:CO
•in
EZRA STUDIES
STUDIES
BY
CHARLES C. TORREY
PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES IN YALE UNIVERSITY
CHICAGO \
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS . ^
1910 (
& .,
COPYRIGHT 1910 BY CHARLES C. TORREY
Published January 1910
Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A.
TO
SIR HENRY H. HOWORTH D.C.L., F.R.S., K.C.I.E.
PIONEER IN EZRA STUDIES THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED AS A TOKEN OF HIGH ESTEEM
PREFACE
Thirteen years ago, in 1896, I published a pamphlet entitled The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, which appeared in Giessen as one of the Beihefte of the Zeitschrift filr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. It presented in concise form certain conclusions which I had reached a year or two previously, in studying the so-called "Apocryphal Ezra," or First Esdras. At about the same time when I was carrying on my investigations appeared the articles of Sir Henry Howorth, in the Academy (see the references given on p. 16), the pamphlets of Hoonacker and Rosters,1 and the more elaborate treatise of Eduard Meyer (see below). My own conclusions were formulated before I had seen any of these publications, and differed widely from each and all of them at almost every point. I found myself in agreement with Howorth, however, in his important contention that "I Esdras" represents the old Greek translation of Chron.- Ezr.-Neh. ; and with Kosters in his argument (previously set forth, less completely, by Schrader and others) that the Biblical account of the return o£ exiles from Babylonia to Jerusalem in the time of Cyrus is untrustworthy.
The conclusions reached and stated in my pamphlet have been adopted, in general, by H. P. Smith in his Old Testament History, and by Kent in his Students Old Testament, but in each case with little or no discussion of the questions involved. So far as I know, the booklet has never been reviewed or estimated in print, except in four brief German notices, to three of which I have occasion to refer in the present volume. It has been mentioned or quoted in a few places, generally in such a way as to show that it had not been read, but only looked at here and there. Siegfried, in the tolerably long list of monographs given in the preface to his Commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah (1901), does not include it. Driver, Introduction to the Old Testament, names it in his list of monographs, but otherwise takes no notice of it, even when discussing the questions with which it is chiefly concerned.
!Van Hoonacker, N6hemie et Esdras (1890); Whtmie en Van 20 d' Artaxerxes I et Esdras en Van 7 d'Artaxerxes II (1892); Zorobabel et le second Temple (1892); and Kosters, Herstel van Israel in het Perzische Tijdvak (1894), German trans, by Basedow in 1895.
vii
viii PREFACE
One or two scholars were sufficiently impressed by the book to express themselves with emphasis. Thus Klostermann, in the article "Esra und Nehemia" in Hauck's Eealencyclopadie* vol. v, p. 501, remarks: "Zuletzt ist zu erwahnen weniger der Rosters in der Ersetzung der Ueberlieferung durch tibelberatene Phantasie tiberbietende Torrey, Composition and historical value of Ezra-Nehemia, Giessen 1896, als vielmehr Ed. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judentums, u. s. w."5 It is true that such a revolutionary treatise as mine could make no favorable impression on those who had not the time to examine it carefully, or on those who cannot be relied on to distinguish a sound argument from an unsound one. I must admit, also, that this first publication was in its plan not very well fitted to make converts. It pre sented the whole argument in condensed form, leaving many steps merely indicated in a few words, or covered by an assertion, where it was taken for granted that the reader could see for himself the facts and processes which had only been hinted at. But things which are self-evident to one who has himself worked through a large part of the material are often less plain to others. Moreover, an essay which flatly contradicts most of the funda mental tenets of modern Old Testament science in its field (and that a very important field) has every presumption against it, especially when it is presented by one who is unknown as an investigator in this sphere. It is only natural to decide, at the first glance, that the new conclusions cannot possibly be right, and need not be seriously considered. I believe, however, that the main arguments offered in my Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah are sure to be cogent for any one who has studied the material closely enough to be able to follow them through. The question of the general acceptance of the conclusions presented there and here is only a question of time.
The preceding briefer investigation seemed chiefly destructive. The author, whose principal tasks and interests are not in the Old
2 Similarly, Ed. KOnig, in the article "Ezra and Nehemiah " in the Standard Bible Dictionary (1909), p. 247, writes: " The trustworthiness of the documents and memoirs which have been used in the books of Ezra-Nehemiah has been demonstrated at length, especially by Eduard Meyer, Die Entsteh ung des Judentums, 1896, by whom the extreme views presented in C. C. Torrey's Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah are shown to be without critical foundation." Which of the two treatises was without critical foundation will be evident, I think, to those who read the successive chapters of the present volume; especially chapter vi.
PREFACE ix
Testament field, had not then the opportunity to carry it out further, but hoped that some other investigator would see that what it involved was not the mere matter of a few passages, or even of a few incidents in the life of the Jewish people, but a thoroughgoing revision of the existing notions of the history of their national growth in the Persian period, their institutions, and their religious ideas. Whoever had proceeded thus far could hardly fail to perceive also how the later part of the Old Testa ment itself, and the story of the community in Jerusalem, had now for the first time become comprehensible and self -consistent. No such coadjutor appeared, however; hence at last the present work, every chapter of which is constructive.
This attempt to sketch the history of the Jews in the Persian period, culminating in the last chapter of the book, differs from all preceding ones in several fundamental particulars. It recog nizes for the first time the extent of the Chronicler's independent handiwork. That he must be regarded as the sole author of the Ezra story, of all the book of Nehemiah after chapter 6, and of the Artaxerxes letter in Ezra 7, is here demonstrated conclusively. The nature and purpose of his work are also discovered and set forth. It is not the production of a Levitical historian of small ability and large bias (as it is usually regarded), but a great undertaking with a single very definite aim well executed, an elaborate and timely championing of the Jewish sacred insti tutions, especially in opposition to the Samaritans ; very interesting and very important, but by no means to be used as a source for the history of Israel under Persian rule. Its author is, demon- strably, not a mere editor, but a writer possessed of a rich and vig orous imagination, which he here exercised to the full. Another important point of difference concerns the use made of the Chronicler's independent work, that is, all of his narrative whioh we are unable to control from other sources. It is here shown that every part of it either lies directly in the line of his main purpose or else bears other marks characteristic of his own creations; and it is accordingly left entirely out of account in portraying the course of the history. There was no return of exiles, no scribe-potentate Ezra, no law brought from Babylonia, no wholesale expulsion of Gentile wives and children. The book of Ezra-Nehemiah does not furnish us the date of the completion of the Pentateuch.
x PREFACE
But the theory here set forth marks a new departure not only in its treatment of the Chronicler, but still more in the point of view from which it estimates the later writings and writers of the Old Testament. It is customary to measure them, one and all, by the Chronicler's "Ezra," and their words are everywhere given an interpretation to correspond. It would be much fairer to take as the standard the Second Isaiah, the prophets and teachers of the restoration period, and those who wrote the best part of the Psalter, giving their utterances the broad interpreta tion which I have indicated, and to which they are fully entitled. These were philosophers and poets who in their conception of God and man surpassed all the other sages of the ancient world, one of their number, moreover, being incomparably the profound- est thinker and most eloquent writer in all the Old Testament; men busied with the greatest concerns of human life, not with the petty interests attributed to them by our commentators. The seed sown by their predecessors of the Hebrew monarchy did not die, nor did the plant which sprung from it dwindle and grow sickly, while the Jews remained in their land; it prospered mightily and brought forth abundantly. Jesus of Nazareth was the true child of his people, the best fruit of a sublime religious growth which in modern times has been sadly misunderstood. The story of the religion of Israel, from Deuteronomy down to the time of the Roman rule, is not a story of deterioration, but one of advance. Moreover, Judaism grew up in Judea, it was not transplanted from foreign soil. The fact of the Dispersion, as is here shown for the first time, exercised a tremendous influence all through the Persian period and thereafter, and its main effect on the Jews of the home-land was broadening and salutary. The messianic and universal interpretation of the Second Isaiah which is found in the Gospels is the only correct one. To put the whole matter in a few words: both the history of Israel after the fall of the kingdom, and the exegesis of the literature of that period, which have been written during the past generation have been built on a false foundation derived from the Chronicler's work, and need to be completely revised. To give the first sketch of such a historical reconstruction is the chief purpose of the present volume, and especially of the last chapter, which attempts to use impartially for that purpose all the trustworthy evidence which we possess.
PREFACE xi
The contributions incidentally made to the science of Old Testament literature will probably also be found interesting: the proof of the fact that "First Esdras" is a rescued fragment of the old Greek translation of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, not an apocryphal writing; the light thrown on some of the versions of these books, especially the demonstration of the true character of the much misunderstood and misused Lucianic recension, the proof that our "canonical" Greek translation is that of Theodotion, the publication for the first time of a part of the Hexaplar text of Nehemiah, and the dethronement of Codex B from the high place which it has so long held without right; the first presenta tion of the Story of the Three Youths in its original character and extent, with the demonstration that it was written in Aramaic; the recovery, for the "canonical" Old Testament, of the lost chapter which originally followed the first chapter of Ezra, and the attempted restoration of its Hebrew text, rendered back from the Greek; the manifold evidence given to show that among the Jews of Jerusalem in the Greek period it was commonly believed that Darius Hystaspis (supposed by them to be a Median king, and called "Darius the Mede") immediately preceded Cyrus; the conclusive proof that the Aramaic documents in Ezra all date from the Greek period; the restoration of the primitive form of the long-debated Ezra story, by the transposition of a single block of narrative belonging to a section which ever since the second century B.C. has been recognized as in some way out of place; and other less important matters. The author also hopes that some of the observations relating to text and versions may stimulate to a more serious pursuit of this branch of scientific investigation. If the historical and literary study of the Old Testament books is still in its childhood, the critical study of the Hebrew text may truly be said to be in its infancy. Textual emendation based on conjecture is usually mistaken, and that based on the evidence of versions is in most cases precarious at least; for the massoretic text is likely to be right even where it is contradicted by the other witnesses,3 and the testimony of the latter
3 In the vast majority of cases, the version only seems to contradict the Hebrew, but does not in reality. Regarding the relative excellence of the massoretic text, the writer may refer to his " Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel" (Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. XV, 1909), in which some new evidence in support of our traditional Hebrew is offered.
xii PREFACE
is very easily misunderstood. The writer is himself conscious of many shortcomings and foolish performances in this field, and does not suppose that the text-critical attempts made in the present volume are free from blunders. Great pains have been taken, however, to find out the character and history, not only of the texts which are being scrutinized, but also of those by the aid of which it is proposed to emend. Lack of acumen may be excused; the unpardonable sin is that of criticising without any careful attention to the materials of criticism. The way in which the best known and oftenest quoted of our modern commentators and editors hack away at a faultless Hebrew text, on the ground of Greek readings which they have not carefully examined, found in translations with whose character they do not concern them selves and of the nature and conditions of whose literary trans mission they have hardly an idea, is nothing short of appalling. And yet this is what passes for "text-criticism" at the present day. A good many instances of the kind receive mention in the following pages, mostly in footnotes. The influence of this hasty and unscientific mode of procedure in dealing with the text has been working great harm in all the other branches of Old Testament study.
Most of the chapters of this book have already appeared in print, but in places where their circulation has of necessity been quite limited. They are not mere reprints, but in nearly every case have undergone revision. In the American Journal of Semitic Languages, published under the auspices of the University of Chicago, appeared chapters I (Oct., 1906), II (Jan., 1907), III (Apr., 1907), V (Oct., 1907), VI (Apr., 1908), VII (Jan, 1909 and Apr, 1909), and VIII (July, 1909). Chapter IV appeared in Vol. II of the Studies in Memory of William Eainey Harper, published at the same University early in 1908. Chapter IX appears here for the first time.
It is a pleasure to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the members of the Semitic and Old Testament Faculty of the University of Chicago and to the Manager of the University Press, for their encouragement and generous assistance, without which the volume would hardly have been written.
Attention is called to the Addenda and Corrigenda at the end of the book.
GRINDELWALD, SWITZERLAND September 1, 1909
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
PACK
vi
CHAPTER
I. PORTIONS OF FIRST ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH IN THE SYRO-HEXA- PIAR VERSION
II.
I.
ii.
in.
IV.
in.
IV.
V.
1
THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF "FIRST ESDRAS" .... 11 The Two Recensions of the Ezra History . . . 11 Past and Present Theories Regarding the "Apocry phal" Book 12
The Nature of First Esdras 18
The Origin of Our Two Recensions .... 30
III. THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 37
i. Origin of the Story 37
n. Translation 50
HI. The Interpolator's Additions 56
IV. THE APPARATUS FOR THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-
EZRA-NEHEMIAH 62
i. Nature of the Text-Critical Problem .... 63 n. Theodotion the Author of Our "Canonical" Greek
Version of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh 66
The Two Main Types of the Text .... 82
1. First Esdras ......... 82
2. The Standard Text of the Second Century A. D. 87 Notes on Manuscripts and Versions .... 90
1. The Superiority of the A Manuscripts to
Those of the B Group 91
2. Hexaplar MSS of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. ... 96 3-. The Versions Made from Origen's " Septua-
gint" 99
4. The Two Main Branches of the Greek Tradi
tion 101
5. The Syrian Tradition, the Lucian Recension
and Our L Text 105
The Critical Process in Restoring the Semitic Text 113
V. THE FIRST CHAPTER OF EZRA IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM AND
SETTING 115
The Restored Hebrew Text (the Chronicler's Narra tive of the Return from the Exile) . . . .120
Translation 132
Note A, the "Seventy Years "of Exile ... 135
Note B, the Name Sheshbazzar 136
Note C, the Number of the Temple- Vessels . . 138
xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
VI. THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 140
i. The Character of the " Official Documents " in Ezra 140
1. The Prevailing View 142
2. A Literary Habit of Ancient Narrators . . 145
3. The Tendency of the Documents . . .150 n. The Chronicler's Part in the Aramaic Portions . 157
in. The Aramaic of the Book of Ezra 161
iv. Proper Names and Foreign Words .... 166
1. Proper Names 166
2. The Foreign Words 173
v. The History of the Text of 4:6-11 178
vi. The Text of the Passages . . . . • . .183
Samaritan Intrigues Against the Building of
the Temple 184
Ezra's Credentials 196
Translation 199
VII. THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS INDEPENDENT NARRATOR . 208
i. The Chronicler's Main Purpose . . . . .208
n. The Chronicler as Editor 213
1. In the Books of Chronicles 213
2. In Ezra-Nehemiah . . . . . . .223
in. The Chronicler as Independent Narrator . . . 227
1. The Sources, Real and Imaginary, in I and II
Chron 227
2. The Chronicler's Characteristics as a Narrator 231
3. The "Ezra Memoirs" 238
4. The Chronicler's Narrative of Nehemiah . 248
VIII. THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 252
The Account of the Expedition 265
The Reading of the Law 268
The Expulsion of the Gentile Wives .... 270 The Covenant Against Gentile Marriages and in
Support of the Clergy 274
Note A, on Ezr. 10:44 278
NoteB, onNeh. 9:4 f 279
Note C, The Lacuna in Neh. 9:5 280
NoteD, onNeh. 10:1 f 282
IX. THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 285
i. Prevailing Misconceptions ..'... 285
n. The Deportation to Babylonia 290
m. The Beginning of the Hebrew Dispersion . . . 293
iv. The Reviving of Jerusalem 297
v. The Renewal of the Worship 301
1. Untrustworthy Narratives 301
2. Conditions at the Time of Haggai and
Zechariah 303
TABLE OF CONTENTS xv
CHAPTER PAGE
IX. -THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION — Continued:
vi. General Summary, 586 to 444 B.C 305
VH. The Religious Development 307
vin. Jewish Temples of the Dispersion 315
ix. The High Priests of the Second Temple . . .319
x. The Rivalry with the Samaritans 321
xi. The Date of Nehemiah 333
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 337
ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA 339
INDICES 341
II
PORTIONS OF FIRST ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH IN THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR VERSION
In the years 616 and 617 A. D., Paul of Telia made at Alexan dria his Syriac translation of the old Greek version of the Old Testament. The Greek text which he translated was one of great historical importance, namely, that which constituted the "Septu- agint" column in Origen's Hexapla. It is quite possible that the Hexapla itself was in existence at that time (presumably at Caesarea) ; but, however that may be, it is pretty certain that old manuscripts transcribed directly from the original — and some of them doubtless collated again with it, to insure the greatest pos sible accuracy — were to be had in Alexandria. One or more of these supposedly faithful copies formed the basis of Paul's labors. His rendering was a closely literal one, and its characteristics are now pretty well known.1 Every part of the Greek is reproduced as exactly as possible, and in such a uniform and self -consistent manner as to render this translation very easily recognizable, wherever specimens of it are found.
The history of the manuscript transmission of this "Syro- Hexaplar" version is a comparatively brief one, as might have been expected. Although often copied, at least in part, it was not as generally or as carefully preserved as the Peshitto. A number of manuscripts containing longer or shorter portions of it are now known to be extant. Of these, the most important by far is the great Milan codex, published in fac-simile by Ceriani in 1874 (Codex Syro-Hexaplaris ; published as Vol. VII of his Monumenta sacra et prof ana). This contains the translation of the second half of the Greek Bible ; a twin codex containing the first half, and no doubt originally forming the first volume of this same manuscript, was in existence as late as the sixteenth cen tury, when it was in the possession of Andreas Du Maes (Masius) of Amsterdam. As is well known, it has since then mysteriously disappeared. The Maes codex was a torso, to be sure, lacking
1 See the account of this version in Swete's Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, pp. 112-14, and the literature cited on p. 116.
1
2 EZRA STUDIES
both the beginning and the end ; but in its original extent it com bined with the Milan codex to form a whole which probably included all of the version of Paul of Telia.
In regard to one or two of the books included in this transla tion there are still uncertainties waiting to be cleared up. This is especially true of the Ezra books, namely I Esdras (the "apoc ryphal" Ezra) and II Esdras (including both the "canonical" Ezra and Nehemiah). Just what was the disposition of these books in Origen's Hexapla 9 What did Paul's Syriac translation from the "Septuagint" column contain at this point? What portion of the Syro-Hexaplar version of these books is still extant, and what may be learned from it ?
In the Peshitto version, the Ezra books are lacking. The Chronicler's history of Israel, Chron.-Ezra-Neh., did not form a part of the old Syriac Bible. The same considerations which led the Jews to append this book to their sacred writings at a very late date, making it follow even Daniel and Esther, caused its complete exclusion from the Edessene canon. Syriac versions of the Ezra history are therefore rare.
First Esdras is extant, in more or less complete form, in several Syriac manuscripts, all of which appear to contain the translation of Paul of Telia. The manuscript which furnished the text of this book for the London Polyglot (see also Lagarde, Libri veteris testamenti apocryphi syriace, p. xxiv) has a title at the beginning which says that the version of the book is "that of the Seventy" : v>^*? Umvi\»sn ^1 ptno . |^5 j-^opo j-oks . Similar words occur in a subscription at the end (Lagarde, ibid., p. xxvi) ; and the same formula, again, begins and closes the extracts which I publish here for the first time (see below). These words, wher ever they appear in a Syriac manuscript, refer to the Hexaplar translation. They stand in the superscription of the book of Tobit, in the London Polyglot ; while in the Ussher codex there is a marginal note at vii, 11 which says that the book is thus far transcribed "from a Septuagint manuscript": 1 *i«%n4 ]^*^ ^* (Lagarde, ibid., p. xii). In either case, whether in Tobit or in I Esdras, examination of the character of the version shows that it is indeed that of the bishop Paul.
