiah. The strongest argument against the priority of the Kings text is found in the fact that the Hebrew Kings has added “and they took” in vs. 7 and ‘‘by which it had gone down on the dial of Ahaz’’ in vs. 11 since the time of Theodotion. That trans- lator read the former passage as “‘Let them take a cake of figs and lay it on the boil and he shall recover” which is almost what Isaiah reads. To be sure, Isaiah places the formal method of cure after the sign, but this is in reality more logical. The order in the Greek, if we omit the disturbing interpolation of the psalm, is perfectly intelligible, for the reading of the Greek, ‘‘and Hezekiah said ‘This is the sign that I shall go up to the house of Yahweh,’”’ is the natural appendix to ‘‘So the sun returned ten steps on the dial whereon it was gone down,” which comes just before the insertion. The material which is in Kings, but not in Isaiah in this section, shows the usual types of recensional addition. The demand of Hezekiah for a sign in 8 is naturally explained by the later feeling that Isaiah could not have so demeaned himself as to mention a sign as con- firmation. An earlier generation did not need to excuse Isaiah by making it a concession to Hezekiah’s weakness of faith. To them it was perfectly natural that a wonder-working prophet should give a sign. When conceptions of the function of a prophet changed, a change in the text was demanded. “Nor in his dominion” in vs. 18 must be omitted because not in the Greek Isaiah, as must “that shall issue from thee” in vs. 18. ‘He said moreover ‘Is it not well if peace and truth shall be in my days ?’” in vs. 19 is not in B on Kings, though it occurs in essentially the same form in the Hebrew Isaiah. Yet the first half is not in the Greek or Syriac. Thus we see the gradual development of the text in our study of these, the most important additions in the Hebrew Kings. There 1In the light of this evidence, we must consider this same expression in II Kings 19:34 to be an insertion, though it is found in all our witnesses as they stand today. Tor EarRuiest Book or KINGS 201 are a very few additions which have been incorporated in the Greek Isaiah, but no one of them is of more importance than the additions to Kings which we have passed over in silence because of their insignificance. This long and wearisome recital of the minutiae of the two texts has served its purpose if it has made one fact clear, that the Isaiah text is the earlier in type and that, like Chronicles, it could not have been copied from our present text of Kings. Unlike Chronicles, we can go one step farther and say, on the basis of the three verses from the annalistic editor which are missing in Isaiah, that it could not have been copied from even the earliest edition of Kings. That we have found one more case where a late insertion uses a phrase characteristic of the ‘‘ Deuteronomistic”’ reviser of Kings is not the least of our results. There still remains one witness to be examined, the Chronicler. To be sure, it has been a commonplace of criticism that the Chronicler copied from Kings, and this has always been taken to mean that he copied from Kings in its present form. Evidence has already been accumulated, in this as in the preceding article, to prove that this isnot true. The situation appears most clearly in I Kings, chap. 8 f., where there are literally dozens of places where the evidence of the Greek shows that our present Hebrew text has been conformed to that of the Chronicler in post-Quinta times. Even the “priests and the Levites”’ of that author have been imported into Kings. Thus the traditional relation between Kings and Chronicles is reversed with a vengeance. The course of the present study has also made clear the evidential value of the Chronicler in omissions. In the month omission in 6:1, the Chronicler supports the Ethiopic. It omits, in company with Josephus, Codex B, Lucian, and the earliest Ethiopic, the well-known 6:11-13, whose four characteristic ‘‘ Deuteronomistic”’ phrases give such added proof as to the post-Septuagintal date of the ‘‘Deuteronomistic”’ phrases in general. It agrees with B in the omission of 10:26a and 4:210, and it also agrees with that manu- script in placing the verse 4:21 of the Massoretic text between its 10:26 and 27. Like B, Lucian, and the Ethiopic A, it omits the beth in Abel beth Maacah (15:20) and the cities of Asa in vs. 23. 