First Esdras, then, stood in Origen's "LXX" column. This we should suppose, from other evidence, to have been the case, We know not only that the book had a place in his canon, but
FIRST ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH IN THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR 3
also that he — in agreement with the church tradition — believed it to have the right of priority over the form adopted in the Jewish canon. And Origen was certainly not ignorant of the fact, so widely ignored in modern times, that "I Esdras" is nothing else than a very respectable translation of a Hebrew- Aramaic version of the Ezra history.
The status of "Second Esdras" in the Hexapla and in Paul's translation cannot be demonstrated absolutely, with the evidence now available, though a tolerable degree of certainty can be reached. No Hexaplar text of the canonical Ezra, whether Greek or Syriac, has been known; but see now below. The only such text of Nehemiah now recognized is the one which is published in the following pages. In the table of contents of the lost Maes manuscript stood simply "Ezra ;"2 according to recognized usage this might mean (1) the apocryphal Ezra, or (2) the canonical Ezra, or (3) both together, or (4) the combination of one or both of them with Nehemiah. It has already been shown that the apocryphal Ezra (I Esdras) stood in the Syro-Hexaplar transla tion, and the text printed below shows that Nehemiah was also included there. The "Ezra" of the Maes codex therefore un doubtedly stood for these two books, at least. It is unfortunate that Maes, in making his extracts for the Peculium syrorum (in the Antwerp Polyglot) and for the Amsterdam edition of the Critici sacri, should have left Chronicles and Ezra untouched, although excerpting systematically every other book contained in his manuscript !3
It is not to be doubted, finally, that the Syro-Hexaplar version — and therefore the Maes codex — contained the canonical Ezra, as the first part of "Second Esdras." If the Greek version of our canonical book (and therefore, of course, of Chronicles and Nehemiah as well) is that of Theodotion, as there are good grounds for believing,4 and as not a few eminent scholars, from Grotius (1644) onward, have contended, it nevertheless certainly was not apportioned to him, nor even in any way designated as his, in Origen's work. No one can seriously doubt, in view of all
2 See Rahlfs, in Lagarde's Bibliothecae syriacae quae ad philologiam sacram pertinent , pp. 32g sq.
3 Rahlfs, ibid., pp. IP '7.
* I shall discuss this question in a subsequent chapter. See the very interesting and acute observations of Sir Henry Howorth, printed in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, May and November, 1901 ; June and November, 1902; and his collection of the external evidence.
4 EZRA STUDIES
the evidence, that the "apocryphal" Ezra was followed immedi ately by the "canonical" Ezra in the fifth column of the Hexapla; and that, too, without any note or comment, in spite of the fact that the one is so nearly a replica of the other. Very likely Origen did not know that the translation was that of Theodotion ; as I hope to show elsewhere, there is good reason to believe that the old translation of the Chronicler's work (with the exception of the single fragment which had already come to be known as I Esdras) had perished long before his time. But, be that as it may, it is almost certain that, if he had ever expressed an opinion as to the origin of this version, the fact would have been known to us. It is not easy to believe, moreover, that he could have failed to express the opinion if he had held it.
The Syriac manuscript in the British Museum numbered Add. 12,168 has been known for some time past to contain a catena of extracts from this same lost portion of the Syro-Hexaplar version,5 namely parts of Chronicles, I Esdras, and Nehemiah, the selections following one another in order, and amounting to a considerable part of the whole. The canonical Ezra is not represented; un doubtedly because it contained nothing not already found in I Esdras, not because it was wanting in the manuscript from which the selections were made.
The Ezra-Nehemiah excerpts begin on fol. 61 fr, with the super scription in red : ^•sn^? UniViN^v ^| : jvp^ j-^j-o |^ka ^ . The first selection is I Esdr. ii, 1 sq.; i. e., the beginning of the book of Ezra proper. The contents in detail :
I Esdr. ii, 1-14. The edict of Cyrus, and its consequences.
15. Beginning of the account of the correspondence in the time of Artaxerxes. 20-25. Conclusion of this account.
iv, 356-36, 38-40. The praise of Truth, from the story of the Three Young Men. 49-57. The edict of Darius, v, 46-70. Building of the altar; foundation of the temple;
building hindered by the enemies of the Jews, vi, 1-2. Renewal of the building in the time of Darius II. vii, 6-15. Dedication of the temple, and celebration of the Pass over.
viii, 1-26. The scribe Ezra, and his commission from Artaxerxes. 65-69. Ezra hears of the mixed marriages, and mourns accordingly.
5 The fact seems to have been first pointed out by Dr. Gwynn ; see Howorth, loc. cit.
FIRST ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH IN THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR 5
I Esdr. viii, 88-92. Confession and repentance of the people, and the
oath administered by Ezra. ix, 1-10. The proclamation and the assembly.
466-47. Ezra blesses God, and the people respond (from the account of the reading of the Law = Neh. viii, 6).
It will be seen from this table of contents that the "First Book of Ezra" here excerpted is identical, in arrangement and extent, with our First Esdras.
Then follow the extracts from the "Second Book of Ezra," all of which are taken from the book of Nehemiah. These are :
Neh. i, 1-4 a. Nehemiah hears of the distress of Jerusalem. ii, 1-8. He is sent thither by Artaxerxes. iv, 1-3. Sanballat and his allies conspire to attack Jerusalem.
10-16. The builders of the wall prepared for battle. vi, 15-16. The completion of the wall. vii, 736 — viii, 18. The reading of the Law. ix, 1-3. Confession of the people.
This Esdras-Neh. catena I copied entire in the year 1898. I have not thought it worth while to print here the whole text of the I Esdras selections, however, since it differs but slightly from that already published, which is accessible in convenient form. I have accordingly collated it with the Lagarde text, and give the variant readings, as follows :
I Esdr. ii, 2 ^|] >o^l 3 ci? 5 ]^-*?] +1^1 6
om. o
) SP| m no 7
10 | A »|A .;A.^V 11 ^MVIV^V^V -f- a marginal note (original hand) jn A n. A,J3 12 ]£«V>n1V> | )mN«qo] jlN^ 13 ^ooi^s] -f ^^? | j— ^0155
14 Vos 15 om. 1° A ^ * ~ *.
20 |?OT5 153-4,50 | wOoZ |3 | j_CUJaSO 21
I * * y «» ~.~ 23 ^v^-^|^ I jn.^oV^ 25
^4,5oP >ol^,9o|^5 iv, 356 ^J^.* ^L^o 36
dittogr. I om. |_ji(ji? 38 ]^ | >a^] ]nnv | >oSs\] + ^»o (real Zy) 40 |3o] |3o <jv^5 jJ-^rS £uk] jio (as conjectured in Lagarde, p. xxv) |
GUI. (jU-kj-O 49 wC^So] ^CAj )"^^ wA,0^95 I )— k5001— k I I— S5J — 30—^0
50 ^,-^1? I U»"^] + ,^^oi I l^jooi-^? 51 ^^iJ 52 p^asj-h
• mVA *~> A. 53 ^ *^*^ 54 ^a— TLjL^O 55 x»n «o ^^i ^ ^Q__^_^5o|o 56
57 V_n_s I ^v^H] V, 46 V^|, m >|? 47 oij-^s] on
49 .OOL^s .001^1^ 50 l V
EZEA STUDIES
52 oJfJ? 53 j-Jrf^o 54 >a^oo|J V^Jo-j V*la^j-*?
55 o£u»£u*o I viN^H^ 56 nSn*n]o | V-i] *V?]o | % * S|? 57 jj
59 <nl^o 60 ooei o>-o I jJ<ji 2°] pai? 65 V^>o>i 66 om. «^ A^LOiiAJi + marg. note (original hand) io^au^jJ 67 ^ojo 68 %'tt* \ •» V**ul> | &4a*Ai Vi, 1 +s*4]
9^ (as conjectured in Lagarde, p. xxv)
O 2 V^J£w^-M GOT VaSJO
vii, 6 p^s | ^^a^j 8 . q \ M j-.^^ 9 U^
10 ^ m >]? 15 ^osi-^p viii, 2 5 ol^7ojJ 6 .;Sviv< I : ^ A M p] I
I ~j *• I .l^Al^ I ^oX^9oP
(marg. note, ]^) \ ]z±*r> 8 L 4 4 M ^?] | ooi? 10 j^?oci-o
Vs 12 >a^,5o| | IttnMlN 13 >ol^5o|J
| ^ v^v^;^|^« 14 |^S(ji5o 15 >n \ 4>?oj — s? 17
M^? 18 ^Voi? ocn ^? 19 |^uJas?o | J_io] l^os 22 flnnH] marg. note, p^cu*? jzni^oz^o 23 ^QJ n s i ^?] ^ * s^? 24
marg. note, j^^cLsasp 25 j
o-S 65 ^V^A ^. 66 ^*^3 | |\lVl\? | |Zo|iCL^
67 QjoiO *±~lo 68
91 5
1°]
|ie>] 1^5 46
j] marg. note, 92 ^i^-A, | oia^o iX, 3 |£y^oja >c|^? jo^tf 7
marg. note adds
90
10
oocn 001
47
The extracts from Nehemiah begin on fol. 656. I print them entire, as the first published specimen of a Hexaplar text of this book. That we have here the version of the bishop Paul, any student of that version will see at a glance. The idioms and verbal order of the Greek are retained,6 compound words are resolved in the familiar way, the Greek definite article is replaced by the Syriac demonstrative pronoun, and so on. There are no diacritical marks, and very likely there were none in the manu script from which this one is an excerpt. These signs were included in the original translation of Paul of Telia, to be sure; but copyists were prone to omit them, as we know from the his tory of the Greek Hexaplar codices. The character of the text
6 This was an extremely easy matter, to be sure, inasmuch as the idioms and order in the Greek Nehemiah are generally not Greek at all, but Semitic.
FIRST ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH IN THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR 7
is thus conflate, including both the Greek version selected by Origen and also the plus of the Hebrew. See further below, chap, iv, where some traces of the work of Aquila and Symma- chus in Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. are also noticed.
The orthography and punctuation are, of course, those of the manuscript itself. The words and passages here overlined are written in red ink in the original. Notice the marks over the two words jsi-ol? -v'« , in Neh. ii, 3, indicating that they have been accidentally transposed.7 At the end, after ix, 3, is the sub scription: "Here end the extracts from the Ezra of the Seventy."
FROM THE HEXAPLAR NEHEMIAH (MS. Brit. Mus. Add. 12,168)
x ^ 0001 oj^iu^l? ^oJoi : 0^10^1 5 ^aJiTi {^9001^ ^> j) Sn ^oJ| b \] 4> ^oJoi? • [marg.,
f^i | ^p^. |0010 ! .
^0^0 li^ou IOTI ^-nol^lo .|^Sv & 4 4 a ^ O O . ^oiolo,^ pj^l IOTI £u*| PO . )n\Vi\
J P) . J991 -i-*:-^] P [marg., i-i-*^ | |oaO P V^= V^L^: .UP >^NNN i^i .jnS^N Zjijo3
-— i— tn-^
4 0 Q O 0 . (fol. 66a)
7 The same sign, apparently not heretofore understood, in Josh. StyL, ed. Wright, 41, 10, note ; where it appears that the corruption of the text had its origin in an accidental trans position.
8 Evidently a mistake for
EZRA STUDIES
.00.^-4-^,0^ 0L*Lajo .^^5 jov^l? I'f^0?
1Z ^A^OJJ pO|-^ • (JI-iH ^— ^ ^0<TI 01— ^ I _ D3UAO . ^-J*,— 4*0 |nSV> >0, - D *-S
7 [marg., .5031-. VL pi UJ? 1^,^ r^lJo^J? ^
031 i-
031 |£w_ IV J03101 .
53_O A n*VM< ; 1— l«iolO | ^ Tn V/^Vo 1 ^. ^'«>|ri j L.t.**1^ -7r' L A A \*">^ M ^ V^< A.
. ._- . ,_ . | ^ W^^ |VlVlt|-a ^031 * \S
0031 v>lnN [marg., ^031 \>? JT 4 oo . 1 1 »•,• A>O jzi-jujcc jjj^rc JLJLso^o . jlon n\? 0031
A. ajnio . |9a^£ 0031 *'1^* .aJ3io n
|o3i ,^^ V-s 11 ],**£> .0031 ^.i^l^o pil-p [marg.,
.QJ310 12 .
0310 . 0031 ^JLSO . 3lX*5 JAjflJOS '^^ JL JO31 .0331 ZO— = . j t>n4V | 1 4 >? Z
031
^ ^ . ^2 j-aJ ^ -• IOL^JO . r^2^ .n 4 1 iZZ
I ^! V^ jt— S^ '»nmV ^5 .1^4^05 0031 v>|«*«| ^031^5
I n n 1 i >o^ j-iJ^s . )^\\ ZJ^D] 031 p^-po 16 .00.
9oi (fol. 66b) iwLias oZas . 31^^,5 [marg.
FIRST ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH IN THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR 9
.001— lu— a *vv*^ , 29 |o(?io 16 OOOO . |A^a-» ^—^
\ f
-*^-2
. JJ n
V^«
0 O .
73b VII 1 VIII
. O O .
^ ^ :
>CjJ i-kJ9 O01
. |_L-lo Vf-a-^ >®i— °
1> >O-OO 4 .OO 0001 Ol0£( >•> 1*1^^ _L: |— kj-S-JO U, n 4
.00. ^^1 O^OJO
[marg.,
O1JO
o O . J1 *i nn
) Sn % N 0071
? ]lVi\ (fol. 67a) o
. o O
Vso :
^ ^0 ^r^ I A^ Aj '
39 JJ5JO . OOCT1
*9i . | n? > P?
. -L-^,*
>o,-o
? jocno .OOOO.
looi
.^ .
_2 " ^
cr._i: :
? 0001 .c-i-k:-»|
I ^^<> o »*i ] VjsVo • 1 Mn VsT «~i j
.jj^IOO JJOL£ I^O ) >V^^1
jocn
PO
10
EZRA STUDIES
cool
|Jo .
jJo . oiTi jZollo oJ
) ^ ^
. .ocn— 1^ jooi
|li
j^atf j?
. | *^v^V
o v<^ A. i«i
| ^« A »-; | «t| v *-i .o
? i^-^o .Lo?? l^'r^o H . a— >A — »,|o j Vi S onaJo 16 0 O .
O 0
. | Vn t | \n^
IX
o V^ j^o^uoo . I n ii? n
| *i no^ . | .1 .^/
| >i»n j«t >]• | >i^
Zooio . ooi cn |Vn * O O O 0 . pen
|3o .
oUOaloJ?
II
THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF "FIRST ESDRAS"
I. THE TWO RECENSIONS OF THE EZRA HISTORY
In the case of several of the books of the Old Testament, the Greek Bible gives us a text which differs widely from the tradi tional Hebrew or Aramaic. In Jeremiah there has been an exten sive transposition of chapters, so that in the second half of the book the order in the Hebrew is altogether unlike that in the Greek. Which, if either, of the two represents the original order is still a matter of controversy. In Esther the Greek con tains a number of rather long passages which are wanting in our Hebrew and are probably secondary, even if possibly translated from a Hebrew original. Moreover, the history of the tradition of the text is often a very complicated one. In several cases the Greek exists in two or more rival versions or recensions, as in the Books of Tobit and Judith. In the case of Daniel we have three different traditions. The oldest Greek version departs widely from our Hebrew-Aramaic text, not only in adding or subtracting brief passages here and there, but also in including the separate stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. The later Greek Bible effected a sort of compromise by adopting Theodotion's transla tion of our massoretic Hebrew and yet retaining the added stories.
Now in the latter part of the Chronicler's history of Israel, in the section dealing with the return from the exile, the rebuilding of the temple, and the work of Ezra, almost exactly the same thing has happened as in the case of Daniel. The old Greek translation, with its transpositions, its one long interpolation, and its other minor peculiarities, was in strong disagreement with the Hebrew text which was preferred in Palestine in the second century A. D., and which soon came to hold the field as the only authoritative form of the narrative. Accordingly, a later translation, based on this massoretic Hebrew, was put into circulation in place of the older version, and soon supplanted it in every region where the Greek Bible was in use. There seems to be good reason to believe that this later translation was the work of Theodotion, whose version thus, in the case of the book Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah,
11
12 EZRA STUDIES
occupies a place in our modern Greek Old Testament precisely similar to that which it occupies in the case of Daniel. The dis cussion of this question will be reserved for another place. At all events, the old version was so effectually superseded that it very narrowly missed being lost altogether; in this fact, again, furnishing a close parallel to the history of the Daniel text.
There is to be noticed, at the outset, one important point in which the case of the rival recensions of the Ezra story differs from the other cases with which it has just been compared. In Jeremiah the transpositions, though extensive, were compara tively harmless. They brought about no serious contradiction or improbability. In Daniel and Esther the additions, though extensive, were not such as to interfere in the least with the prin cipal narrative. They were simply joined on externally, and exer cised no influence on their surroundings. But the two recensions of the narrative dealing with the restoration of the Jews and the work of Ezra could not stand thus peaceably side by side, for the one gives the lie to the other. As for the transpositions, they are effected in the middle of a connected history, with dates, successive kings, and a necessary order of events. It makes comparatively little difference whether Jer. 31 comes before or after Jer. 41, or even whether in I Kings, chap. 20 pre cedes or follows chap. 21; but it makes all the difference in the world whether the train of exiles described in Ezra, chap. 2, received permission to return from Cyrus or from Darius. And as for the one addition, the Story of the Three Youths, the pro verbial bull in the china shop could not do more thorough and more vociferous damage. Every adjacent portion of the history is either stood on its head or else reduced to fragments.
Yet the tradition of the Greek church, with one voice, names this troublesome fragment "First Esdras," while the version which faithfully renders our massoretic text is only given second place. Josephus, as is well known, believed its version of the post-exilic history to be the correct one, and so, doubtless, did the most of his contemporaries, even in orthodox Jewish circles.
II. PAST AND PRESENT THEORIES REGARDING THE
"APOCRYPHAL" BOOK
"First Esdras," or "Third Ezra," or "The Apocryphal Ezra," or "The Greek Ezra," as it has been variously called, has had an interesting history. There is probably no one of all The Old
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 13
Testament writings which has been so inadequately studied, and which is so seriously misunderstood among Old Testament schol ars at present. St. Jerome put the tremendous weight of his authority against it (in his Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah : Nee quemquam moveat quod units a nobis liber editus est, nee apo- cryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur; quia et apud He- braeos Esdrae Nehemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coarc- tantur, et quae non habentur apud illos, nee de viginti quatuor senibus sunt, procul dbjicienda), and his word was law, as usual, for the Latin church from the Middle Ages onward, and exercised a profound influence over the whole western world. The book was excluded from the Complutensian Polyglot (1514—17), and was not even admitted by the Council of Trent (1516) ;* in printed editions of the Vulgate it is given place in an appendix at the end of the Bible, after the New Testament. By modern scholars gen erally this "apocryphal book" is not regarded as a survival from the old Greek version of this portion of the Old Testament, nor even as the part of a recension which once included all of Ezra and Nehemiah; on the contrary, it is believed to be a later free compilation made with a "tendency." That is, just as the Chronicler, in his day, edited and expanded certain parts of the history of Israel into a book which should inculcate his own views, so (according to the generally accepted theory) a later and unknown writer selected that part of the history which "began" with Josiah's passover (as though this were a natural beginning!) and ended with the career of Ezra, and rewrote it, with certain significant changes and additions, according to his own purpose. This view is altogether mistaken, but it is the only one which has any recognition at the present time. All of the modern text books of Introduction, commentaries, and encyclopaedia articles, whether English, German, or French, speak of the "author" of First Esdras, and of his probable "purpose" in making this COm- ^t is singular that the belief should have had such wide currency, at this time, that First Esdras did not exist in Greek. Thus Lupton, in his Introduction to First Esdras (Speaker's Commentary), p. 5, quotes the remark prefixed to the Latin version of the book in the noted Latin Bible edited and published by Stephanus at Paris in 1557: " Hujus libri ne Graecum quidem codicem, nedum Hebraeum nemini (quod sciam) videre contigit.'1'' The form of the quotation which I give is that of the original, of which I have a copy. Lupton is mistaken, however, in supposing that this note is to be attributed to the scholar Vatablus (whose name is used in an unwarranted way by the editor of this Bible) ; nor can it have come from Claudius Badwell, who did indeed prepare the translation of the Apocrypha for this Bible (see LeLong-Masch, Bibl. Sacra, II, p. 480), but only of the books which stood in the Complutensian Polyglot. The remark is to be attributed to Stephanus himself or to one of his unnamed helpers.