202 Tue AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES Since Chronicles is absolutely free from any possible suspicion of connection with any of the Greek recensions, the value of its inde- pendent evidence in supporting that of.others is very great. Natu- rally, the converse is also true, that these cases of agreements with other and independent authorities strengthen our confidence in the reality of other omissions which rest on the testimony of the Chronicler alone. , Yet the evaluation of the unsupported evidence of that author is by no means easy. Where he omits, our first assumption must be that he did so intentionally. Only where there is a good probability that the Chronicler would have copied the passage had he possessed it can we use his omission and then only when it has a “ Deuterono- mistic’’ ring and when it breaks the context. Passages which can meet this test are few, but of the greatest importance. The five omitted in chap. 3 are all in the tone of the “Deuteronomistic” reviser: ‘and Solomon loved Yahweh, walking in the statutes of David his father; only he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places,” in vs. 3; “according as he [David] walked before thee in truth and in righteousness and in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this great loving kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit on his throne as it is this day,” in vs. 6; “and the speech pleased Yahweh, that Solomon had asked this thing,” in vs. 10; ‘‘so that there hath been none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee,” in vs. 12; ‘and if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then will I lengthen thy days,’ in vs. 14. Much stress has been laid on the occurrence of ‘unto this day” in various places in the Book of Kings. Some of these we have already seen have no early testimony in their favor. That the phrase as used for the almug trees in 10:12 is equally late is shown by its omission by the Chronicler. That author gives Abijah a good reputation, thus proving that he did not have before him 15:3-5, “‘and he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him; and his heart was not perfect with Yahweh his god as the heart of David his father. Nevertheless for David’s ASSL ix esto We Pg THE Earuiest Book or KINGS 203 sake did Yahweh his god give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son. after him, and to establish Jerusalem; because David did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life.” Again, in vs. 11, ‘“‘as did David his father”’ is not in Chronicles, and when the reviser for a third time! has “war all the days” in vs. 16 the Chronicler flatly denies it.2 Important also is the omission of the dwelling in Tirza in vs. 21. We might suspect that these were wilful omissions of the Chroni- cler, did they not form a homogeneous whole with characteristics common to the passages which the Greek has shown to be later additions. Thus, in these verses which were not found in the com- mon source of the Chronicler and of the later ‘‘ Deuteronomistic”’ reviser of Kings, we have “walking in the ways,” ‘‘keeping the statutes,” “for my servant David’s sake,” “‘doing right in the eyes of Yahweh,” ‘‘a lamp for David in Jerusalem,” “all the days,’ “as it is this day,’ and all these have already been shown to be post-Septuagintal by their absence from the oldest form of the Jeroboam story. In addition, we have other recognized phrases of the *‘ Deuteronomistic”’ reviser, ‘‘sacrificing and burning incense on the high places,’”’ D.37; ‘‘none like thee,” B.63; ‘walking in the sins of his father,” B.56; “perfect with Yahweh his god,” B.65. It is clear that these expressions are missing from the Chronicler because they were inserted in his source later than the time when he copied it. If this discovery assists us to secure the earliest Book of Kings, no less does it give the Chronicler, with all his faults, a higher position than he has usually been granted. We. have now passed in review all the manuscript data. Thus far we have had undoubted facts for our basis. The conclusions from these facts may be denied, though the one great result obtained from them, homogeneity in thought and in language of these added passages, would seem to prohibit any other theory as to their meaning. We have already learned, however, that our manuscript material varies widely in value in different places. Only for one short section can we use the one fragment we dare to call the “Septuagint.” The DOr. 14:30; 15:6: also. 15:7. II Chron, 14:6. 204 Tut AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES Quinta, if it be that translation, is infinitely superior to the present Hebrew, but comparison with the ‘“‘Septuagint’’ shows it to have already been worked over. Nor should we forget that, in all prob- ability, the Quinta, again if it truly is that.translation, was made no short time after the main revision took place. Still worse, for somewhat more than half of Kings, we do not have even the Quinta, but must content ourselves with Theodotion who gives us practically the same text as that in our present Hebrew Old Testaments. Our best source is the Chronicler, when we can use him. Such use is difficult for we do not have, save for the last two chapters, the original “‘Septuagint,’”’ for the late translation, which is all we have for the remainder of the work, does not disagree in any essential fact from our present Hebrew, and yet we know that that has been at least sometimes conformed to Kings. Even if we had the original Chronicler, we could not be sure that he would have copied out all the passages in which