14 EZRA STUDIES
pilation. The question is even seriously discussed whether this "author" (1) made up his book from our canonical Greek ver sion of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah; or (2) made use of an inde pendent Greek version; or (3) made his own translation from the Hebrew-Aramaic original. That he made his "compilation" in Greek is taken for granted, since it is the general belief that the interpolated Story of the Three Youths, as we have it, is not a translation from a Semitic original. It is a fact that speaks volumes for the general neglect of the book, that Schtirer in both the first and second editions of his Geschichte maintained the view that First Esdras was compiled from our canonical Greek Old Testament — though any well-equipped university student could demonstrate the contrary to a certainty by an afternoon's work on any chapter in the book.
To illustrate a little further the current view, and the treatment now given to this "apocryphon" by Old Testament scholars: The DeWette-Schrader Einleitung (8th ed., 1869, p. 565) bravely confessed inability to recognize the purpose of the "author" of First Esdras in compiling it, remarking: "Ein Zweck dieser characterlosen Compilation lasst sich nicht entdecken;" but the great majority are content to repeat over, each from his fellow, Bertholdt's naive hypothesis that the writer intended to provide a history of the temple from the latter part of the regal period down to the time when the cultus had been restored. Kosters, in his Wiederherstellung Israels in der persischen Periode (German trans, by Basedow, pp. 124-26), unfolded a much more elaborate theory — with even less support from the document itself. Of course, the abrupt ending of the "book" (in the middle of a sentence!) has been generally noticed, though few have made any attempt to explain it. Ewald's conjecture, that the work was left unfinished by "its author," is frequently repeated, e. g., by Strack, Einleitung*, p. 152 ("Das Buch, welches von seinem Verfasser nicht vollendet worden zu sein scheint," etc.), and by Guthe, in Kautzsch's Apokryphen des A. T., p. 2. In most textbooks of Introduction to the Old Testament First Esdras is ignored — as though it stood in no close relation to the Old Testament ! — and this, too, even by those who profess to believe that it represents a Hebrew-Aramaic text differing in many respects from our massoretic recension. In CornilFs Einleitung*, for example, it receives not a syllable of mention. In Driver's
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 15
Introduction it is given a brief note at the end of the chapter on Ezra and Nehemiah. By commentators the two "books," Ezra and First Esdras, are usually kept entirely separate. If the com mentaries on Chronicles and on Ezra-Nehemiah mention First Esdras at all, it is only as a curiosum. Bertholet, in his com mentary on Ezra and Nehemiah (in Marti's Kurzer Hand-Corn- mentar), does, indeed, devote a section to the Greek Ezra in his introduction, pp. xvi, xvii, but his statements regarding it are notably confused and ill-digested, while in the commentary itself he makes no serious attempt to use it. In general, his attitude toward the apocryphon is characteristic of a certain irresponsible method of dealing with sources which is far too prevalent in modern Old Testament criticism: any comparison of the Greek Esdras text, in occasional difficult passages, is a work of supererogation, of which the commentator may boast; the idea that he is in duty bound to consult it all the time, and to make a really critical study of it does not suggest itself.
The commentaries on* First Esdras, again, have not brought us far toward an understanding of its origin and true character; as might be expected from the fact that all the commentators have believed the book to be simply a late and "historically worthless" compilation. The parallel portions of the canonical books are only occasionally consulted, and then in the most perfunctory way. In the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A. jT., by Fritzsche-Grimm — the one thoroughgoing and scholarly commentary on the Old Testament Apocrypha, but now long outgrown — the treatment of First Esdras (by Fritzsche) is below the level of the rest ; chiefly, no doubt, for the reason already given. No commentary on the book that has appeared since that date (1851) is worthy of serious attention. Lupton, in Wace's Speaker's Commentary (1888), is very superficial; and both he and Zockler (1891) are equal to the feat of subjecting the book to a fresh study without even finding out that it offers us a sepa rate, extra-canonical translation from the Semitic! In the critical examination of text and versions next to nothing has been done, though this is a most promising field for investigation. The state ments as to these things which now and then appear are for the most part either false or inaccurate. Fritzsche (Comm., p. 9) asserted that the best text of First Esdras is to be found in the uncial B and the cursives 52 and 55, and this most misleading
16 EZRA STUDIES
statement has been industriously copied by his successors, no one taking the trouble to test the matter. In the second edition of CorniU's Einleitung, p. 268, one could even read that Jerome(!) was the author of the Vulgate version of our apocryphon. Nestle (Marginalien und Materialien, p. 29, n. 2) says that "the Lucian recension" (meaning the text printed in Lagarde's Librorum vet. test, canonicorum pars prior graece) furnished the basis of the Syriac translation; a theory which would seem plausible for the first nine verses of the first chapter, but from that point on is seen to be absolutely false. There has not even been made a careful comparison of the two Greek versions, the canonical and the apocryphal, as they stand in our printed Greek Bibles, to say nothing of inquiries as to their nature, history, and mutual relations. Even for the restoration of the massoretic Hebrew text of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, no critical use of even the current Greek text of First Esdras has ever been made. A few (most recently Guthe, in the Polychrome Bible) have included "The Greek Ezra" in their apparatus in a more or less haphazard and superficial way, but such attempts as these can have no consider able value.
The one scholar who in recent times has defended the view that First Esdras represents a Greek translation which is older than the one contained in the corresponding books of our canoni cal Greek Bible is Sir Henry Howorth, who has argued the case more than once,1* with much learning and acumen. This view had been held, in one form or another, by not a few scholars ; among them Grotius, in his annotations, 1644 ; Whiston, Essay towards Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament, 1722 ; Pohlmann, "Ueber das Ansehen des apokr. iii. Buchs Esras," Tubing, theol. Quartalschrift, 1859, pp. 257-75; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, IV, 1864, p. 166 ; and Lagarde, Psalterium, Hieronymi, 1874, p. 162, note. No one of these scholars, however, set forth the view so fully and vigorously as Howorth, nor do they seem to have appreciated, as he has, the great importance of this conclu sion. Nevertheless, the proof which Howorth has been able to bring forward is by no means conclusive ; the skeptic would not
2 In the Academy, 1893, January 7 and 21, February 4 and 25, April 15, June 17, July 22 ; in the Transactions of the Ninth International Congress of Orientalists at London, Vol. II (1893), pp. 69-85 ; and (most fully, and including the substance of all the previous articles) in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, May, 1901, pp. 147-59, November, 1901, pp. 305-30, June, 1902, pp. 147-72, and November, 1902, pp. 332-56.
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 17
be compelled by it. He does, indeed, show with a formidable array of evidence that the canonical recension of Chron.-Ezr.- Neh. might well be much later than the First Esdras recension, but he fails to show that it is in fact later. His assumption (Pro ceedings Soc. Bib. Arch., May, 1901, p. 151), that any Greek translation which closely follows the text of our present Hebrew Bible must be derived from Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion, will hardly be accepted by those who have carefully studied the Greek Old Testament. He assumes, in like manner, that the canonical Greek version of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. is the work of Theodotion — as Grotius, Whiston, and Pohlmann had conjectured before him — but without being able to bring forward any shred of evidence in favor of this opinion, beyond the fact that Theodotion's version of Daniel has found a place in our Greek Bible. The one prime necessity — if the current beliefs as to the Ezra books are to be superseded — is a well-grounded and plausible theory of the origin and mutual relations of the two recensions now existing. Such a theory has never been formulated,3 and Howorth has failed to provide one. His main conclusions, touch ing these matters, are the following: (1) First Esdras gives us the original form of this history ; that is, (a) the order in our apocryphon (Ezr. 4 : 7-24 following Ezr. 1 : 11, and Neh. 7 : 73— 8 : 12 following Ezr. 10 : 44) is the primary and correct one ; and (6) the Story of the Three Youths formed a part of the history as it was compiled by its author. (Howorth makes no attempt to prove that our Greek text of the story is a translation from the Semitic, though this proof — which has never been supplied— is essential to his theory.) (2) Origen, or perhaps "his editors," made our First Esdras by cutting a piece out of the middle of the "Septuagint"4 version of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., and then editing and correcting it to some extent. (3) Our canonical Ezra-Nehemiah is the result of a thoroughgoing and arbitrary re-arrangement of the text, undertaken by the Jewish rabbis, who (a) knew nothing of Darius (II) Nothus, and (b) wished to identify Zerubbabel
3 The theory which is set forth in the following pages was presented in full at the meet ing of the American Oriental Society at Andover, Mass., in April, 1896, but was not printed.
4 I suppose that Howorth means by "the Septuagint" that Greek translation of Chron.- Ezr.-Neh. which was the first to gain wide currency. I do not understand him to imply the belief that all— or even most— of the books of the Old Testament were translated at the same time, or by the same persons, or in any official or uniform way. Would it not be better, in the interest of clearness and accuracy, to cease altogether from using the term "Septu agint" in scientific treatise?
18 EZRA STUDIES
with Sanabassar, and (c) had various prejudices which led them to make deliberate and extensive alterations in the story of Neher miah. These conclusions each and all present such serious diffi culties that, in my opinion, even the view now generally held, with all its absurdities, would be likely to maintain its ground in the face of them.
III. THE NATURE OF FIRST ESDRAS
The main facts regarding the true character of our "apocry phal" Ezra book may be stated briefly as follows : It is simply a piece taken without change out of the middle of a faithful Greek translation of the Chronicler's History of Israel in the form which was generally recognized as authentic in the last, century B. C. This was not, however, the original form of the History, but one ivhich had undergone several important changes.
As is well known, the apocryphal book and the canonical book are, in the main, merely duplicate versions. But probably many fail to realize how close the duplication is. First Esdras contains a long passage, including chaps. 3, 4, and the first six verses of chap. 5, which is not found in the canonical recension. Aside from this, however, its material contents are exactly those of the corresponding parts of Ezra-Nehemiah. Beginning with the last two chapters of II Chronicles, it then includes the whole of the book of Ezra, and continues with a portion of the Ezra narrative5 which is now in our book of Nehemiah, namely, Neh. 8 : 1-12 and the beginning of the first clause of verse 13, where the frag ment ends. In every part of all this history the two recensions generally agree with each other sentence for sentence and clause for clause. In the cases where they fail to agree the differences are due to the usual accidents of manuscript transmission, or to mistakes made by the one or the other translator. The uni versally accepted view, that First Esdras is a free translation, or a free working-over ("freie Bearbeitung " ) of the material, is mistaken. The translation is close, and the text as a whole has not been "edited," nor freely handled.
In investigating First Esdras, then, the all-important point of approach is the Story of the Three Youths, which at present stands only in this recension. We need a satisfactory theory of its origin
5 As I have shown elsewhere, the passage Neh. 7 : 70—8 : 18 originally formed a part of the Chronicler's story of Ezra (following Ezra 8), and was accidentally transposed to the place where it now stands. See my Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, pp. 29-34. I shall return to this subject later.
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 19
and history, and especially to know who incorporated it in this narrative, whether the Chronicler or some later hand. And this necessarily involves the further question, whether the original language of this episode — or, rather, the language in which it stood at the time when it was incorporated — was Semitic or Greek. If it never existed in Semitic form, then it certainly never was inserted by the Chronicler in his own book, nor could it ever have formed a part of any Semitic recension of these narratives of the Jewish exiles. On the other hand, if it can plausibly be maintained that the Greek text of the story, as we have it, is a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic, then we have at hand the solution of some of the chief problems in this literary tangle. It is fortunately possible to decide at once the question as to the Chronicler, while holding the question of the original language still in abeyance. The form of this history contained in I Esdr., chaps. 2-5, cannot possibly have been the form given it by its author. So scholars of all times have agreed, with hardly a dis senting voice, and for reasons that are conclusive. In the first place, the Artaxerxes correspondence, 2 : 15-25 (= Ezra 4 : 6-24), is palpably misplaced here. It constitutes, to be sure, a very good introduction to the Story of the Three Youths, which immediately follows, but forms in no sense the continuation of 2 : 1—14, where the narrative is obviously cut short in the middle. Again, the Story of the Youths is itself a disturbing element, and the disturb ance this time is far more serious. The presence of this story inevitably turns the whole history upside down, bringing in contradictions and absurdities from which there is no escape. To mention only a single point : The events narrated in 5 : 46- 70 [47-73] (notice verses 53 [55], 68 [71], and 70 [73]!) are events of the reign of Cyrus, even in this recension ! There is no way of making them anything else, or of supposing that they were ever written in any other way. It is not easy to believe that any compiler of a serious history could make such an outrageous blun der as this. What is more, the episode of the Youths cannot be made to fit in anywhere else. Whoever tests the matter will speedily find that there is no point, before, in, or after Ezra 1-6, at which this episode is a possibility ; at that, too, even if the name of the king be changed from "Darius" to some other name. Removed to any other place, it causes even greater disturbance than it makes at present.
20 EZRA STUDIES
Obviously, the story was not written for any such context as this; and it is equally obvious that the writer of this context had no thought of fitting it to contain the episode. The conclusion is certain, that the Story of the Three Youths is an interpolation, not a part of the history as it was originally composed. In view of the manifest traces of the Chronicler's hand in the extra- canonical verses just following the episode and serving to connect it with the canonical narrative (see below), the question might seem for a moment to be a legitimate one, whether the Chronicler himself may not have made the insertion, as an after thought. But no one who gives the matter serious consideration will continue to entertain this hypothesis. The Chronicler is a writer of very considerable skill, who composed this history with a definite purpose, of which he never lost sight. He is most methodical in his literary habits, and we know him to be one who incorporated documentary sources in the way best suited to his own ends. He had himself carefully composed this most important narrative of the return (so essential to his pet theory!), writing it out, with vivid detail, in his own words (as scholars agree). It is not reasonable to suppose that he could have undone his own work and have given the lie to his own history in so stupid a manner, by squeezing in this unnecessary episode in an impossible place.6 It was not by the Chronicler, then, but by a later hand, that the story was interpolated.
The important question now arises, whether the interpolation was made in the original Hebrew- Aramaic text of the history, or in the Greek translation. It is characteristic of the general neglect which First Esdras has suffered, that no one has recently under taken to determine, by examining the evidence, in what language the Story of the Three Youths was originally written. It is generally taken for granted that the language was Greek, and one scholar after another asserts this with confidence. Fritzsche (Handbuch, p. 6) wrote: "Ein hebraisches Original lag nicht zu Grunde, die Sprache verrath sich durchaus als ursprtinglich hellenistisch ; nur der Schluss, 5:1-6, macht eine Ausnahme, und von diesem besitzen wir das Original nicht mehr." This
6 If the story had been generally believed in his day, he would have known it when he composed his history. If it was not generally believed, he was under no necessity of inserting it. From our knowledge of the Chronicler, we should not expect the story to interest him especially. And finally, if he had wished to insert it in his completed book, he might easily have prepared a suitable place for it.
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 21
opinion has been adopted, as usual, by Fritzsche's successors; thus Schiirer, Reuss, Konig, Zockler, Lupton, Cornill ("ohne Zweifel griechisch geschrieben " ) , Guthe ("sicher griechisch"), Bertholet, and many others. Most of these, it should be noted, make an exception of the passage 5:1-6, which (like Fritzsche) they believe to have been translated from a Hebrew original. Howorth asserts that the story was written in a "Semitic" lan guage (of course, his theory of the book requires this), but does not attempt to go farther. Ball, in his notes in The Variorum Apocrypha (1892), suggested one or two hebraisms in these chapters, but did not thereby make a Semitic original seem probable. Renan (Hist, du peuple dlsrael, IV, p. 180, note) said, in speaking of I Esdr., chaps. 3 and 4: "The original was certainly Hebrew."
As for the Greek in which I Esdr. 3:1 — 5:6 now stands, those who believe it to be more idiomatic than the ordinary "translation Greek" of the Old Testament are mistaken. It stands, in this regard, on exactly the same plane as the old Greek version of Daniel, or that of the books of the Kings, or of First Maccabees. From the beginning to the end, it shows an unbroken succession of Semitic idioms, reproduced with a faithfulness which is often very clumsy, and in several cases giving plain evidence of mis translation. It is true that the subject-matter (namely, in the section 3:18 — 4:32) is unlike anything else in the Old Testa ment; and it is this fact, unquestionably, which misled Fritzsche into making his extraordinary remark about the language of the document. But if any student of the Greek Bible will look closely at the idiom of these two chapters, he will find it precisely the same which elsewhere results from a close rendering of a Hebrew or Aramaic original. Again, though as regards subject- matter and mode of treatment the section just named happens to stand alone in our Old Testament literature, it is by no means true that it has a "Hellenistic" sound. All those who are familiar with Semitic modes of thought and literary forms will recognize here a characteristic Semitic product.
The fact must not be overlooked, that the first six verses of chap. 5 are almost universally pronounced a translation from a Semitic original, as above noted. The fact usually is overlooked. Those who make the exception straightway forget it, and certainly never attempt to explain it. On what theory can this translated
22 EZRA STUDIES
"fragment" be accounted for? At present it plays a very impor tant part in helping to connect the Story of the Youths with the Hebrew narrative 5: 7 ff. ( = Ezra 2: 1 ff.). Its points of affinity with either section are obvious, and certainly not accidental. It sounds as though it were of one piece with the verses which imme diately follow it, as well as with those which immediately precede it; and as for the Three Youths, there is an express allusion to them (somewhat parenthetical, to be sure) in vs. 6. But what end this passage of six verses may have served when connected with neither portion ofdts present context, no one, so far as I know, has ever ventured to guess. Of course, if the Episode of the Youths were originally written in Greek, it would follow that these six verses must have belonged to an entirely separate docu ment. As for the following narrative (the Chronicler's), if this passage (5: 1—6) originally formed a part of it, how has it disappeared from our canonical book? And if it did not origi nally belong to it, how in the world can it have been detached from its proper surroundings and brought to this place ? Guthe's amazing suggestion (Kautzsch's Apokryplien, p. 2) that it was composed by "the redactor" (!) certainly needs no refutation. The passage bears no resemblance whatever to an editorial patch. Nor is any theory of an isolated fragment plausible. We are not driven to any such strait as this, that we should be obliged to postulate a losl; narrative of a return of Jews from Babylonia, written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, and now surviving only in these six verses! There is a far simpler hypothesis. Just as soon as it is observed that the Greek of this passage is the result of translation, it becomes probable that the Story of the Youths was incorporated in a Semitic form.
There is still other important evidence of this nature pointing to the same conclusion. The latter part of chap. 4 cannot so easily be separated from the first part of chap. 5. There is no perceptible break, nor anything to make it probable that two separate documents are joined at this point. The two concluding verses of chap. 4 cannot have formed the end of a piece of narra tive. The closing words of verse 63, "and they feasted . . . . seven days,"'1 make it plain that their author intended to narrate what took place after the seven days. And in like manner the first words of 5:1, "After this there were chosen," etc., presuppose the words which just precede them. The two parts agree per-
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 23
fectly, and any attempt to pull them apart has the presumption strongly against it. Two documents were united, beyond doubt, somewhere in this vicinity, but it was not at this point. And again, the evidence of translation from a Semitic original is quite as noticeable in the latter part of chap. 4 as it is in 5: 1-6. Observe, for example, the idiom in vs. 63: teal TO lepov ov ayvo/jida-Orj TO ovofjia avTov eir aurw; and similarly in vs. 54: ev TIVL \aTpev- ovauv ev avTrj. Now although these verses do not belong to the unexpanded Story of the Three Youths (which, as will be shown presently, ends at 4: 42), they belong to the context in which it was imbedded. Moreover, in some of the verses which now form a part of the Story, and can only have been written in continua tion of it, the marks which indicate the work of a translator are plainly to be seen. The verses 4: 44-46, 57, for example, in the sustained awkwardness with which they render Semitic idioms — and probably reproduce Semitic blunders — could easily be paral leled in other specimens of "translation Greek," but hardly in Greek of any other type.
The antecedent probability, from every side, of a Semitic ori ginal for the Episode is thus overwhelming, and we may fairly take for granted, at the outset, the fact of translation (substi tuting "ohne Zweifel semitisch" for "ohne Zweif el griechisch " ) . Only very strong evidence in the Greek text of 3 : 1 — 4 : 42, such evidence, namely, as to show that it could not have been the work of a translator, could suffice to shake this probability; and such evidence, as has already been said, is not to be had.
It only remains to determine whether the original language was Hebrew or Aramaic. This question, usually a very difficult one, is here rendered easy of answer by the use of the Greek word roVe, in 3: 4, 8; 4: 33, 41, 42, 43, 47, which points plainly to an Aramaic original. The only places in the Greek Old Testament in which roVe, "then," "thereupon," is consistently used to con tinue a narrative are the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra and this Story of the Three Youths. The usage is neither Greek nor Hebrew; the word can stand only for the Aramaic f"Itf (or yH&O). It is not a question of one or two occurrences, such as can be found here and there in all Greek literature; the word appears again and again, all through the narrative, in every one of these sections in which the Greek is translated from Aramaic, but does not appear similarly anywhere else. In this Story there
24 EZRA STUDIES
is very little narrative, the space being occupied with discourses, letters and decrees, and the like ; but wherever the story is resumed (notice especially 4: 41-47) we are pretty sure to see sentences and paragraphs headed by rare.
Among the other marks of translation, the following are note worthy :
3:3. teal egvTrvos eyevero is quite impossible. The king is (and must be, for the sake of the story) sound asleep until vs. 13; cf. vss. 8 and 9! Those who were "waking" were the three men7 who constituted his body-guard. The original text may have read in some such way as this: K^/J^b^ nnbn THJd Yin "T^XTO5! ,
T - •• \ T T : ' • - •• -: i • T : •
"Thereupon the three youths bestirred themselves" (or "stood on guard"). The change would then have been very easy, since "TlfcQ almost invariably (but not always; see Dan. 7: 11) begins the sentence.
3:5. eva \oyov. The customary use of in in the place of an indefinite article. So also 4:18.
3:5. 05 vTrepio-xya-ei is a sure mistranslation. It should be rt v7repi,Gr%vei, "what thing is the strongest," see vss. 10—12. The Aramaic probably had "H fp-2 .
3:12. vwep Se Trdvra vuca f) a\r)6eia. The vTrep is impossible in Greek, as commentators have remarked (see especially Fritz- sche). It is simply the translation of bj, with which the verb fiUDft!"! is regularly construed; cf. Dan. 6:4.
4:14. TroXXot is an obvious (and quite natural) mistranslation of "^"Q""!. The meaning in the original was "men are mighty" not "men are numerous;" cf. vs. 2.
4:15, 16. The translator has here given us a false rendering and an incorrect division of clauses. Instead of our meaning less text, we must put a comma after @acri\ea, and then read: Kal Tra? 6 Xao<? 65 Kvptevet, rf)<; OaXdo-arj^ /cal TT}? 7775 ef avrwv eyevero. Cf. again vs. 2. The mistranslation is one of a very common type.
4:17. Is it possible that we have here a double rendering? Some such word as &O~n , or KIIMlTZJ , for example, would account for both o-roXa? and Sdgav, the one translation being lit eral and the other interpretative. The crroXat are not needed here. Compare the uses of the Hebrew words *nH , ^3£ , and , and the (mistranslated) verse I Mace. 14:9.
7 Ordinarily called "pages" because of the misunderstanding of this verse.
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 25
4:31. ical TT/OO? TOVTOLS. Probably for JlD1! QT1, which should here have been translated "and in spite o/this."
4:37. /cal ov/c eariv should probably be el ov/c eariv. The original may well have been KBllftp "p»~Q nlH^ tfb*] ; all men and all their works are evil, "if truth be not in them;" or the initial letter of "H , "if," may have fallen out accidentally after the last letter of the preceding word (roiavra = HDl or TOH).
4: 39. ra Si/caia TTOiel airo Trdvrcov TWV aSi/ccw real Trovrjpcov. The CLTTO is a monstrosity here; see the commentaries. The Lagarde text, Sbcata iroiel, /cal airo TTCLVIWV TWV aBitccov /cal Trovrjpwv aTre^ercu, is arbitrarily corrected, as the evidence of manuscripts and ver sions shows conclusively. Fritzsche thinks it likely that some Hebrew idiom "schwebte dem Verfasser vor," but confesses his inability to find an example of it in our Hebrew Bible. We have precisely this idiom in biblical Aramaic, in Ezra 7:26. The original text here was therefore undoubtedly "jp "Q3? &W^ "Jib
aWTiTfi fiPTZra VinbS ; Truth is no respector of persons, "but T - . - . T - . T
executes judgment upon all evil and wicked men." The Latin and Syriac versions render correctly.
These examples will suffice. The Story of the Three Youths was written in Aramaic, and was inserted by a redactor in the Hebrew- Aramaic text of the Chronicler's history.
The process of combining the two narratives necessarily involved some harmonistic labors on the part of the redactor. The Story, in its original form, does not seem to have made any mention of the Jews. As far as 4:42 — where it may well have ended — it contains not a word to give it connection with Jewish history or interests, with the exception of the single parenthetical clause in vs. 11, 01)709 eariv ZopofilafieX (b^QIT &OH), which has been universally recognized as an addition by a later hand. It may well be that this very brief, but very potent, gloss antedates the expanded form of the Story, and in fact was the ultimate cause of its inclusion in a history of the Jewish people; but, be that as it may, it is pretty certain that the expansion itself, through which the Story was made into a tale of exiles return ing to Jerusalem by royal decree, was the work of the self same redactor who interpolated it in the Chronicler's book.
Now it must be remembered that the Chronicler himself is giving, at this very point, an account of a return of exiles from Babylonia; and, what is more, that the leaders of his expedition
26 EZRA STUDIES
are Jeshua and Zerubbabel. The last portion of his narrative preceding the interpolated matter is 2:1-14 (=Ezra, chap. 1). In this he had told of the proclamation of King Cyrus, and how the Jews prepared to obey it; then, further, how the king brought out the sacred vessels belonging to the temple in Jerusalem (which are fully described and numbered), and delivered them into the hand of a Jewish prince named Sheshbazzar. At this point the narrative is interrupted by the interpolation. The next portion of the history which is certainly known to come from the hand of the Chronicler is the list, 5 : 7-42 ( = Ezra 2:1-67), and where the narrative is resumed at the close of the list it appears that the returning exiles are already in Jerusalem. This is a surprising leap, especially for such a narrator as the Chronicler. We should certainly expect him to describe, with some detail, the starting of the expedition; to make express men tion of the two leaders, Jeshua and Zerubbabel, whom he else where makes so prominent; to tell of the provision made by the king — and afterward referred to — for the aid of the Jews and especially for the building of the temple; and so on.8 The prob ability at once suggests itself, that a part of the Chronicler's nar rative is contained in the long sequel to the Story of the Three Youths, that is, in the section 4:43 — 5:6.
It would, of course, be the wish of the interpolator to use the original narrative as far as possible; and in this case that would be especially easy, since all the circumstances, and even the names (excepting only the name of the king), are identical. This prob ability becomes much stronger as soon as we observe the peculiar way in which the expansion of the Story has been effected. As was remarked above, it has been left absolutely untouched — saving the gloss of two words in 4:13 — all the way from the beginning, 3:1, to 4:42, which is evidently the last verse of the original story which we have. It would have been an easy matter, and, we should say, most desirable, to add a bit of Jewish color ing, especially at the beginning, if only in order to make the con nection more plausible. But the redactor took his task very easily, and apparently limited his own editorial additions to what was absolutely necessary. In view of this, it is surprising to find that the extra-canonical matter constituting the sequel to the Story occupies twenty-seven verses — about half the extent of the
8 See my brief statement of the case in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1897 pp. 168-70.
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 27
Story itself. And who is this who now begins to write at such length, and so methodically, what sounds like a piece of carefully composed history (vss. 47 ft'.), and with such disproportionate interest in "the priests and the Levites" (vss. 52-56) and in "instruments of music" (4: 63, 5:2) ? These are the pet interests of the Chronicler himself; his peculiar property, in fact.
There is, indeed, plain evidence of composition in this long sequel, 4:43-^5:6, showing that it consists of the work of the interpolator plus the work of the Chronicler. In the verse 5:6, especially, we can see how a harmonistic gloss has been added to the original text. The date, as it stands, is altogether out of place; and, indeed, it is difficult to imagine a reason for telling in any place the day of the month on which Zerubbabel made his successful speech. The words just preceding the date, "he who spoke wise words before Darius," are an obvious gloss, the last of the redactional patches by means of which the two documents were combined. This statement of year, month, and day was originally the Chronicler's date of the return from Baby lon. Commentators have wondered why such a date was missing, in this history in which month and day of the month are never wanting, and on this occasion which overshadowed all others in importance. Verse 6 originally read: "in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, the king of Persia,9 in the month Nisan, on the first day10 of the month." The interpolator was, of course, obliged to alter "Cyrus" to "Darius" (as also in 5:2), and the insertion of his gloss necessitated a slight change in the wording of the sentence. Whoever examines 5:1-6 closely will see that it is written throughout in the characteristic phrases of the Chronicler, and this is true also of much of the latter part of chap. 4. The redactor's part is, indeed, as we were led to expect, a compara tively small one. Two brief passages, purely harmonistic, and easily recognized, are all that he has added, namely, vss. 43-46 (with the first clause of vs. 47) and vss. 57-61.11
This conclusion, as to the Chronicler's authorship of 4: 47-56 in particular, receives important confirmation from without. In
9 The phrase "king of Persia," 0"1D "|b"52 , is a well-known mark of the Chronicler's hand.
10 In the Greek, rov irpurov M^OS, " the first month," is derived by some mistake from TUTnb "in&O' as many have observed.
11 These two patches, small as they are, contain some things of interest. Observe the statement regarding the Edomites, in vs. 45, and the very unusual phrase "king of heaven," in vss. 46 and 58.
28 EZRA STUDIES
Ezra 3: 7 we are told how cedar- wood for the building of the temple was brought to the Jews from Lebanon " according to the grant which they had from Cyrus, king of Persia;" but the pre ceding narrative, in our canonical recension, contains no record of any such grant. But in this fragment of the Chronicler's history which survives in First Esdras, in 4:48, we have the edict to which reference was made: "He (Cyrus) wrote letters also unto .... those that were in Lebanon, that they should bring cedar- wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem." Again in Ezra 3:1 ( = I Esdr. 5:46 [47]) there is a statement of time which presupposes a defi nite date in the preceding narrative. Just after the long list of returning exiles, and the subjoined statement that the people arrived in Jerusalem and settled there and in the neighboring cities, the narrative continues: "And when the seventh month was come," etc. In our canonical Ezra there is no preceding date, to which this can be referred. The date in 1:1, "The first year of Cyrus, King of Persia," is not to be thought of, both because it is too indefinite and because the time would be far too short. And the Chronicler is particular about such matters as these ; see, for example, Ezra_7:8, 9, and 8:31. But in the First Esdras recension, just before this list of returning exiles, we find the missing date, in 5:6 (the verse which has already been discussed; see above).
First Esdras, then contains a portion of the Chronicler's history which has been lost from our canonical book of Ezra. The original narrative passed directly on from 2:14 ( = Ezra 1:11) to 4:47, which began thus: " [And Cyrus the king] wrote letters for him (i. e., for Sheshbazzar) unto all the administrators and governors," etc. Then, after the section 4:47-56, there followed immedi ately 4 : 62—5 : 6, and then 5 : 7 ff . ( = Ezra 2 : 1 ff . ) . There is no reason to doubt that the history, as thus restored, is complete and in the very same form which its author gave it.
The interpolator, for his part, wrote 4:43-46, and the first clause of vs. 47 (altering the original slightly here), and vss. 57-61. He also changed "Cyrus" to "Darius" in 5:2 and 5:6, and inserted a gloss in the latter verse.12 Whether the gloss in 4:13 is from him, or from a previous hand, may be questioned. It was he, finally, who transposed the Artaxerxes correspondence, Ezra 4:6-24, to the place where it now stands in First Esdras.
12 The " Joachim " of this verse came from a misread Dp*1"! •> as I have shown elsewhere.
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 29
It is an interesting question, at what point the Aramaic text ended, and the Hebrew text began, in the composite narrative. It is, of course, certain that the Chronicler himself wrote all of this portion of his history in Hebrew (or what may be allowed to pass for Hebrew) ; and it is hardly less certain that the interpo lator was as well acquainted with the one language as with the other. No one will question that the verses 4:43—46, at least, were written in Aramaic ;13 and it may also be taken for granted that the passage 5:1-6 was allowed to stand in its original Hebrew. But in regard to the intermediate portion, 4:47—63, there is room for doubt, since it is conceivable that the interpola tor should have written vss. 57-61 in Aramaic, and then have translated the Chronicler's Hebrew up to and just beyond that point, in order to conceal from sight the real place of the juncture. It is improbable, however, that he would have made himself this unnecessary labor. So far as we can judge, from the very few Jewish productions of this period that have survived, the combination of Hebrew and Aramaic in the same document was a common thing. It was possible, for instance, for the Chronicler to compose Ezra 6: 16-18 in Aramaic, and then continue the same narrative in Hebrew in vss. 19 ff. — although he could not have had any reason for wishing to deceive his readers as to where the preceding document ended. Similarly, in Dan. 2:4 we see the change from the one language to the other taking place in the middle of a sentence, the narrative then going on as though nothing had happened. Obviously, such abrupt changes as these were not felt to be disturbing. So far as the Greek of this part of First Esdras is concerned, the last sure sign of an Aramaic original is the ro're of vs. 47. Beyond this point, the language seems to me everywhere to suggest Hebrew rather than Aramaic, though I have not been able to find any decisive proof. I there fore believe that the interpolator's Aramaic continued as far as the first words of the Chronicler's narrative, and that everything after this was Hebrew, including vss. 57-61. That is, vs. 47 began
13 Aside from the strong probability that this added patch would be written in the same language as the preceding narrative, we have the evidence of rare in vs. 43, the position of the infinitive etcire^ai in vs. 44, and the icvpie j3a<7iAeu (apparently fcOb'Q "^"TQ » as in Dan. 4:21) in vs. 46. The last-named verse, by the way, contains an evident mistranslation, the conjunction 1 being rendered by KOU, instead of by some word meaning, " since," " inasmuch as." The Aramaic was: '•jrfib *TQ ("H) Xfl^QI S"1!! XT!) "since such munificence is thine." ^tYD"! used here exactly like flbTO in II Sam. 7/21, I Chron. 17:19, where also the Greek rendered by /aeyr ^uo-uVrj.
30 EZRA STUDIES
in Aramaic: "Then Darius the king arose, and kissed him;" and it was continued in Hebrew: "And he wrote letters for him unto all the administrators and governors," etc.
The result of this investigation has been, to restore a lost half-chapter to our "canonical" Old Testament — a thing which has never been done before, and presumably will never be done again— and to give the Story of the Three Youths its true place as an important specimen of old Aramaic literature. I hope to throw further light on the origin of this Story in a subsequent chapter.
IV. THE ORIGIN OF OUR TWO RECENSIONS
The Chronicler, probably not far from the middle of the third century B. c., but possibly later, wrote his Levitical History of Israel. Its contents, in their original order, were as follows: I and II Chronicles; Ezr. 1; I Esdr. 4:47-66; 4:62—5:6; Ezr. 2:1—8:36; Neh. 7:70—8:18; Ezr. 9:1—10:44; Neh. 9:1—10:40; Neh. 1:1—7:69; 11:1—13:31.
At the beginning of the last century B. c. this history was current only in a form which differed from the original form in two important particulars: (1) Three chapters originally belonging to the story of Ezra had been accidentally transposed, by a natural mistake,14 into the book of Nehemiah. (2) The Aramaic Story of the Three Youths had been interpolated. The interpolator added a few harmonistic verses at the end of the Story, and also trans posed the passage Ezra 4:6-24 to a place just before it.
Somewhat later, still another alteration found its way into numerous copies of the work. The fact that the account of the reading of the Law (Neh. 7:73 — 8:18), and that of the sealing of the covenant (Neh. 9:1 — 10:40), had originally belonged to the story of Ezra was not lost sight of among the Jews. Accordingly, someone, at some time in the last century B. c., made an attempt to restore the history to its true form by transposing these chapters to the place from which they were supposed to have come. That is, they were simply appended to the story of Ezra, being made to follow Ezra 10. It must be noted, however, that not all of the matter which had originally belonged to the story of Ezra was restored at this time. The three verses Neh. 7:70-72 were so securely lodged in their new surroundings (owing to the same considera-
i*See my Composition of Ezr. -Neh., p. 34.
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS ' 31
tions which had caused their transfer thither) that they were no longer movable. The re-transferred section accordingly began with 7:73.
The result was (as we have the best of evidence) that two editions of the Chronicler's book, with its interpolated Story of the Youths, were current at the beginning of the Christian era. The two differed only at one point, namely, the section Neh. 7:73 —10:40, containing the story of the Reading of the Law and the account of the Sealing of the Covenant. In the one edition (call it A) the position of this section was the same as in our massoretic Hebrew Bible; in the other edition (call it B) it had been appended to the Book of Ezra, of which it formed the close, Ezra 10:44 being continued by Neh. 7:73; and in neither edition were the two narratives which constitute this section in their original and proper context ! To describe the two editions a little more fully:
A = I and II Chron. ; history from Cyrus to the com pletion of the temple as in I Esdr. ; stories of Ezra and Nehemiah as in our Hebrew Bible.
B = I and II Chron. ; history from Cyrus to the com pletion of the temple as in I Esdr.; story of Ezra concluding with Neh. 7:73 — 10:40; story of Nehe miah as in our Hebrew Bible minus the section just mentioned.
One point in the description of Edition B requires special proof here, namely, the statement that not only Neh. 8, but also chaps. 9 and 10, were retransposed to the end of Ezra. That chap. 8 was thus transferred we know, of course, from First Esdras. Our only surviving text, however, breaks off at the beginning of vs. 13, in this chapter; so for an answer to the question, What came next ? we must turn to other evidence. This is of two kinds:
1. General probability. — Chaps. 9 and 10 had long been connected with chap. 8, and must have been felt to be of one piece with it. Whoever had acumen enough to see that chap. 8 was out of place in the Book of Nehemiah must also have seen (as readers of the book in all ages have seen) that chaps. 9 and 10 belonged with equal certainty to the story of Ezra. The testimony of such verses as 9:1-3, 4f. (cf. 8:4, 7); 10:28(1), 29,
32 EZRA STUDIES
30, could not be misunderstood.15 And with chap. 8 removed, the incongruity of chaps. 9 and 10 with their surroundings would be very much more obvious. Imagine 9 : 1 following directly upon 7:72!