are these interpolations. Rather, we should be thankful for the few cases where his testimony is undoubted. Thus, for all but the Jeroboam story, we are reduced to the pos- sibility of conjecture. Fortunately, such conjecture is not needed so frequently as would be imagined from the above recital. It would appear that the survival of the older Jeroboam story was due primarily to the fact that it represented the most extreme case of ““Deuteronomistic”’ editing, for certainly we have no other case where we even suspect such an elaborate series of changes. The fact that the Chronicler furnishes no evidence for such elaborate additions in the last two thirds of his parallel narrative should also be taken into account. One good reason for the virtual absence! of such additions in the central half of the book is the character of this section, a series of prophetic stories where there was little need for further moralizing. In the preceding pages we have had ample opportunity to study the vocabulary of these ‘‘Deuteronomistic’’ additions; in fact, we have found the same expressions to recur with monotonous regularity. ~When we find these identical expressions in other portions of Kings, we may assume that they indicate ‘‘Deuteronomistic”’ interpola- tions, even if we have no manuscript evidence. LOM GA J Sl nso e THE EARLIEST Book oFf KINGS | 205 The interpolator has been especially busy in chap. 2. In vss. 3f., we have “and keep the charge of thy god (B.1), to walk in his ways (D.2), to keep his statutes, his commandments, and _ his ordinances (D.3), according to that which is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest (B.4), and whithersoever thou turnest thyself; that Yahweh may estab- lish his word (D.6), which he spake, saying, ‘If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart’ (D.9), saying, ‘there shall not fail thee a man on the throne of Israel (D.8).’”’ Here we have seven of the characteristic phrases of the ‘‘ Deuteronomist,” three of which are proved post-Septuagintal by the Jeroboam story, even did we not have clear evidence that it is an interpolation from the way in which these well-known theological reflections break the vigorous, though anything but theological, “‘Be a man and revenge me.” Equally true is the “who hath established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who hath made me a house (B.62), as he promised” in vs. 24 which so badly breaks ‘‘As Yahweh liveth” from ‘surely Adonijah shall be put to death this day.” Still another most inappropriate addition is “‘but unto David and his seed and his house and his throne shall there be peace forever from Yahweh,” which is quite incongruous in the threat of vs. 33. So clearly was this break recognized that an annotator who lived later than the Quinta felt it necessary to insert “and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up” to pick up again the thread of discourse. Exactly the same type is the interpolation “but King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before Yahweh forever”’ of the Shimei threat in vs. 45. The next important ‘‘Deuteronomistic’? interpolation is in 8:15-26 and 50b-61, the second being absent from the Chronicler. The passages are too long for quotation, and we can only note the characteristic expressions, ‘David my father” (D.22b); “choosing a city that my name may be there”’ (D.14); “establish my word”’ (D.6); ‘walking in thy ways” (D.2); ‘as it is this day” (D.11); “keeping commandments” (D.3); all of which are absent from the Jeroboam story, as well as the less important “‘there shall not fail thee a man” (D.8); and ‘‘a heart perfect’? (D.15). It is quite 206 Tue AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES obvious that these pious expressions have nothing in common with the incantation which forms the core of the chapter. Equally ‘‘Deuteronomistic” is 9:3b-9, with its ‘put my name there’; its ‘“‘walking before me’’; ‘“‘keeping my statutes” : “David”; “other gods” (B.29); ‘which I gave” (B.13); “there shall not fail thee” (D.8); “proverb and byeword”’ (B.80); “‘aston- ishment and hissing’ (B.52); “cast out of my sight” (B.51); “brought evil” (B.54). The same is true of 11:9-13, with its “other gods,” ‘fcommandments,” ‘‘ David,” ‘Jerusalem chosen,” “angry” (D.21), while in 14:21b we have the city chosen and the putting the name there which indicates that this as well as vss. 22-24 is a later addition to the annals of the original editor. It isnot until we reach II Kings 17:7—23, 34-41, that we again have the familiar phraseology. The contrast with the matter of fact manner in which we are told how the Samaritans came to worship Yahweh by the narrative in vss. 24-33 is of a most striking character. Again we have our old friends ‘other gods”; ‘walking in the statutes’’; ‘‘under green trees and upon high hills”’ (D.30); “idols” (D.33); ‘testified’? (Driver 193); ‘provoke to anger” (D.26); “do evil in the sight”? (D.20); “servants the prophets”’ (D.39); all of which have already been shown to be post- Septuagintal, as well as “angry” (D.21); “removed from sight” (B.51); ‘observe to do”’ (B.49). From the tone it is clear ‘that they were not written until the Samaritan schism had become acute.’’