2. The evidence from Josephus. — Josephus, who is the earliest writer (of those known to us) to excerpt the Chronicler's history, used Edition B. As his method is to give only such extracts as suit his purpose, and he frequently vaults over whole chapters and gives to others only a sentence or a clause, it is not always easy to follow him. The two chapters, Neh. 9 and 10, obviously con tain hardly anything that he could use for his history; and, in fact, he makes no use of them at all, unless we find them alluded to in certain phrases at the end of his abridgment of Neh. 8. In telling the story of Ezra, when he comes to the account of the reading of the law he gives in concise form the contents of Neh. 8, to the very end of the chapter (Antt., xi, 154-57). In finishing the account, he says that Ezra urged the people not to mourn, saying that it would be better for them at that time to keep the feast with joy, /cal rrjv fjierdvoiav /cal XVTTTJV rrjv errl TO£? €fJL7rpoo-0ev e^rj/jLapTrjijievois a(T$>d\eidv re e%eiv /cal ^>v\a/crjv rov fJirjSev ofjioiov avfjLTreo-elv. And he then adds, that after the people had kept the feast for the eight days, ave^^aav et? ra ol/cela /xera V/JLVCDV rov Oeov (cf. Neh. 9:5?) rrjs erravopduKrew rwv irepl rb rro\i- rev/jia rrapavo^Oevrwv "Effyxz X^PLV et'Sore?. Either one or both of these passages may well have been suggested by Neh. 9 and 10; but more than this can hardly be said. Josephus then passes on to the story of Nehemiah, which he gives in greatly abridged form. After narrating how the building of the wall was finished, he proceeds (xi, 180 f.): ra pev ovv eBvrj ra ev ry ^vpia .... eSvacfrdpei, (=Neh. 6:16 — end). Nee/ua? Se rrjv rro\iv op&v o\,iyav@pa)7rovfJLevrjv (=Neh. 7:4, teal 6 Xao? 0X4705 ev aur^)rou? lepels re /cal Aemra? Trape/cdXecrev rrjv %cbpav eK\irr6vras pere\6elv eis rrjv iro\iv /cal peveiv ev avrfj- (Neh. 11:1, 10-23; 12:1-26) .... rov re yewpyovvra \aov ra? Se/eara? r&v KaprrSyv e/ce\evcre <f>epeiv et? 'lepoa-o'Xvfta, iva rpe<f)eo-0ai, Sirjvetcws e^oi/re? ol lepefc /cal Aevlrai pr) /caraXeiTrcoai, rrjv Oprja/cei'av (Neh. 12:44; 13:10-12).
It can hardly be doubted, in view of all this — and with nothing to point to the contrary conclusion — that the two chapters, Neh. 9 and 10, stood at the end of the book of Ezra in the B edition.
15 To say nothing of the »cai el™ 'E£8pas with which 9:6 begins in the Greek version !
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 33
Both editions, A and B, must have continued in use for a con siderable time. The extent to which Edition B was used may be judged from the fact that it was the one from which the old Greek version was made, as well as the one used by Josephus in writing his history of the Jews;16 while for a witness to the prestige of Edition A we have the fact that it was ultimately taken as the basis of the recension which alone was adopted for the "official" Hebrew Bible.
It deserves especially to be emphasized that the Story of the Three Youths was present in both of the current forms of the history. At the beginning of the Christian era, there was probably no version of the Chronicler's book in existence which did not contain this Story. Certain it is, at any rate, that those who made the recension now repre sented by our massoretic text knew of no such form already existing, but were obliged to resort to excision.
The trouble caused in the Jewish world by this Levitical His tory of Israel, in its two incongruous editions, could be imagined even if we had no direct proof of it. As time went on, and the lingering traditional knowledge of the Persian period dwindled and disappeared, the Chronicler's compilation stood out con spicuously as the one document dealing with the history of the Jews in this important time. It seems to have been little used at first, and when at last it became generally known it was looked upon with suspicion (witness its position in the Jewish canon, and its rejection from the Syriac Bible, to say nothing of other indications), but its ultimate recognition was inevitable. The final test came, of course, when the idea of a definite "canon" of divinely inspired scripture was first developed; namely, about the beginning of the second century A. D. The Jewish rabbis were obliged to meet squarely the question whether they should accept this book or reject it. On the one hand, it was the source, and the indispensable support, of certain theories which had come to be implicitly believed and cherished, especially in ecclesiastical circles ; but, on the other hand, it was obviously an untrustworthy guide. Anyone could see that the Story of the Three Youths was incongruous with its surroundings, and it needed no unusual acumen to see that it was in fact an interpolation. Such naive attempts to cut the knot as that of Josephus, who substitutes
16 And Josephus, as we know, was a writer who would have been careful to employ the orthodox recension.
34 EZRA STUDIES
"Cambyses" for the Artaxerxes of I Esdr. 2:15 ff., could only do more harm than good. And the case with the history of the two great leaders, Ezra and Nehemiah, was no better, for two versions, incompatible with each other, were in circulation. The situation was an intolerable one, and could be ended only in one way, namely, by a new recension.
A final revision was accordingly made, and was officially adopted. The Story of the Youths was cut out bodily from the book, and care was taken that it should never again appear in the Jewish sacred writings. But unfortunately, in the excision of the Story, a part of the Chroniclers original narrative was. cut out with it. The cause of this accident is easy to see. The expanded Story, as edited by the interpolator, did not end with I Esdr. 4:63, but extended through the first six verses of chap. 5. The interpolation in vs. 6, supported by the occurrence of the name "Darius" both here and in vs. 2, left the revisers no alternative; the knife must cut between vss. 6 and 7. Upon the excision of the Story followed necessarily the restoration of the Artaxerxes correspondence to its proper place.
The choice between the two versions of the Ezra-Nehemiah story must have caused more difficulty. What led the Jewish revisers here to follow Edition A rather than Edition B can only be a matter of conjecture. Possibly some external evidence show ing that the order of chapters in the former was older than that in the latter was still in existence. But it is perhaps more likely that what decided the matter was the presence, through interpolation, of Nehemiah's name in the three doubtful chapters (see Neh. 8:9 and 10:1, and compare the date in 1:1), an interpolation which easily (and almost inevitably) took place after these chapters had been accidentally transposed into the story of Nehemiah.
So much for the origin of our canonical Ezra. As for our First Esdras, it is, as has already been said, the one surviving fragment of the old Greek version of the Chronicler's history, a version which was simply a faithful rendering of Edition B, and was probably made in the latter part of the last century B. c. The accompanying diagram will serve to illustrate the history of the two recensions.
The extent of our First Esdras, it is hardly necessary to add, is due simply to accident. Probably all the manuscripts, Semitic
NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS
35
Chronicler's History. Hebrew- Aramaic. (250 B. o., or later)
Two long passages transposed from Ezra to Nehemiah; the
first by accident, the second as a necessary result
(Neh. 7:70—8:18 and 9:1—10:40)
Story of the Three Youths
(lEsdr. 3:1— 4:42).
Aramaic
(Redactional expansions [I Esdr. 4:43-47a; 57-61] and alterations. Transposition of Ezra 4:6-24)
r
Edition A
Excision of the Story; together with a part of the original history, lEsdr. 4:476-56; 4:62— 5:6.
(Beginning of second century A. D.)
Canonical Ezra-Nehemiah
Edition B (Neh. 7:73—10:40 trans posed to end of Ezra)
Greek translation (before middle of second century B. o.)
First Esdras
36 EZRA STUDIES
or Greek, which contained any other version than the official one were systematically destroyed. Just as the old Greek version of Daniel narrowly escaped the fate which befell its Semitic original, being saved only in a single Greek codex and a secondary version, so this portion of the condemned Esdras recension was rescued by a lucky chance. There was only one such fragment, and all of our "I Esdras" texts and translations go back to it. It prob ably consisted of a few quires plucked out of the middle of a codex. The first page of the rescued fragment began with II Chron. 35:1; and the last words on the last page were KOI e7n(Tvvri'%6ri(TaV) which in this version had been the first words of Neh. 8:13.
And it is certain, finally, that the manuscript from which this piece survived was Greek, not Semitic. There never existed a Hebrew- Aramaic fragment of the same extent as our First Esdras. Conclusive proof of this statement is found in the closing words, for in the Hebrew text Neh. 8:13 begins with ^DlBSl DYQ1 , not with the verb.
Whether accidentally rescued or deliberately excided, it is evident that this fragment was not altered nor edited in any way by those who first preserved it by itself. No attempt was made to give it a suitable beginning, nor even to complete the obviously unfinished sentence with which it ends.17 In every library of ancient manuscripts there are to be found similar fragments, con sisting generally of a few quires surviving from codices of which the remainder has been lost;18 fragments almost always through accident, but sometimes also through selection. In the sense in which any one of these might be called a "book," First Esdras may be given that designation, but in no other sense.
17 Except in the Lagarde Greek recension, which here, as in some other places (compare what was said above regarding the text of 4:39) has been deliberately "revised."
18 Compare, for example, the accidental loss of the first part of the Peshitto version of Tobit, which has totally disappeared.
Ill
THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS
(IEsdras3:l— 4:42) I. OBIGIN OF THE STORY
Among the most interesting surviving specimens of old Semi tic literature must be counted the story of the three young guardsmen at the court of King Darius, and their contest of wits in the royal audience hall. As has already been shown (see above, pp. 18-30), this narrative was originally written in the Aramaic language, and was interpolated in the Chronicler's history of Israel by an unknown hand, probably near the beginning of the second century B. c. The main questions as to its origin, date, and primitive form, and the class of literature to which it belongs, remain to be answered. It is now generally believed that this "story" was a Jewish composition, a "contribution to the legend ary history of the Captivity and Return" (Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 266) ; and the only remark which it ordinarily calls forth is the verdict that it "is unhistor- ical." I shall try to show in the following pages that it was originally a separate composition, a bit of popular wisdom-litera ture complete in itself, and in its first estate having nothing to do with the history of the Jews; that it was composed in Pales tine, probably soon after 300 B. c. ; that it was incorporated entire in the Chronicler's history, and has been preserved in what is substantially its original form.
The interpolator, as I have shown (see pp. 25-27), gave the story, in the main, as he found it, without attempting to work it over, or indeed to make any alteration whatever beyond what was absolutely necessary. The beginning, obviously, was left un touched. Up to the end of 4:42, moreover, there is not a clause, nor even a word, that seems to be secondary or editorial, excepting of course the manifest gloss in 4:13. It was only at the end, where the story required to be adapted to a definite place in Jewish history, that redactional patches were necessary, and were made. The interpolator himself did this harmonistic work; and one
37
38 EZRA STUDIES
necessary feature of it was the occasional change of the name "Cyrus," in the immediately following portion of the Chronicler's history, to "Darius" (above, pp. 27 f.). The presence of the name "Darius," in fact, was an indispensable condition of the in sertion of the story, Zerubbabel being the hero. The question therefore arises at once, whether the interpolator may not himself have introduced the name throughout the whole story. We know with certainty that according to his representation the king who sent Zerubbabel and his company to Jerusalem was Darius II Nothus;1 but it is quite another question, whom the author of
1 It is strange that the question of the chronological order of the Persian kings accord ing to the attested Jewish tradition should have made, and should still be making, so much trouble among scholars. See for example Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums, p. 14 ; Well- hausen, Israehtische und jiidische Geschichte^, p. 171, note; Bertholet, E*ra und Nehemia, p. 13, middle. The simple fact is this, that according to the accepted view of the Jewish scholars and writers, in the Greek period and still later, a kingdom of the Medes preceded that of the Persians, and Darius I Hystaspis was the monarch of this Median king dom. Aside from this one important error, the Jewish writers made no mistake in regard to the Persian kings, but everywhere preserved the true order.
As for the kingdom of the Medes, it is the one briefly referred to in Dan. 2:39 and 7:5, as scholars are generally agreed. Neither the author (or authors) of Daniel nor any of the other Jewish writers shows any interest in this Median power or its history. The duration of its rule over Babylonia was believed to have been very brief ; to have included, in fact, the reign of only one king. We read in Dan. 5:30, 6:1, that upon the death of the last Baby lonian king, Belshazzar, his kingdom was taken by Darius "'the Mede;" and we are told with equal distinctness in 6 : 29, cf . 9 : 1, 10 : 1, 11 : 1, that this Darius was immediately succeeded by Cyrus, the first king of the Persians. (I do not believe that the original text of Dan. 9:1 called this Darius the "son of A h a s u e r u s." The name lDl*W2Jnfc5 *s ^ue ^° some copyist, who substituted a well-known name for the unknown, and probably corrupt, form which lay before him. In Josephus, the name is "Astyages" — cf. Theodotion's Bel and the Dragon, vs. 1 (original reading possibly " Darius, son of Astyages "?). One might perhaps conjecture "Cyaxares" (HuwahSatara), for this blunder would at least have involved no anachro nism. Cyaxares flourished about 600 B.C., and this Darius came to the throne "about sixty-two years of age" (Dan. 6 : 1). But perhaps we need not take the writer's chronology so seriously. I suppose it is possible that the author, or authors, of these chapters had never heard the name of Hystaspes.) That is, in the Jewish tradition represented by the author of Daniel (who was a man of some learning), Darius I Hystaspis was put immediately before Cyrus instead of immediately after him. The author of Daniel would have begun his list of Persian kings thus : Cyrus, Xerxes, Artaxerxes I Longimanus, Darius II Nothus, etc.
The Chronicler's history of Israel represents precisely the same view of the royal suc cession, and, accordingly, of a brief Median rule preceding the Persian. It is perfectly plain from Ezra 4:1-7 that his list of the Persian kings began in the same way as did that of the author of Daniel. The Chronicler makes no mention of Darius Hystaspis, "The Mede," before Cyrus, for the same reason that he fails further on to include Artaxerxes III Ochus, namely, because these kings (as he supposed) had nothing to do with the history of the Jews. But aside from this one transposition of Cyrus and Darius— the same which is made in Daniel— his succession of Persian kings, as given in Ezr.-Neh., is the correct one. According to his view, Zerubbabel and his companions finished the temple under Darius Nothus ; and the Artaxerxes who befriended Ezra and (afterward) Nehemiah was Artaxerxes Mnemon.
Again, the Chronicler's Aramaic source represents the selfsame historical tradition. The author of this story of the building of the temple of course makes no mention of the Median king who preceded Cyrus, nor does he have occasion to mention Xerxes; but he leaves us in no doubt as to the fact that, in his belief, the temple was finished in the time of the Darius whose reign followed that of Artaxerxes I.
The textual tradition, it should be observed, perpetuates this view of the two kings named Artaxerxes. The name of the enemy of the Jews, who is mentioned in Ezra 4, is in variably written with t[J ; the name of the friend of the Jews, mentioned in Ezra 7 f. and
THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 39
the Story of the Youths intended by his "Darius," or indeed, whether he used this name at all. What, then, is the historical setting of the story, and who is the "king" at whose palace the scene is laid?
It is, of course, beyond question that the story was originally told of a king, not of a satrap, governor, or other high official. It is almost equally certain that the scene was laid in Persia. From the beginning of the story to its end, the Persian kingdom and its capital are plainly in the thought of the writer. The allusions are too many and too deeply imbedded in the structure of the story to be regarded merely as the result of an editorial revision (see, for example, 3:1, 2, 9, 14). We must conclude that when the story was originally composed the narrator intended to describe a scene at the court of one of the Achaemenids. Observe also how the interpolator takes it for granted that the event described took place in the Persian capital. If he were giving the tale a new setting, he would certainly be explicit as to the name of the city; but as it is, he plainly assumes that every reader would know that Susa was intended. Thus, in 4:57: "And he (Darius) sent away all the vessels which Cyrus had brought2 from Babylon (i. e., to Susa)'," and again, in verse 61: "So he (the youth) took the letters, and came forth (from Susa) to Babylon."
If no other evidence were to be had, it would still remain doubtful whether the name "Darius" is also original, or whether it is to be ascribed to a later hand. But fortunately, we have the evidence which is needed. Thanks to that most important verse, 4:29, we are able to determine which king is intended, and the
Neh. 2, is invariably written with Q. The Darius who came between these two kings was of course Darius Nothus.
And finally, the interpolator of the Story of the Youths shared the view of the Chroni cler, the author of Daniel, and the textual tradition of Ezr.-Neh. The fact that he trans posed the account of the correspondence in the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, Ezr. 4:6-24, to the place which it occupies in I Esdr. is conclusive evidence of this. Like the other Jew ish writers of his time, he believed that the Darius under whom Zerubbabel finished the building of the temple was Darius Notnus; and, according to him, it was at or very near the beginning of the reign of this same king that the three youths held their contest at the Persian court. According to his version of the history, Zerubbabel was still a youth at the time of the completion of the temple; while according to the Chronicler's version he was an old man at that time (though in all probability the Chronicler supposed the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I to have been brief ones).
It is true that our modern historians may reasonably be in doubt as to the date of the completion of the temple; but it does not seem to me that there is justification for doubt, in the face of this evidence, as to what view the old Jewish narrators held.
2 The Greek translator's exupurev is probably a mistaken rendering, both here and in verse 44 ; see the notes.
40 EZRA STUDIES
approximate date of the story. According to the text ordinarily used, the passage reads thus:3
/ saw Apama the daughter of Bartakes, . ... the concubine of the king, sitting at the king's right hand ; I saw her snatch the crown from his head, and place it upon her own; with her left hand she slapped the king. In spite of all this, the king gazed upon her with open mouth.
It is obvious that we have here the key to the date and original home of the story. The proper name Apama, at least, has been correctly transmitted. It is a very well-known name, and yet not one that would have been chosen at random or taken as typical. The writer of the story had a real personage in mind at this point. The fact that the name of the girl's father is appended adds to the certainty of this conclusion, though the latter name is so badly mutilated as to seem almost hopeless.
Among all the women named Apama who are known to us, there are only two who need to be taken into account. The prime requisite is that the girl should have been a concubine, or at least a favorite,4 of one of the Persian kings. The two who most nearly meet the requirements are (1) Apama, the daughter of the satrap Artabazos III, who was the son of the satrap Pharnabazos II; and (2) Apama, the daughter of the Bactrian satrap Spitamenes, or Pithamenes. These two Apamas were the most celebrated of all who bore the name, and both made their first appearance in history at the court of the Persian king. The king, moreover, was Darius III Codomannus, and this fact is another cor roborating element. The coincidence is too far-reaching to be an accident; the natural conclusion is that the king originally intended in this story was Darius III. All that we know of the two Apamas, during their early life in Persia, is contained in the well-known story of the great feast at Susa, given by Alexander to his generals after the conquest of Persia. At this feast, accord ing to the historians, Alexander gave to the foremost of his gen erals wives from the Persian court. Apama, daughter of Spita menes (or, as some authorities have, Pithamenes), was given to Seleucus Mcator, the first of the Syrian line of monarchs ; and Apama, daughter of Artabazos, was given to Ptolemy Lagi, the first of the Egyptian kings. Thus Arrian, Anabasis, vii, 4, 6,
3 The Greek text, with its various readings, will be given below and discussed. * We are left in some uncertainty by the Greek TraAAaKrj here, inasmuch as it is a transla tion and we cannot be sure what Aramaic word was used in the original.