! If, now, we recognize that this section is earlier than the adoption of the Pentateuch by the Samaritans, since “the Samaritans wor- shipped images and did not observe the laws of the Pentateuch,’” then the date of the Samaritan Pentateuch must be so late that its evidential value is practically nothing. With this too fits well its close agreement with the present Massoretic text as well as the undoubted influence of the Septuagint.3 The writing of the “ Deuteronomist”’ is further continued in 18:5b-7a, breaking the annals with ‘‘commandments,” ete., and in 21:2-16, where we have the “‘name placed in Jerusalem,” “evil done in the sight of Yahweh,” “provoking to anger,” “choosing out of — 1AJSL, XXX, 34. 2 Robertson Smith, 0.7. in Jewish Church, 398. 3 Further study must await the article on the Pentateuch. THe Earuiest Book or KINGS 207 all the tribes of Israel,” ‘‘servants the prophets,” “doing evil above all that were before him,” “making to sin,” “unto this day,” “‘idols,”’ of which six are proved post-Septuagintal by the Jeroboam story. In 23:3, the ‘‘commandments”’ show the hand of the “‘ Deuterono- mist,’’ and it is probable that the entire story of the discovery of the Law and the Passover has been worked over. Vss. 25-27, with their “Jerusalem which I have chosen,” “‘my name shall be there,”’ “with all his heart,’’ all phrases missing in the earlier form of the Jeroboam story, as well as other “‘ Deuteronomistic”’ expressions, are clearly an addition. Nevertheless, it would not be scholarly to lay the same stress on these results obtained by conjecture. To do so would be to deny the whole force of these articles, that conjecture on the basis of vocabulary is far more unsafe than a consideration of the manu- script evidence. Omission in first class manuscript sources, which cannot be otherwise explained, is strong evidence indeed, and when this is confirmed by the repeated recurrence of the same formulae in these omitted sections, we have practical certainty. When we detect these expressions, especially when several of the most char- acteristic occur together, and even more when they occur in sentences and phrases which break the context, we may with considerable certainty place them in the same group. On the other hand, the occasional appearance of the less characteristic phrases of .the “Deuteronomist’’ does not prove the passage to belong to that reviser. It is not impossible that some of these passages in reality do belong to him, but such attribution must largely depend upon the subjective judgment of the individual scholar. Nor should we be surprised that some of the phrases of the “‘ Deuteronomist”’ are found in sections which we must attribute to the editor of the earliest Book of Kings. That editor, as we have seen from the testimony of the Jeroboam story and of I Esdras,! was certainly pre-Septuagintal, and, for that matter, he must date from before the time of the Chronicler. Still, that time can hardly be more than a century earlier. Writing under somewhat the same environ- ment it is little wonder that the two should have had a certain number of phrases in common. Yet, the more we study these 9 66 1AJSL, XXX, 32. 208 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES phrases, the more clearly does it come out that they have a distinctly different ring from those which we must attribute with certainty to the ‘‘Deuteronomist.’’ Certainly, we must distinguish, on the evidence of the Chronicler and of the Greek translators, between the editor of the Book of Kings, with his dry annalistic character and his interest in the purely political history, and the “‘ Deuterono- mistic’’ reviser, whose religious formulae are so frequently missing in the Greek or in Chronicles. That we cannot always draw the boundary line with exactness is no argument against the essential truth of the division. One of the chief reasons why the historian in other fields has looked with distrust on the results of the “higher criticism’’ has been the attempt to differentiate documents where the criteria for such a work have been lacking. It is now our task to reconstruct, so far as possible, this earlier Book of Kings. To do so, we must first throw out those passages which we have seen must be attributed to the ‘‘ Deuteronomistic”’ reviser with a greater or less approach to certainty, as well as those insertions which later crept into the text, and then we must rearrange it according to the Quinta. It is probable that our reconstructed form will be still somewhat too full, but in this study only those passages have been cast out which with certainty could be called post-Septuagintal. Our Book of Kings should begin with 2:12 of the present Mas- soretic arrangement, following the division of the Lucianic text, the margins of M, 158, and 245, the Ethiopic M, the fathers Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodoret, and Jacob of Edessa, and seemingly also Josephus.! The book should include the following sections in about the following order: 2:12-24a, 24c-33a, 34-35, 351-44, 46; 3:2, 4-6a, 7bd, 8-9, 11-12a, 13, 15-28; 4;..10:1-10, 13; 3:1; 9:46; 5:1-16; 6:1; 5:17-18; 6:37-38, 2-3, 14, 4-10, 15-36; 7; 13st 21, 19, 20, 28-45, 47, 46, 48-51, 1-12a; 8:1la, c, 2c, 3b, 4b, 5-11, 14, 27-41a, 42c, 5a, 12-13, 62-66; 9:10-14, 26-28; 10:11, 14-22; 9:15, 19-22; 10:23-26; 4:2lab; 10:27—29; 11:1a, 3, 16-2, 4, 3b, 7, 5b, 8, 6; 12:24a-2; 13; 14:19-2la, 22-31; 15:1-3, 7-384; 16:1- 1So0 Thackeray, Jour. Theol. Stud., VIII, 262 ff.; cf. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, ITI, 189f., for the opposite view. The ‘‘ Deuteronomistic’’ interpolations in the first part of chap. 2 show that the present arrangement was in use when that reviser did his work. THE EARLIEST Book or KINGS 209 lla, 12b-14, 15b-28, 28a-h, 29b-34; 17-19; 21; 20; 22:1-40; Mpengssetci-lia, 180-d;)2; 3:4—17: 6, 24-33; 18:1—2151,.17— 23:24, 28—25:30. It is the misfortune of anyone who attempts to reconstruct a Hebrew text that he must use the current numeration, and this at once gives the impression that he is wilfully tampering with the text. It therefore must be constantly borne in mind that this tabulation is not, save in a few cases, the result of conjecture. In the vast majority of the changes or omissions from the received text, we are simply following the Greek translations, which witness to a text cen- turies older than that given by the Massoretes. And this text makes much better sense. This we have seen in detail in individual -cases. But only a complete retranslation of the original Book of Kings, such as it is hoped later to produce, can make clear the full force of this argument. Thus we must admit that there was a thoroughgoing revision of Kings after the Septuagint was produced and that it is to this revision that the so-called ‘‘Deuteronomistic”’ additions to their text must be attributed. In the earlier article it was suggested that this revision took place ‘‘as a consequence of the renewed inter- est in the history of the earlier kingdom excited by the rise of the -Hasmoneans.”! It must now be pointed out that evidence for this revision exists. Prefixed to II Maccabees are two letters. Whether they are authentic or not is a disputed question which it is not our business -to consider nor is it vitally important for our problem. One thing is certain, that they have no organic connection with the history which they precede. The first is brief. It was evidently prefixed to II Maccabees because of its reference to the troubles from the time of Jason, but its true reason for existence is in the desire of “the Jewish brethren in Jerusalem and Judaea’’ to persuade the “ Jewish brethren in Egypt”’ to introduce the feast of the Dedication. The resemblance to the undoubtedly authentic Passover papyrus at once strikes the eye. It has two dates, 143 B.c. in the midst of the letter, and 132 B.c. at the end, if indeed this reading is correct. - Both cannot be true and both may well be interpolations. Whatever Anat XXX 20, 210 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES the date and however we may decide the question of authenticity, it is clear that some Jews in Palestine wished to introduce the feast into Egypt. The second is from the Jews, the Council of Elders, and Judas to Aristobulus, the “tutor” of King Ptolemy, and the Jews in Egypt. It is therefore a very formal and solemn letter. First, the Egyptian Jews are told of the death of the persecutor Antiochus IV which would date the letter, if genuine, to shortly after 164. Then comes another attempt to introduce the feast of the Dedication into Egypt, which fits very well with this chronology, but not at all with either of the two dates in the first letter. Then, in furtherance of this desire, we have the story of an earlier purification by Nehemiah, his hiding of the temple utensils, and a number of references to the - dedication of Solomon. Thus far there is nothing to differentiate it from the preceding letter. But now comes this most significant statement: “‘And the same things were related both in the archives and in the memoirs of Nehemiah; and how he, founding a library, gathered together the books about the kings, and the prophets, and those of David, and letters of kings about dedicated gifts. And in like manner also Judas gathered together for us all those writings that had been scattered by reason of the war that befel and they are with us. If therefore ye have need thereof, send some to fetch ' them to you.’