THE STORY or THE THREE YOUTHS 41
narrating the distribution of wives: ^eXevKw Se TOV ~BarcTpiov TralBa. In speaking (ibid.) of the wife given to Ptolemy Lagi, he calls her the daughter of Artabazos, but uses the native name 'Apra/capa.5 Plutarch, Eumenes, §1, gives the name correctly (TlroXe/JLaiO) fjiev ^Aird^av) , and says that Artabazos was her father. Strabo, Geographica, xii, 8, 15, confuses the two Apamas, saying that Apama, the daughter of Artabazos was given in marriage to Seleucus Nicator.6 The statement regarding Seleu- cus and his wife which is given by John Malalas, Chronographia, viii (Migne, Vol. XCVII, col. 312), is perhaps worth quoting:
o 8e avrbs Se'Xeu/co? 6 Nifcdrcop eA,a/3e yvvalfca ev ra> 7roXe)u&> ajro Hdp0o)v ovdfjLaTi 'ATrd/Aav irapOevov rjVTiva ejrijpev ave\GDV TOV Trarepa Hi0afjievr)v, ovra arparTyyov TldpOaiv /jueyav. 'A<£' 779 'ATra/xa? 6 avrbs 2eXeu/co9 Ovyarepas Suo, ' A7rd/j,av KOI AaoS&crjV.
There is nothing in our extra-biblical sources to indicate that either the daughter of Artabazos or the- daughter of Spitamenes had been, or was supposed to have been, a concubine of Darius Codomannus. This, however, is a fact of no importance. In I Esdr. 4 : 29 we are dealing, in any case, with a popular tale, the original purpose of which we have no means of knowing. Court gossip and the story-tellers of the common people alike love to play with such details as these, and to invent them, with or with out malice prepense, especially when the early life of the royal personage was (as in this instance) a romantic one, and had been lived in a foreign land. And Alexander might well have been represented as finding extraordinary treasures in the harem of Darius. It may be that the author of the Story of the Youths himself added this touch of local interest to the scene he was painting, representing the celebrated queen of his land as having been, in her girlhood, a favorite of the great Persian king. Be that as it may, we need waste no more thought on the 7ra\\atcr) of I Esdras than we do on the irapdevos of Malalas, in the passage above quoted. Beyond question, the evidence within reach points to the general conclusions already stated: (1) the "Darius" of our story is, in any case, Darius III; (2) for the heroine of the verse 4:29, we must look either to Egypt or to Antioch.
5 See Wilcken, in Pauly's Real-Encyclopadie, 8. v. "Apama."
fi NOldeke, GMt. Gel. Anzeigen, 1884, p. 295, accepted the statement of Strabo, and was followed in this by Marquart, Fundamenta israelit. undjttd. Geschichte, pp. 65 f. But the evidence inclines decidedly the other way (so also Wilcken, in Pauly, loc. cit.).
42 EZEA STUDIES
It is not altogether easy to decide between the two Apamas; fortunately, the decision at this point need not greatly affect our conclusion as to the original home of the story. If the daughter of Artabazos and wife of Ptolemy is meant, then it is pretty cer tain that the tale was composed either in Egypt or in Palestine, somewhere near 300 B. c. ; for such an allusion to the foreign-born queen could only have been made during her lifetime or a short time after her death. If the other Apama, the daughter of Spita- menes and wife of Seleucus, was intended, the natural conclusion would be that the story was written in Syria, and perhaps most likely in northern Syria, at about the same date. Of local "color," or allusion, to connect the narrative with either of the two kingdoms, there is not a particle. All the setting is distinctly Persian, as has already been remarked, and the Persian capital is the only scene which the story suggests.7 As for the use of the Aramaic language, we know that it was the reigning tongue at this time, from the borders of Persia to the Mediterranean, and that it was also used to some extent in Egypt, where the Semitic element of the population was considerable. Still, a document of this sort, composed in Egypt at the beginning of the third century B. c., would probably have been composed in Greek ; in Syria or Pales tine, on the contrary, Aramaic would have been the natural vehicle. So far as general probability is concerned, then, the matter stands thus: if our "Apama" is the Egyptian queen, then the story is most likely to have been written in Palestine; if the wife of Seleucus is intended, then it probably originated somewhere in central or northern Syria.
The main hope of reaching a satisfactory decision lies in the names which are given in 4:29. These, as has already been remarked, are presumably corrupt in the forms which have reached us. Foreign proper names in a Semitic text are easily and rapidly changed. The transliteration into Greek is apt to involve some additional loss, and the corruption is increased still further by copyists, especially when, as in this case, the original is no longer to be had for reference. All our texts and versions of I Esdras are derived as was shown above (p. 36), from the fragment of a single faulty Greek codex. It is only necessary to recollect the -large number of almost incredibly, distorted proper names else-
7 Marquart, op. cit., p. 66, attempts to show that the palace in Antioch was the original scene, but fails conspicuously at every point.
THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS
43
where in this book, in order to see what we must be prepared to find here. And, in fact, our traditional texts of 4: 29 do not con tain any form closely resembling either Artabazos or Spitamenes. In the ordinary text of the Egyptian recension, represented by the uncials A, B, and their fellows, the Syro-Hexaplar version, the Ethiopic, and other less important witnesses, the girl Apama is called the daughter of "Bartakes" (rrjv BvjaTepa Ba/ora/cou). We seem to have conclusive evidence, however, that this was not the reading of the primal Greek fragment out of which "First Esdras" grew. In the Syro-Palestinian recension, found in the Lagarde text ' and the Latin, we read Ba &KOV, or Befa/eou, Lat. Bezacis; and as this reading is confirmed by the wit ness of Josephus, Antt. xi, 3, 5, TOV {3a(n\ea .... elSdv Trore VTTO -n}? 'Pa/Be^dicov TOU f&ejjbacriov vratSo? 'ATrayn?;? .... pcnri- ^opevov, we must accept it as the original reading of our I Esdras fragment. For, ( 1 ) it is certain that all our I Esdras texts were derived from the one fragment ; (2) Josephus, though he followed a Greek text in Ezr.-Neh., as elsewhere, did not have before him the mutilated scrap, "I Esdras," but a complete translation of the Chronicler's book; and (3) it is certain that no I Esdras text was influenced here by Josephus. The Syrian text of 4: 29 is thus the original, so far as I Esdras is concerned, reading as follows:
eOecbpovv avrbv Kal ' ATrd/jLrjv rrjv 0vyarepa Tla^a/cov TOV OavfJLaa- 7ra\\aKr)v TOV /3aoYXea)?, tca0r] jjiev^v e/c Sefttwz/ TOV (Bacn-
fCT€.
From the form of the name given here, the other forms were derived, through the usual accidents of transmission. In the copying of cursive manuscripts the spelling BapTatcov arose, prob ably through an intermediate BaTaicov . The prefixed syllable in the reading of Josephus, Pa(3e£aicov* is merely the result of a very ordinary copyist's error, having its origin in the [6vyaTe]pa/3e%aKov of the Greek text which was Josephus' only source.9
3 A good deal of ingenuity has been wasted on these names. Fritzsche says of the form Rabezakes in Josephus, "das ware nplTQ*V' Ball, in the Variorum Apocrypha^ cites the Syriac, "Aphuma, daughter of .... rabba Artak," and remarks that the Greek Bartak-es may be a corruption of the latter. Marquart, Fundamente israelit. u. jiid. Geschichte, pp. 65 f., soems to me to heap one improbability upon another in the attempt to explain the names in the verse. Regarding the Syriac "Artak," see below.
9 Notice that a blunder of exactly the same nature had found a place in the Greek text, belonging to the other (Egyptian) recension, which was translated by Paul of Telia. [0vya- Te]pa0apTaKou resulted in Pa/Sapra/cov, which the Syr.-Hex. reproduces by . n ^;j )_£$ . Iu view of all the proper names and titles beginning with Rab-, it is no wonder that this mistake should have been made in more than one place.
44 EZRA STUDIES
We are certainly justified, under the circumstances, in connect ing Bafa/e- with 'A/?Ta/3afo?, as e. g., Marquart (loc. cit.) has done. If we can suppose the original form of the name to have been Artabdzak (Marquart), the problem is at once made easy, for the hypothesis of a very ordinary sort of haplography in the original Aramaic text, by which pT2[m&$] tVQ, "the daughter of Artabazos," became p"Q rPH , rrjv Ovyarepa Bafa/eof, is all that is necessary.
But there is still another point at which the text of this verse in I Esdras is unsatisfactory. The rov dav^acrrov must conceal a proper name, for the adjective would be altogether out of place either in Aramaic or in Greek. If a name originally stood here, it was presumably that of the grandfather of Apama; and in the text of Josephus we do, indeed, have such a name, TOV ®e/-iacn,W. It is true that this does not appear to be a very desirable acquisi tion, inasmuch as it has seemed probable, since the researches of Noldeke, that the father of Artabazos III was the satrap Pharna- bazos II; still, it is not hard to believe that the narrator of this tale could have been mistaken in such a particular; and as ©a/zaVto? occurs in Herodotus (vii, 194) as a Persian name, and this is the very form from which the other readings (©e/>tacrio?, #af/Ltaa-£o?, Oavfjiaaro^) are most easily derived, we shall probably do well to retain it.
The conclusion is, that the heroine of I Esdr. 4 : 29 was Apama, the daughter of Artabazos ("son of Thamasios" ?), and that the Story of the Youths was written probably while she was still living as queen of Egypt and Palestine, but possibly in the next following generation. The home of the story was Palestine, where the connection with Egypt was then very close, and where the Aramaic language was commonly employed, as we know, for compositions of this nature. Other minor indications, of very little weight in themselves, seem to me to point in the same direc tion: the freedom with which the writer uses the queen's name; his uncertainty (?) as to the name of her grandfather; and the fact that the first appearance of the story of which we have knowl edge was in Judea. At the time when it was inserted in the Chronicler's narrative of the Jews (probably in the early part of the second century B. c.), Palestine was no longer under Egyptian rule, and queen Apama and her history were already forgotten.
It has already been observed (above, pp. 25 f . ) that the original
THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS
45
and unexpended Story of the Youths does not extend beyond 4:42 in our book. It is complete as we have it; even at the end it does not appear that anything is missing; on this point see further below. There is no likelihood that it formed a part of a larger work; as it stands, it is a carefully planned and executed whole, and quite sufficient unto itself. Much might be written as to its literary character and qualities, for it is an admirable composition, but here there is space only for a few general observations.
The scene of the story is laid in Susa, shortly before the advent of Alexander, and it thus belongs to the great group of legends which attached themselves to this turning-point in the history of the East. The description of the king's surpassing power and glory is that with which we are familiar in the tales belonging to the "Alexander cycle." The narrators loved to represent the last Darius as the richest and most glorious of his line. This is exactly what was done, for example, in Dan. 11:2, a verse which is valuable as giving us the popular Palestinian view of Darius Codomannus: "And now I will show thee the truth. Behold, there will arise yet three kings in Persia, but the fourth will be far richer than all the others ; and when he has become mighty in his riches, the Lord of All10 will raise up the kingdom of Yawan" (i. e., the Seleucid kingdom, in the place of the kingdom of Persia) .
There is nothing to show that the story originated in Jewish circles. Against a possible Jewish origin speaks the fact that no mention is made of the Jews or their institutions, from the begin ning up to 4:42, which is at all events the last verse of the story in its original form which has reached us.11 Moreover, the religious element is almost entirely lacking, although the writer's main theme and the development of his thought were such that we should have expected him at least to introduce the mention of God before finishing his hero's discourse on the mightiest and best of all things. How sorely this lack was felt by the early translators is evident from the way in which they have introduced alterations and interpretations in the endeavor to bring in the
10 As I have shown elsewhere, the missing word ^TJ) is to be restored before DTT See my article, " Yawan and Hellas as designations of the Seleucid Empire," JAOS, XXV, 310 f.
11 The fact that in 4:13 the words "this was Zerubbabel" are secondary is obvious enough. Moreover, it is a poorly executed gloss, for this one name could not suffice to identify the man — hence the additions which we find in the Lagarde Greek, the Syro- Hexaplar version, and other texts. This perhaps makes it more probable that the inter polator himself inserted the name here; he had no need to be more explicit, since the new context of the story, and the subsequent gloss in 5:6, would more than suffice for the identification.
46 EZRA STUDIES
missing religious element (see 4:35, 36, 41, and the notes on these verses).12 The author may indeed have been a Jew by birth; but this writing cannot be said to belong, in any true sense, to the Jewish national or religious literature; and the probability is strong that it was composed by a gentile. It is worthy of remark that it contains no allusion to, or quotation from, the Old Testa ment. The only passage which could be taken as possibly showing acquaintance with the Hebrew Scriptures is 4:39; but the resem blance to Deut. 10:17 is not striking, and is probably purely accidental.
This tale of the youths and their contest belongs to the popular "Wisdom Literature" of Syria and Palestine, written in the language and embodying the philosophy and the rhetoric of the time. There were doubtless many such writings, and it is by a stroke of rare good fortune that this one has been preserved to our day. The chief concern of its author, it is plain to see, is with the three "wise sentences" which were uttered. He has no personal interest in the "third youth," who gained the victory, and neither names nor describes him. He does not care especially for the narrative, but cuts it short at all points. His interest is in the three discourses, and the story is told solely for their sake. He does, indeed, give his dialogue a striking his torical setting, combining the legends of the great king, and his magnificent court, with a local allusion that must have added considerably to the interest of his readers. But this is merely his literary art; for the history in itself he had no concern.
From the literary point of view, the successive discourses of the three youths are highly interesting. It is evident that the form in which they are cast is well studied; in their structure they doubtless follow the approved models of their time and place. It is a pity that we have not the original Aramaic, so that we might observe the finer points of style and phraseology. The Greek, to be sure, is a close translation, and so far as the frame work of the discourses and the construction of their successive paragraphs are concerned, we are nearly as well off as we could be if we were in possession of the original. Neither in the ideas expressed nor in the garb in which they are clothed is there any thing that could properly be termed*" hellenistic." There is no
12 It is no wonder that they should have felt that this element must be present, seeing that the speaker of these immortal words was no other than the great leader Zerubbabel, the builder of the temple !
THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 47
evidence of the influence of Greek literature or philosophy. In this fact we may perhaps find some corroboration of the conclu sion reached above as to the original home of the story; for a writer of such conspicuous ability as this one, composing a work of this nature in either Egypt or northern Syria, after the begin ning of the third century B. c., would probably have given evidence of his close contact with Greek thought.
One fact of especial interest, in the literary structure of the dis courses proper, is the use of the line of three beats. Even under the disguise of the Greek translation, this can be recognized again and again, all through the composition, from 3: 17 to 4: 40. Thus, in the speech of the first youth, 3:20:13 lib bljb "U? KD jiCl MbE ^31 Kb TW . Or in the speech of his successor, the succession of clauses in 4:7 ff.: T£K fbttp bttp/^b T;2K iDEb. And again, verses 10 f. : b2K | ±3'J3 K1H H31 D51
bwab nn bs bra Kb "rri*nn yntaD fani 7-211 »niD
Kb mbri | fib-H MVPS*. The third youth begins his speech by saying (4:14): K'£:K "Dal KDb?J m Kbn K^3j •pmn*l ; and continues in the following verse : b5*l | K^b/J nib"1 "f 1233 •tin "PM KnaOl | K/^2 ttb'iD *1 W. This is certainly not accidental; and the conclusion is, that the "standard" line of three beats, which appears everywhere in the Old Testament, is not a peculiar property of the Hebrew language or of the Hebrew- Jewish sacred literature; but was the common poetic form, for compositions of every class, in Syria and Palestine, whether they were written in Aramaic or in Hebrew. This same conclusion had already been rendered probable by some passages in the Aramaic part of Daniel, to be sure.
In all likelihood, the Story of the Three Youths was popular in its. own land while it still existed as a separate work. After it became a part of a religious history, it found its way into other circles — and at the same time its original character and its true excellencies were lost to sight. The plainest example of its influ ence on a subsequent writing is found in the book of Esther. The literary relationship existing between the two has often been observed, but the conclusion is generally drawn, that I Esdras, being an "apocryphal book," must have been the borrower. Cornill, Einleitung', p. 261, says that I Esdr. 3: 1, 2 is a palpable
13 Of course the following specimens, chosen almost at random, are merely intended to give a general idea of the form of the original. Other words than those chosen might often have been used.
48 EZRA STUDIES
imitation ("eine handgreifliche Nachbildung") of Esth. 1:1—3. But these words must have been written without due considera tion, for all the indications point just the other way. Imitation there certainly is. The book of Esther opens with the very same scene with which the Story of the Youths begins ; a royal feast in the city of Susa, given to all the officers of the " hundred and twenty-seven provinces, from India to Ethiopia." Then the feast is described; but what had been told in our Story simply and soberly is here so exaggerated as to be merely grotesque. The festival in I Esdras is an affair of a single day; in Esther, the principal entertainment lasts one hundred and eighty days. Darius had feasted certain classes of his retainers, which are named; but "King Ahasuerus" makes a banquet for every human being in Susa, and the banquet lasts seven days. It is certainly not diffi cult to see on which side the borrowing lies.
The question of the literary relationship between I Esdras and Daniel is less easily settled. There is probably dependence, and the borrower was in that case certainly Daniel. In Dan. 6:2 we have the "hundred and twenty-seven14 provinces" of Darius' kingdom; and in the following verse the "three presidents," apparently the same who are mentioned in I Esdr. 3:9 as holding the highest position of authority under the king. The coincident use of these two items is not likely to be a mere accident;15 the natural inference is that there was literary dependence (so also Marquart, op. tit., p. 68). Internal evidence then makes it certain that the borrowing, if borrowing there was, was by Daniel. The Darius of Dan. 6: Iff., 29, is "Darius the Mede" who was put before Cyrus; from him, the Story of the Youths was as remote as possible. On the other hand, if we suppose that the author of Dan. 6 intended his king to be the same as the one who is mentioned in I Esdr. 3, we shall be driven to the conclusion that the borrowing took place before the Story of the Youths became incorporated in the Chronicler's history; for in our I Esdras, the king who befriended Zerubbabel came not only after Cyrus, but also after Xerxes and Artaxerxes I. This conclusion makes no difficulty for those who believe — as I myself have long felt certain — that the first six chapters of Daniel are
i*So the old Greek version, which here, as often elsewhere, has preserved the original reading.
15Lagarde, as is well known, expressed the opinion (Mittheilungen, IV, p. 358) that the Story of the Three Youths originally stood in the book of Daniel, following Dan. 6:1. It is not surprising that he should have made few converts to this view.
THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 49
older than the rest of the book, and it seems to me to be probable, for every reason.16 It is not a necessary conclusion, however, for the author of Dan. 6:1 f. may have intended to represent his Darius as instituting customs which continued down to the time of the Persian king Darius Nothus.
After the Story became a part of the history of the Jews, interest was centered more on the three youths themselves than on the wise sayings which they uttered. As a matter of course, all three of them were soon believed to have been Jews. Accord ing to the Neapolitan Synopsis, for example (Lagarde, Septua- ginta-Studien, II, p. 84), the two comrades of Zerubbabel on this occasion were Jeshua and Ezra.17 That which led to the preserva tion of the Greek Esdras fragment was, of course, not any regard for the true text (those who cared for the text would have been far more likely to destroy the fragment), or for the true course of the history ; but solely the personal interest in Zerubbabel and the picturesque story of his life given in this document. For an illustration of the early Christian interest in this hero, see the Lucca old Latin codex (Lagarde, Septuaginta-Studien. II, p. 19, 3ff.).
In the translation which here follows, the Story of the Three Youths has been separated from the interpolator's additions, and stands by itself once more, for the first time since 200 B. c. It is also treated for the first time as a translation from an Aramaic original, with an attempt to restore, as far as possible, the meaning of the primitive text. I do not believe that any one, reading the composition as it stands here, will deny to it a very high place in the literature of the ancient Semitic world. In translating the Story and, later on, the additions of the interpolator, I have followed Swete's text, not only because it is the most convenient, but also because it represents that recension of whose readings we are surest here. I have departed from it only in 4:29, for reasons already given. In a preceding chapter (above, pp. 23 ff.) I introduced some evidence showing that our Greek is a rendering of an Aramaic text; many more proofs of the same nature will be found in the notes appended to my translation.
16 The Story was interpolated in the book of Ezra somewhere near the beginning of the second century B. c., in all probability. If the old Greek translation of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. really lay before Eupolemus, in the middle of that century (see Schttrer, Geschichte des jiid. Volkes*, III, 311, 352 f.), there can be little doubt that it was the same translation from which our "I Esdras" fragment was derived.
17 Ezra and Zerubbabel not infrequently appear together in this way. In the Chronicle of John of Nikiu (ed. Zoten' ;rg, pp. 169, 391) the two are identified.
50 EZRA STUDIES
II. TRANSLATION
(IEsdras3:l— 4:42)
31 King Darius made a great feast for all his retainers ; namely ,a all the members of his household, all the nobles of Media and Persia, 2and all the satraps, captains, and governors under his rule, from India to Ethiopia, in the hundred and twenty-seven provinces. 3 And they ate and drank, and when they were sated they went away. Darius the king also retired to his bed-chamber and slept.
4 Then stood on the watch b the three young guardsmen who protected the person of the king. And they said to one another: 5 Let each one of us name a thing which is mightiest;0 and to him whose sentence shall seem wisest, Darius the king shall give great gifts and magnificent honors,d 6 namely,6 permission to be clothed in purple, to drink from gold and to sleep upon gold, (to ride in) a chariot with a golden bridle, and (to wear) a tiara of fine linen, and a chain about his neck ; 7 and he shall sit next to Darius because of his wisdom, and shall be called Darius' kinsman. 8 So they wrote each his own sentence; and having sealed the writing they put it under the pillow of Darius the king, saying, 9 When the king awakes, the writing shall be given f to him; and whose sentence is adjudged by the king and the three lords of Persia to be the wisest, to him shall be awarded the victory, as prescribed. 10 The first wrote, Wine is mightiest. n The second
aThe 1 (= KO.L 2°) is either explicative (cf. the note on vs. 6) or secondary. It is sufficiently obvious, even without the comparison of Esther 1:3, that Trdfftv rots UTT' afrr6v (= probably TVHl^ b^b) does not mean all the inhabitants of the Persian realm. The enumeration which follows proceeds from the highest to the lowest of those who were invited. Whether or not the trans lator here used olKoyev^s as a synonym of avyyev^s, its Aramaic original (very likely PirPS ^31) certainly meant more than "house-servaw/s" !
bSee the suggestion for emendation of the Aramaic text which was made in a previous chapter (above, p. 24). Instead of /cat e|u7ri/os tytvero. T6re ol rpeis veavivKoi .... elirav Kre., a Greek version giving the original mean ing would have read in some such way as this: Kai ypyyopovvres fjo-av T&TC ol TpeTs veavtffKoi . . . . ical el-rav /ere. The unusual position of the word 'j'nfcO (= r6re) was probably the cause of the misunderstanding (or corruption) of the Aramaic text.
cOr, "Let each one of us frame a sentence, (declaring) what thing is mightiest." In any case, our Greek is a mistranslation; see above, p. 24.
dThe original probably had here a derivative of H^D .
e Apparently another explicative 1 . Cf. the note on vs. 1.
f Adffovffiv o.irr$ : the favorite idiom in Aramaic, employing the indefinite third person plural in the place of a passive.
THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 51
wrote, The king is mightiest. 12The third wrote, Women are mightiest; but Truth is victor over all things.
13 So when the king awoke, they took the writing and gave it to him, and he read it. u And he sent and summoned all the nobles of Persia and Media, and the satraps, captains, governors, and magistrates ;a and when they had seated themselves13 in the hall of audience the writing was read before them. 15 And they said,c Call the youths, and they shall expound their sentences. So they were summoned and came in. 16 And they said to them, Discourse to us concerning the things which you have written.
Then the first, who had declared the power of wine, proceeded d to speak as follows: " Sirs, how mighty a thing is wine! It seduces the wit of all who drink it; 18It makes of one mind the king and the orphan, the slave and the freeman, the poor and the rich. 19 It turns every mood into gaiety and glee ; of distress, or of debt, there is no recollection. 20 It makes all hearts feel rich ; there is no remembrance of king or satrap ; the discourse is all in talents. 21 Those who have drunk forget friend and brother, and erelong swords are drawn ; 22 then, when they wake from the wine, they remember not what they have done. 23Sirs, is note the wine mightiest, since it can thus compel? When he had thus spoken, he ceased.
41 Then the second youth, who had declared the power of the king, spokef as follows. 2Sirs, are not men mighty, since they rule the land and the sea, and all that is in them ? 3 But the king is mightier still, for he is their lord and master; in all that he commands them they obey him. 4If he orders2 them to war with
a Compare the enumeration of officers in Dan. 3:2, where the first four titles, in the old Greek translation, are the same and in the same order as here.
b Read tKddi<rav, plural, with the Latin, Syriac, Ethiopia, and the following context.
cRead elirav, plural, with the Syriac and vs. 16.
dThe use of Tjp^aro in this narrative (also 4:1, 13; cf. further 4:44, where rfpfcro must be read in place of the first Tjtfgaro) suggests the well-known Aramaic usage, in which a conventional and often almost meaningless "HID is prefixed to the narrating verb. See Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 29; J. H. Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek (1906), I, 15.
e Compare the rhetorical question introduced by X5J1 in Dan. 4:27, where Theodotion's translation has oi>x, as here.
'Concerning ffpgaro, see the note on 3:16. for the Aramaic "YQX, "command."
52 EZRA STUDIES
one another, they do it. If he sends them out against the enemy, they go, and overcome mountains, walls, and towers. 5 They slay, and are slain, but the king's command they transgress not. If they conquer, they bring all the booty to him ; and when they make raids for plunder, whatever they takea is his. 6They also, in turn, who serve not as soldiers, who go not to war, but cultivate the soil; as often as they sow, of the harvest they carry to the king; yea, each constrains his fellow to bring tribute to the king. (7) And yet he is one man only.b 7 If he orders to slay, they slay ; if to spare, they spare; if to smite, they smite. 8If he orders to lay waste, they lay waste ; if to build, they build. 9 If he orders to cut down, they cut down; if to plant, they plant.0 10A11 his people and his armies obey him. He, furthermore, reclines; he eats and drinks, and then sleeps ; " but they keep watch round about him ; no one may depart to do his own work, nor may any oppose his will. 12 Sirs, how shall not the king be mightiest, since he is thus obeyed? And he ceased.
13 Then the third, who had spoken of women, and of truth (this was Zembbabeld) took upe the word. u Sirs, is not the king
a It is quite possible that #XXa correctly represents the original Aramaic text; but if this is so, the writer at least expressed himself awkwardly. As Fritzsche observes, the ancient versions and copyists, as well as modern trans lators, have been troubled by this clause. It may be that the original con tained a form derived from the root intf "take, seize," instead of one from in», "other."
bThis clause, /ecu avrbs efs jjibvos forty, is better joined to the preceding than to the following verse. So far as the Greek is concerned, it might be connected either way, though the reading of the Lagarde text seems to join it to the preceding. Our present verse-division here is due to the influence of the Latin translation; the other versions are non-committal. Such translations as that of Guthe, "Er allein ist einzig ! " (following Fritzsche) miss the true meaning. The Aramaic could not have expressed such an idea in these words. The original was unquestionably: in 113 fcttni . Compare Josh. 22:20, &OfV1 intf EPtf , where the Greek renders by tcai O&TOS eh (j.6vos. With the phrase as used here cf. Judith 1:11, where it is said that the rebellious nations did not fear Nebuchadnezzar, d\V ty tvavriov atr&v ws dvrjp efs.
c These sentences, vss. 7-9, have a decidedly Aramaic sound. This persis tent omission of conjunctions and conditional particles, after the opening clause, would be less likely in Hebrew.
d These words were not in the original story, which made no mention of the Jews. The gloss was added either by the one who interpolated the story in the Chronicler's history, or by a still earlier hand.
eSee the note on 3:16.
THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 53
great; and are not the sons of men mighty ;a and the wine, is it not powerful? Who now is it that rules all these, that governs them, is it not woman? 15 Of woman the king was born; and all the people who rule the sea and the land (16) were born of women. b 16 They nourished the men who planted the vineyards whence the wine comes.c 1? It is they who give grace to maiikind,d and with out them men could not live. 18 If men have gathered gold and silver, and aught else precious, and see a woman comely in form and feature,6 19 leaving all this they gape at her, and with open mouth they gaze upon her; yea, all choose her above gold and silver and everything precious. 20 A man forsakes his own father, who brought him up, and his native land, and joins himself to his wife ; 21 to her he abandons himself/ and remembers not father, nor mother, nor country. 22 Hence also you may knowg that women rule you : do you not labor and toil, and then bring all and give it to women? 23A man takes hish sword, and goes forth to
a Uo\\oL is an obvious mistranslation of "pimn . Cf. vss. 2 and 15; the meaning "mighty" is absolutely necessary.
b On the relation of the Greek translation to the Aramaic text of these clauses, see above, p. 24. The original was: Ktt2P bD"l fcCDbtt TVpl "plED
mn pra »2n»m s^n tsbip *n .
cln the Syriac (Hexaplar) version, instead of joci Ij^-* .oJoi _Lo, which is attested by all the MSS, the reading should be jooi ! j^~ ^oJoi ^-iao? .
dln all probability, the original Aramaic was something like 1*1227 "pDJTl KlE'tfb STin • The object of the verb was a word which meant "adornment," and could be understood in either one of two ways; see also my note above, p. 24. Our Greek gives us two translations: /cat aCrai iroiov<riv rds (TToXdj r&v avdp<Ji)ir<i)v side by side with fcal aCrat Troiov<rtv 86£ai> rots avBp&irois. (The Ij text tries to escape this awkwardness by transposing the o-roXds clause into vs. 16, where it is obviously out of place.) For the likelihood of such an ambiguity, cf. such passages as Ps. 29:2, and I Mace. 14:9, tvedfoavro S6£as ical 0-ToXdj TroX^/Aou (where in the original Hebrew feOX = n-oX^uou was a copyist's mistake for "OX).
'How is it possible to suppose that a Greek author composing these lines would have perpetrated such an unnatural and unnecessary barbarism as Ka\7}v T£ ftdei xal T£ xdXXei ? But we expect that sort of thing from a trans lator.
fThe Greek, ical /xerd TT)S yvifaiK&s d^l^ffi rrjv ^vxfy, plainly represents the Aramaic mpD3 pHTp HnripX rflbl , lit., et apud mulierem suam se relinquit, which the translator misunderstood.
use of the Greek Set suggests Aramaic tfl or p"TT or "p^S, but not any Hebrew idiom.
h In the Syriac, instead of 01,-kj-o (so all the MSS) we must read
54 EZRA STUDIES
raid, and to rob and steal; he sails over seas and rivers,a 2* faces the lion, and makes his way through the darkness. Then, when he has stolen, plundered, and robbed, he brings all to his love. 25A man loves his wife far moreb than father or mother: 26 for women, many have parted from their wits; for them they have been made slaves ; 2T yea, many have been ruined, have fallen, and perished,0 for woman's sake. 28 And now, will you not believe me? Is not the king great in his power? Do not all countries fear to touch him? 29Yet I sawd the king's concubine, Apama,e the daughter of Artabazos son of Thamasios, sitting at the king's right hand; 30I saw her snatch the crown from his head, and place it upon her own; with her left hand she slapped the king. 31 In spite of all this/ the king gazed upon her with open mouth. As oft as she smiled upon him, he laughed; if she became vexed, he wheedled, that he might be restored to favor. 32Sirs, must not the women be mighty, seeing they do such things as these ?
33 Then the king and the nobles looked at one another.5 There upon he went onh to speak of truth. 34Sirs, are not women
aEfc TTJV 6d\a<r<rav Tr\eiv is not Greek; the ets merely reproduces an Aramaic 2. If C11I2 was the verb used, we know from the Syriac that it was regularly construed with this preposition.
b The Greek irXeTov /uSXXoj/ suggests at once the Aramaic "^HP fc^il?;
the Hebrew has no idiom which would fit exactly here.
c Greek ^/xdproo-av, but we may be certain that this singularly feeble anti climax did not exist in the original. The Syriac does not render by ^L** , but
chooses a verb (fs) which may mean either "err" or "be ruined;" and doubtless some such word stood in the Aramaic.
dGuthe has: Und doch schauten sie (!) ihn.
eOn this name, and the other names in the verse, see above. The Latin of the Lucca codex (Lagarde, Septuaginta-Studien, II, 17), mentioned above, has here: et Debannapenem [Lag. edits, Debanna pemen] filia Bezzachi . . . . concubina regis sedentem vidi circa regem. Lagarde did not attempt to explain this, but only observed that the latter part of this singular word ("des sonderbaren Worts") contained the name ' Airri/j.r)v. The rest is simply a mutilated [vi]debam, which rendered the Greek e0e6povt>. This Lucca text is derived from a close translation of the Syrian Greek recension.
fThe Greek KO.I irpbs Totfrots, "moreover," is probably a mistranslation of
HDI njn.
* There is no need to attempt, as Fritzsche and others have done, to explain the singular " idiom " efiXeirov els rbv trepov. Even Codex B may suffer from scribal errors, and in this case the original was unquestionably epXeirov ef$ els rbv erepov — this being the preposition with which the verb in this sense is most commonly construed. One eis fell out by accident.
hSee the note on 3:16.
THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 55
mighty ? Great is the earth, and lofty the sky, and swift the sun in his course, for he rounds the circuit of the heavens, and returns again to his place in a single day. 35 Is not he great who does this? Buta truth is greatest and mightiest of all.b 36A11 the earth invokes truth, and the heavens praise her; and all created
things0 totter and tremble d and with her6 is no error f at
all. 3? Perverse is the wine, perverse is the king, perverse are women; perverse are all the children of men, and all their works, all such alike, ifg truth abide not in them; and in their perversity they shall perish. 3S But truth endures, and grows ever stronger ; yea, lives and prevails for ever and ever. 39With her ish no
a Could any Greek writer, not a translator, have been content to use Kat for the conjunction both here and at the beginning of vs. 38?
bThe addition of irapd to the comparative degree of the adjective prob ably translates fa W. Of the Syriac.
c "Epya probably translating XnTOy.
dlt seems probable that something is missing here, perhaps only a few words. What we have in our present text is not sufficient to give the third c 1 a u s e of the verse a satisfactory connection with its surroundings, nor to pre pare the way for the last clause. We might imagine some such progress of the thought as this: "And all created things totter and tremble [before her, for she alone is perfect,] and with her is no error at all." It must be remem bered that all our manuscripts and versions are derived from a single faulty Greek codex, which in turn represented a translation made from a more or less imperfect Aramaic text.
eThe only well attested reading is juer' aurou, " with him." Thus both the Lagarde text and the Egyptian text (represented by the codices A, B, and their fellows). The reason for the choice of the masculine pronoun was of course the desire to find, or to introduce, the mention of God in this most important passage, especially after the seeming mention of him in the words $s ravra iroiei, in the preceding verse; see further the note on vs. 40. In all probability, Josephus had before him the reading /ACT' avrov; at all events, he adopts the interpretation which it embodies. Since the Greek translation was made after this story had become a part of the Chronicler's history, it is most likely that the translator himself chose the masculine pronoun here. But in the original, the suffix pronoun certainly referred to "Truth."' The necessity of this is so obvious that some Greek codices and the Latin version have corrected accordingly.
f It is a pity that we do not know what Aramaic words are rendered by d\'/i0€ia and dSix/a, in these verses. Supposing the former to have been Xt2tiJ1p, the latter would have been some such word as XJI^ (literally "crookedness").
£ According to the conjecture already made; above, p. 25.
hKai OVK e<rri irap' avrrj Xa/j-ftdveiv KT£. is an unusual way of saying in Greek "She does not accept," etc. The original was "pSS IDttb niYlb ^nX &6l. How natural this form of words is in Aramaic may be seen from Deut. 10: 17, where the Hebrew has simply D^DD Xll)*1 &O, while the Targum replaces this by the same idiom which we have here.
56 EZRA STUDIES
respect of persons, nor seeking of profit,a but she executes judg ment onb all the evil and wicked. All approve her acts, (40) and in her judgment there is no injustice.0 40 And hersd is the might, and the kingdom, and the power, and the majesty for ever and ever.6 Blessed of God isf truth! "And he ceased speaking.2 Then all the people cried out, saying, Great is truth, and mightiest of all! 4" Then the king said to him : Ask what thou wilt, above what was prescribed, and we will give it thee, since thou art proved wisest; and thou shalt sit beside me, and be called my kinsman.
in. THE INTERPOLATOR'S ADDITIONS
It is most likely that the story in its original form ended at this point (the end of verse 42) and in just this way. It is true that the king is made to say: "Ask what thou wilt, above what was prescribed, and we will give it thee;" but it is quite prob able that this was merely a picturesque oriental flourish, and that the hearers or readers were left to imagine for themselves what,
aAid0opa here in the post-classical sense "rewards" or "gifts;" the mean ing being that Truth, as judge, neither regards persons nor takes bribes. Cf. II Chron. 19:7, OVK eortf //.era Kvplov deov TJ/J-WV ddtKia ovde 6av/j,d(rai irpbawirov ovde Xa/3etV 5wpa, a parallel which is interesting in view of the fact that the two passages are presumably quite independent of each other.
bThe Greek dirb translating I'D . On the Aramaic idiom here, found also Ezra 7:26, see above, p. 25.
cOn the reading of the Hexaplar Syriac in this clause, see above, p. 5.
d We must of course read either aurrjs or avry. The former (which is per haps more likely to have been the original, if the Aramaic was nb*H) is the reading of the Lagarde text ; the latter that of the Egyptian recension.
eThis sentence may well have been the origin of the doxology which has been appended to the Lord's Prayer in Matt. 6: 13.
fThe reading of the Greek, evXoy-rjrbs 6 debs rys d\r)6elas, "blessed is the God of truth," is manifestly unsuitable. If the speaker had intended to advance from the praise of truth to that of God, he would have needed to begin sooner. The least that we could require of him would be that he should indicate the relation of God to truth. Verse 41, moreover, ignores any ascrip tion of praise to God in the closing words of the discourse. Evidently, our present reading is due to the same interpretation or redaction which found or introduced the mention of the deity in vss. 35 and 36. The original was pre sumably tf "JtC^p tfnbtf *!!Op , " Blessed of God is truth," the construct state being employed in the manner familiar from the Old Testament. In all probability, the Greek translator is the one who should be held responsible for the misinterpretation both here and in vs. 36; see the note there. It is of course possible that the whole clause is a later addition.
gThe Greek (!) phrase, ical eo-iuinjcre rov XaXetV, renders the Aramaic ; cf . for example the Targum of Job 32 : 1.
THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 57
if anything, it was that the young soldier requested. Certain it is, at all events, that verse 42 as a whole was not written by the interpolator, for he would not have ended it in this way; the last clause only serves to interrupt his undertaking. If we sup pose that the tale originally had another conclusion, which he has replaced by his own, it is not of the least use to try to conjecture what that conclusion was.