?! We may doubt the authenticity of this letter, and we may suspect that Judas did not have the leisure in his brief and troubled leader- ship to collect the sacred books. Whether we accept or not, one thing is clear. A second purpose of the writer or writers was the introduction into Egypt of the ‘‘ books about kings, and the prophets, and those of David, and letters of kings about dedicated gifts.” Yet to assume that none of these was already available in Egypt in Greek translation is to go contrary to all the other data we have. Demetrius, who wrote before the end of the third century, seems to have used in his history of the kings of Judah a translation of Kings, as he certainly did of Genesis; Eupolemus used a Greek Chronicles hardly later than the supposed date of this letter; and barely thirty years later the author of the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus knows Kings 1TI Macc. 2:13-15. THe EARLIEST Book or KINGS PAM tas part of the “Prophets,” and the ‘other writings” are already well known in translation. If we refuse to accept the authenticity of this letter, that simply places its date later and makes it the more certain that the Egyptian Jews already had Greek translations. If they already had translations, what was the purpose of this letter? Only one answer seems possible. The text on which the Alexandrine translations were based was not “‘correct’’ according to the standard of Jerusalem and this is an attempt to introduce that standard text into Egypt. There are hints, though only hints, that connect this letter with our ‘‘Deuteronomistic’’ revision. The most important is the use of mpoorayyara, ‘‘statutes,’” in both letters, 1:4; 2:2. There are also several reminiscences of I Kings, chap. 8. Agreements are found in do£a tov Kuptov, vededn, €x Tov ovpavov, and Ovata. None of these are particularly characteristic. We may also compare eyxal- vispov with evexarncev, but Kafayiac8n is obviously different from NyLacev. ; | Now for the final summing up of the case of Kings. We have shown, by the aid of the different Greek versions, that the present Hebrew text varies widely, both in order and in content, from that which was before these translators. We have seen that, while there has been a series of progressive additions such as are to be assumed in the case of any manuscript history, yet the additions and changes as a whole bear a common impress which makes us confident that we have to do with a deliberate revision. We have seen that Chron- icles, even in its present corrected form, supports this contention. Finally, we have actually discovered a passage which shows us this new edition in the very process of being forced upon Egypt. Thus, by our discovery of this latest, post-Septuagintal edition of Kings, we have added to the literary history of the Hasmonean period a historical work which throws as much light on the thought of the period as does that of the Chronicler for the one just preceding. On the other hand, we have freed the book from these later additions and have so recovered the earliest form of what we may with justice call the first edition of Kings. To be sure, it is quite possible that the “Deuteronomistic”’ reviser has corrected other passages which we do not now suspect, but such cases are probably rare as his 212 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL ‘OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES language is so peculiar that we can easily isolate it. Equally char- acteristic is the language of the editor of the first Book of Kings. Unlike the later reviser he gives us almost nothing of himself and still less of the thought of his time. His dry, colorless style has transmitted to us the greater part of what we know of the non- religious history, and if our present more secular age is at last begin- ning to understand the life of the Hebrews as a whole, it is in no small measure due to his method of epitomizing. Unlike the ‘““Deuteronomist,” whose only interest lay in religion, he seems to have made his main purpose the supplementing with political facts, taken from the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah, of the religious or quasi-religious stories which he incorporated entire. These earlier documents it is not our purpose here to discuss. It is enough that we have isolated them from their later additions, and that we have come to understand the character of the two main editions of the book. The strongest argument for such a revision as we have postulated is to be found in the fact that such revisions can be proved for other: books of the Old Testament. In the case of the Chronicler it has already been shown that, in the very short section where we may check the present work by I Esdras, “two long sections of great interest are entirely missing, a serious dislocation covering several chapters has taken place,’’ and there are many minor changes as well;! that there are, in the short space where we may compare it with Kings, two harmonizations with that writer ‘involving not merely changes of the text, but the addition of facts of real impor- tance.’”’?’ We have also had reason, in the parts where Chronicles. is not paralleled by I Esdras, to believe that we do not have always. the original text preserved to us. The Hebrew Samuel varies from the Greek in general only by the usual scribal accretions. Only in the earliest part do we have a few recensional additions such as “unto this day” in I Sam. 6:18; the “‘tent of the meeting” in the interpolation of 2:22b; the use of the ark for the ephod in 14:18; and the frequent addition of ‘ cove- nant” to “ark” in 4:3 ff. ~But there is one section where the Greek proves the addition of a story to which that much abused word WATS EX See : 7D ote 2 Mote the bw: doers Be 4 are inn Aa i eae see THe Earuiest Book or KINGS 213 “midrash’’ can be applied with much more truth than to the Jero- boam story. The B text omits 17:12-31, 41, 50, 55—-18:6a, 10-11, 17-19, 29b-30. As has long ago been seen, these verses are “frag- ments of another account” of David and Goliath, ‘‘a popular and less accurate version of the story, which must once have been current in a separate book.”! Unlike the interpolations we have been studying, the story is clearly old as is the language, but nevertheless it is not authentic history and it is an interpolation which was introduced into the Book of Samuel after the comparatively early date of the translator of I Samuel. There is a double translation of Judges whose problems demand our study”? and there are more problems in Joshua. But it strikes us with amazement to learn that some of the most serious questions are concerned with the Greek of the Pentateuch. Especially is this true in Exodus where the great majority of the codices omit 28 : 23-28, while 36:8—39:43 are given in a totally different order from that of the Massoretes in all but five manuscripts and three late versions. Detailed study of this phenomenon must come later. Here we are only concerned to note that, even after 250 B.c., the time when we must assume that the Pentateuch was translated, it was possible for the Jewish scholars to radically change the most sacred of all their books, the Law. If the Samaritan Pentateuch follows the Massoretic order in this place, then here again we have evidence that that edition was post-Septuagintal. Nor are we sur- prised to find other traces of an earlier and shorter edition. The great manuscripts, BSA, as a rule, follow the Hebrew fairly closely, in fact, the superscription at the end of B is ‘‘according to the LXX.” But this is not true of some of the minor manuscripts and some of the versions, notably the Ethiopic and Sahidic, which so regularly have the shorter text that we must assume that they represent a regular recension. Cases are rare where anything like the original text seems to be preserved, for all appear to have been more or less conformed to the hexaplaric text such as is found in Codex B. Yet the lacunae of one manuscript supplement those of another and by collecting them together rather remarkable results may be secured. As a 1 Robertson Smith, 0.7. in Jewish Church, 127. 2 Lagarde, Septuaginta Studien, 14 ff.; Moore, Judges, xliv. 214 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES single example, we may note that practically every word in the Flood and Covenant story which has been assigned by the critics to the priestly narrative is missing in some manuscript or version.! In fact, there is hardly a book in the Old Testament which does not to a greater or less extent show revision in post-Septuagintal times. The very large amount added in later times to Job has been well known since the discovery of the original extent through the Sahidic version. All the prophets exist in fairly early translations and here we have a long series of such post-Septuagintal additions. Most numerous and most instructive are those to Jeremiah, amount- ing to one-eighth of the entire book. We can trace in detail the expansion from translator to translator and can see that here the most serious revision was post-Christian.2 The Book of Esther represents the extreme stage in this process of re-editing. That a long series of additions was made to the Greek and that the Hebrew midrashes were spun out still farther is quite well known. What is not so well known is the fact that there are few passages indeed in the “original’’ Hebrew which are not missing in one or other of the various recensions or translations of this book.’ Thus we see that revision of a more or less serious type and of a date later than the earlier Greek translations can be proved for practically every book of the Old Testament. That such revision must be recognized in any future study of the literature or history of the Hebrew people is clear. Investigation of the problems which arise whenever the Greek is compared with the Hebrew must await a later series of articles. 1 The next article in the series will deal with the problems of the Pentateuch. 2 The material has already been collected by Mrs. Olmstead and will soon be pub- lished. , 3 Cf. the material collected by Paton, Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of W. R. Harper, II, 1 ff. The results are so complicated that it is almost impossible to tabulate them clearly. \ o ; ‘ e + rt ans A) ee 7 } i he 4 + .* id § ? a 4 5 e¢ . > ‘ x ‘ ‘ ¥ * * ‘ ’ ‘ - ' t - ’ i ri . ‘ . (@