As has already been remarked, it was probably the interpolator himself who inserted the gloss, "this was Zerubbabel," in 4:13; and he now proceeds, with manifest skill, to effect the transition to the Chronicler's narrative of the returning Jews and the help given them by Cyrus. Only four verses (43—47 a) are needed at this point, namely the following:
43 Then he said to the king : Remember the vow which thou didst make, to build Jerusalem in the day when thou shouldst receive thy kingdom™ ^and to send back all the vessels which were taken from Jerusalem, which Cyrus when he first19 conquered Babylon brought away,™ but vowed 21 to return them thither ; 45 and thou didst promise to build the temple ivhich the Edomites burned™ when Judea was laid waste by the Chaldeans. 46 And now, this is the thing ivhich I ask, my lord the king, and for which I make request of thee, since such munifi cence is thine ; 23 / ask that thou perform the vow which thou didst vow to the King of Heaven^ with thine own lips to perform. 4T Then Darius the king arose, and kissed him; and wrote for him letters, etc.
is From the order of the words in the Greek, coupled with our knowledge of the closeness of this rendering, it is evident that the connection of clauses is that which I have given in the translation: Darius had vowed to do these things when he should come to the throne. According to the interpolator, this feast at the Persian capital took place at or very near the beginning of Darius' reign. This is also made necessary by the sequel: the altar was built by the returned exiles "in the seventh month" (of the first year of Darius), I Esdr. 5:46; the foundation of the temple was first laid "in the second year in the second month," 5:55; and the interrupted work of building was renewed before the end of this same year, thanks to the efforts of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, 6 : 1. All this chronology is flatly contradicted by 5 : 6, to be sure ; see below, pp. 60 f.
19 We must read ript-aTo in place of the first TJU£O.TO ; cf. the note on 3:16. I see that Gaab (cited in Fritzsche) has anticipated me in this conjecture.
20 The Greek has exwpurej/, "set apart," which might do here, but would not do in vs. 57, where it is used in a similar context. The reading e£exo>p»j(rev, found in codex A, and preferred by Fritzsche, is only a correction, and a poor one at that, for the verb e/cxwpe'io is ordinarily intransitive. The interpolator's theory of the temple vessels was this: When Cyrus took Babylon, he carried away some of these vessels to Susa, with the other plunder; the rest of them, which were still in Babylon, he sent to Jerusalem by Sheshbazzar, promising to send the remainder (those in Susa) at some later time. See also vs. 57 and the note there. In both verses, 44 and 57, the original had a verb which meant to " bring forth " or "carry away " (here probably pSSH) ; and this was misunderstood by the translator.
21 The voluit of the Latin version here must originally have been vovit.
22 Interesting as embodying the popular tradition in Palestine in the third century B. c.
23 On the Aramaic text of this clause, see above, p. 29, note.
2*An unusual and interesting title; also vs. 58, Dan. 4:34 (cf. 5:23).
58 EZRA STUDIES
At this point, the Chronicler's Hebrew narrative was reached. The verse began with the words: "And Cyrus the king wrote for him (i. e., Sheshbazzar) letters," etc. This the interpolator altered skilfully, as usual. Up to this point the Aramaic language had been used (see above, pp. 29 f.) ; now Hebrew took its place. The transition, it should be observed, was a particularly easy one, inasmuch as the vocabulary of this verse and of the verses immediately following is almost identically the same in the two languages. The Jewish reader of that day would not have been disturbed by the change, and, indeed, might not have noticed it at all until several verses of the Hebrew had been read.
By this first editorial insertion, the interpolator gave the Story of the Youths its connection with Jewish history. Darius the king is asked by the victorious youth to fulfil his promises, (1) to build Jerusalem; (2) to send to Jerusalem the temple vessels which Cyrus had carried from Babylon to Susa, but had promised to restore to the Jews; (3) to build the temple in Jerusalem. It is noteworthy, and another striking illustration of the self-restraint of the interpolator, that in these verses not a word is said regarding the expedition of Zerubbabel and his friends to Jerusalem! This youth was one of the three bodyguardsmen of the king; he does not even ask for leave of absence, however, but takes himself off (vs. 61) as a matter of course. The company of Jews which now sets out from Babylonia is a very large one; but the youth does not request, nor suggest, that they be allowed to go, nor is any formal permission given. The way in which it is simply taken for granted, in vs. 47, that "he" and "those with him" are going up to people Jerusalem, is one of the most satisfactory bits of incidental evidence that the juncture of the patch with the main narrative — the continuation of Ezra 1 : 1-11 — comes at just this point. Verses 47 ff. cannot possibly be regarded as the sequel of 43-46.
A second patch was necessary after verse 56, at the point where the prescriptions of the king for the returning exiles came to an end. First of all, the interpolator had need to introduce mention of his second instalment of temple vessels, in accordance with verse 44. Moreover, the need of some transition from the palace in Susa to the Jews in Babylonia, mentioned in the next verse of the Chronicler, was sufficiently obvious. The inter-
THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 59
polator fills these needs easily, as usual. He also improves the opportunity, in narrating the exit of the youth from the palace, to introduce a little of the religious element which is so noticeably lacking in the preceding tale. The five verses (originally Hebrew) which constitute this patch read as follows:
57 And he sent forth all the vessels which Cyrus had brought^ from Babylon ; and all which Cyrus had ordered to be made, he himself com manded to make™ and send to Jerusalem.
58 And when the youth went forth, lifting up his face to heaven toward Jerusalem?1 he blessed the King of Heaven ?* saying : 59 From thee is victory, and from thee wisdom;29 thine is the glory, and I am thy servant. 60 Blessed art thou, who hast given me wisdom ; and to thee I give thanks, O Lord of our fathers. 61 So he took the letters and went forth,30 and came to Babylon and told all his brethren. 62And they blessed the God of their fathers, etc.
With verse 62 the Chronicler's narrative is resumed; and after this point the work of the interpolator's hand is seen only in 5 : 2, where the name "Cyrus" is changed to "Darius," and in 5:6, where both this change of name and also other alterations have been made (see below).
This latter verse, 5:6, is a good illustration of the difficulties with which the interpolator was confronted in his attempt to make the best of an impossible task. In some particulars, to be sure, his expanded version of the history might have seemed even more plausible than that of the Chronicler (it has been preferred in recent times, for instance, by so acute a scholar as Sir Henry Howorth) .31 Thus, in the Chronicler's narrative the career of Zerubbabel is extended over more than a hundred years, from the beginning of the reign of Cyrus down to the first years of the reign of Darius II Nothus.32 It is, of course, unfair to impose our chronology upon the Chronicler, who not only made the reign of Darius I Hystaspis precede that of Cyrus, but also may have thought the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I shorter than we
25 The Greek has exuipioei', but the Hebrew original probably had fcS^iri; see the note on verse 44.
26 The Hebrew text here was very likely corrupt.
27 So also in the contemporaneous writings Dan. 6 : 11 ; Tobit 3 : 11 f . 2** See the note on verse 46.
29 If the author of the Story of the Youths were writing this verse, we should expect him at least to add : " and with thee is truth!"
3° Namely, from Susa. I do not know that any commentator has ever tried to explain the words, "and came to Babylon," in this verse.
31 See also Marquart, 1 .ndamente, pp. 42, 65. '^ See above, p. 38.
60 EZRA STUDIES
know them to have been; but even so, his life of Zerubbabel is too long, and the scenes in it are much too far apart.33 But in the interpolated edition of the history, the dramatic unity is as perfect as any one could wish. Zerubbabel, the young Hebrew, is one of the most trusted attendants of the Persian king. Sent by him to Jerusalem with a large company, as a reward for his wise discourse, he restores the Jewish community ; builds the altar of burnt-offerings ; lays the foundation of the temple ; repulses the wicked Samaritans and their allies; is stopped by them in his work, but begins it again almost immediately, before the end of the same "second year;" secures an edict of the king in his favor; and finishes the work in triumph. And all this happens within the space of six years! It is no wonder that this revised version of the history became so popular as to supplant completely the older version. But the interpolator's triumph was a very preca rious one, for his improved story of Zerubbabel contained such contradictions as could never stand the test of a critical examina tion. Either he was not fully aware of these contradictions (interpolators very often fail to see all the consequences of their work), or else he shared the current dislike of erasing the written word, and was willing to rest his fate on popular approval and elastic exegesis. At all events, he allowed such telltale verses as I Esdr. 5:536 ( = Ezra 3:7), 68 ( = Ezra 4: 3), 70 (=Ezra4:5), and the date in I Esdr. 5 : 6, to remain in their places. In I Esdr. 5 :70, for example, after the narrative which tells how Zerubbabel and his companions, in the second year of their return to Jeru salem (verse 54), in the reign of Darius, began to build the temple, but were stopped by their enemies, we read that these enemies "hindered the completion of the building during all the lifetime of king Cyrus, so that the building was stopped until the reign of king Darius!34 Here the only refuge of the interpolator would be in the very lame explanation that the verse was merely a retro spect, its meaning being that these enemies were able to stop the work of building from the time when the foundation was laid by Sheshbazzar down to the time of Darius. Even more trouble some is the verse I Esdr. 5:6, to which allusion has been made.
33 This was the Chronicler's own fault, to be sure, and the necessary result of his choos ing to make Jeshua and Zerubbabel the leaders of his great "return" under king Cyrus. They were already known, from the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, to have flourished under a " Darius," who, from the chronology current among the Jews in the last three cen turies B. c., could have been only Darius Nothus.
3* The text appears to be slightly corrupt here; cf. the Hebrew, and also 6:1 ( = Ezra 5:1).
THE STOKY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 61
This originally contained the Chronicler's date of the return from the exile: "in the second year of the reign of Cyrus king of Persia, in the month Nisan, on the first day of the month." The interpolator gave this a connection with the mention of Zerubba- bel, just preceding, and made out of it: "who spoke wise words before Darius king of Persia, in the second year of his reign, in the month Nisan, on the first day of the month." But even with this alteration, the date is absolutely impossible in the interpo lated history. There is no process, however violent, by which it can be brought into agreement with the dates which follow, in 5:46, 55, 6:1. The interpolator may have seen this difficulty and defied it, but it is more likely that it escaped his notice. He was probably not especially interested in chronology, and found it easy to overlook such details as these.
In spite of its glaring contradictions, the interpolated edition of the history became the popular one, thanks to the discourses of the three youths and to the improved story of Zerubbabel, and in a short time had completely supplanted the original form ; so com pletely, in fact, that not a trace of the uninterpolated work has come down to us, whether in manuscript or version, in Jewish or Christian tradition.35
35 As was shown above, pp. 3 f., our canonical Ezra is merely a mutilated recension of the interpolated book. This will be further demonstrated in the sequel.
IV
THE APPARATUS FOR THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH
1 did not at first intend to devote a separate chapter to this subject, as I did not wish to take the time and space which would be necessary. But in the process of editing and annotating the portions of the text which are to follow, it became evident that some extended justification of my critical procedure would be indispensable. The original plan of setting forth the most neces sary facts in an introductory page or two, to be supplemented by subsequent footnotes, might have left room for the suspicion of arbitrary or hasty methods. Other considerations, moreover, seem to make it especially desirable that I should give here some clear account, however brief and imperfect, of those parts of the apparatus regarding which I feel able to speak with confidence. The chief of these considerations are the following: (1) No critical use has ever been made of the versions of these books, nor even of any one Greek version or recension.1 (2) No attempt has been made to determine or state the principles of such critical use. (3) The conclusions which I have already reached and stated2 in regard to some of the versions and recensions of the Ezra history are so revolutionary as to need all the added corroboration of this nature that can be given them.
(4) Many other facts, hitherto unobserved, regarding manu scripts and versions and their characteristics and mutual relations
1 1 do not wish to seem to deal unfairly with those recent publications in which some attempt has been made to emend the massoretir, text of the one or the other of these books : Kittel's Books of Chronicles, 1895 ; Guthe-Batten's Ezra and Nehemiah, 1901 ; these being the reconstructed Hebrew-Aramaic text of the Polychrome Bible ; also Benzinger's Biicher der Chronik, 1901; Kittel's Biicher der Chronik, 1902; Siegfried's Esra, Nehemia und Esther, 1901; Bertholet's Esra und Nehemia, 1902; and Marti's edition of the Aramaic portions of Ezra in his Grammatik der biblisch-aramdischen Sprache, 1896. But in the following pages sufficient evidence will be given to justify fully the assertion that no one of these attempts, so far as its treatment of text and versions is concerned, deserves to be called "critical." In all of these cases the procedure is without any fixed principles, or any preliminary study of either text or versions with a view to ascertaining their character. Moreover, no one.of these scholars shows any approach to thoroughness in his employment of the materials which he actually attempts to use. If in any instance the criticism of the text went so far as to include the careful taking of the testimony of even codex B (ordinarily called "the Septuagint") throughout the whole extent of the book or passage treated, the evidence of this fact at least does not appear, while numerous indications seem to show the contrary.
2 Especially in chap, ii, passim; also in my Composition of Ezra-Neh.
62
TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 63
are so important as to deserve some treatment here, at least in outline. In particular, the proof of the very momentous fact that Theodotion was the author of our "canonical" Greek version of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. ought at last to be rendered.3
I. NATURE OF THE TEXT-CRITICAL PROBLEM
In our Hebrew-Aramaic tradition of the Chronicler's history, we have a text which is neither one of the well-preserved of those which constitute the Old Testament, nor yet among the very worst. The many lists of names have been carelessly handled, and are in correspondingly bad condition. The narrative portions read smoothly on the whole — smoothly, that is, when their author ship is taken into account — but nevertheless give plain evidence of being corrupt in many places. The trouble lies not merely in single words and phrases, but also in the apparent misplacement of a few long passages, one of which consists of several chapters. There is ground for the suspicion, moreover, that one or more passages of importance have been lost from our massoretic recen sion. There is good evidence of a gap after Ezra 1:11; something is plainly missing between 6:5 and 6:6; while the presence of the Story of the Youths in I Esdras suggests its own important problems.
When we come to the testimony of the Greek versions, we are confronted with two somewhat widely differing forms of the history. One of them agrees quite closely with MT, and has the same extent and arrangement; the other — obviously a mere fragment — begins near the end of Chronicles and extends not quite through the story of Ezra. During the part of the history covered by the 'two in common, the difference between them lies in (1) the words and phrases of the narrative, the divergence here (i. e., in the Greek) being very great; (2) the position of extended passages; (3) material of very considerable amount found in the one recension but not in the other. We have in the Greek, more over, clear testimony to two differing Semitic texts, the differ-
3 The following discussion of the critical apparatus is only fragmentary, leaving a good many highly important matters either half treated or not touched upon at all. It contains the things in which I have happened to be especially interested, being in the main based upon collations made and facts observed by me twelve years ago, in the course of my study of the literary and historical problems of Ezra-Neh.; and the conclusions are the same, with some slight modification, as those which I then reached. But though the discussion is incomplete, I believe that it will at least lay a sure foundation for further investigation
64 EZRA STUDIES
ence being such as to suggest either a long history of trans mission along independent lines, or else an unusual amount of freedom in the handling of the texts. Of course, both of these causes might have been operative. And finally, each one of the two main forms of the narrative, the "canonical" and the "apocryphal," has come down to us in a double Greek tradi tion, the one embodied in Lagarde's edition/ and the other con tained in the most of the existing manuscripts, including the codices (A, B, JS) used in Swete's Old Testament in Greek. That is, for a portion of the Chronicler's history amounting to about thirteen chapters, we have at every point to compare four Greek texts.
Of other versions, aside from the Latin of Jerome, which was made from our Hebrew-Aramaic recension, we have to take into account three renderings of the I Esdras Greek, namely, the Syriac (the work of Paul of Telia), the Ethiopic, and the old Latin. The Syriac and Arabic versions of the canonical Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. have long been known to be late and well- nigh worthless — the Arabic absolutely so — and any attempt to make a critical use or "investigation" of them is a waste of time.
It is evident from this statement of the case that the solution of the textual problem is to be gained chiefly from an examination of the Greek recensions. We need to know the relative age — and, if possible, the actual age — of the two (or more) Greek translations; the principles according to which they were made, and the extent to which they can be trusted; their mutual rela tions; the character and quality of the Semitic text which lies behind the Greek I Esdras. And it is obviously very important (as it is everywhere else in the Old Testament) to inquire minutely into the history of the transmission of the text, finding out how and to what extent the original readings have been accidentally or deliberately changed, and distinguishing carefully the divergent lines of tradition which can be recognized. What is the real significance, for textual criticism, of the two recensions which are contained, respectively, in the editions of Swete and Lagarde? What manuscripts, or families of manuscripts, are especially note worthy ? We have one absolutely sure witness to the "Septuagint" text of Origen, in the Syro-Hexaplar version of I Esdras and a
* Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars prior graece, Gottingae, 1883.
TEXTUAL CKITICISM or CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 65
part of Nehemiah ; which of our Greek MSS stand nearest to this version? In a word: On what principles shall one proceed who wishes to study critically the Hebrew- Aramaic text of these books with the aid of this unusually complicated and unusually interest ing apparatus?
These are all questions which must be answered before any satisfactory criticism of the text of any part of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. can be undertaken. Up to the present time, the most of these questions have not even been raised, and not one of them has been answered with any approach to correctness. An unscholarly use of "the LXX" has been, more than any other one thing, the bane of modern Old Testament study; and if there is any portion of the Old Testament in which the consequences have been especially mischievous, that portion is Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. Those who have attempted to emend the Semitic text of these books by the aid of the Greek have been wont to take at random any seemingly useful "reading" of the nearest available text of the canonical Greek, or of I Esdras, choosing in each case either codex B (one of the worst possible MSS, as it happens) or "Lucian," as the need of the occasion may decide, treating all alike, and usually without making any attempt to criticize the Greek itself, or to go behind the text- reading of the edition which happens to be used. Few of those who have dealt at length with Chron., Ezra-Neh., or I Esdras, have attempted to state what conclusions, if any, they have reached in regard to text and versions. A. Klostermann's article "Ezra und Nehemia," in Hauck's Realencyclopadie* , has an account of the several versions of these two "books" which contains a good many acute observations as to details, but does not give much help in matters which are of primary importance. It is remark able, moreover, that in his whole discussion he should make no mention at all of the I Esdras version. Even a brief examination of this "apocryphon" might have shown him its fundamental significance.
An introductory word in regard to the Hexapla. I have already (above, pp. 1—4) touched upon the status of the Chron. - Ezr. books in Origen's great work, and the apparent lack of Hexa- plaric material in the MSS which are now known. As for Origen's fifth column, containing his "LXX" text, I shall show in the sequel that we have extremely good information in regard to it. Concerning the other Hexaplaric versions of these books next to
66 EZRA STUDIES
nothing has hitherto been known. Field's Hexapla has the appearance of containing some material here, but really gives hardly anything more than a collation of L with the received text. Whether the plus ofLis Hexaplar, or not, there is nothing to show. Of specific ascriptions there are surprisingly few, and these are confined to the books of Chronicles. Supposed readings of Aquila are noted in I Chron. 15:27; 25:1, 3; 29:25. Marked with the 2 of Symmachus are readings found in I Chron. 5 : 26 ; 9:1; 11:5; 15:27; 21:10; 25:1, 3; II Chron. 12:7; 19:11; 23:13; 26:5; 30:5; 32:5; 33:3; 34:22.
The absence of any readings from Theodotion, ordinarily a favorite among the secondary translators and a frequent source of variant Greek readings, is very noticeable. This fact, of itself, might well have suggested to students, long ago, the probability that Theodotion himself was the author of our standard version of Chron. -Ezr.-Neh. As I have previously remarked (above, pp. 3, 7), no sure trace of the work of Aquila or Symmachus in the book of Ezra-Nehemiah has heretofore been found. I believe that the hand of each of these two translators can be recognized in one or two places, at least, and have no doubt that a careful search would reveal other instances. In all probability, the "Aquila" and "Symmachus" columns of the Hexapla were both duly filled, in the canonical Chron. -Ezr.-Neh., the "Theodotion" column alone being vacant. In I Esdras, on the other hand, the "LXX" column alone was filled, all the others remaining unoccupied.
II. THEODOTION THE AUTHOR OF OUR "CANONICAL" GREEK VER SION OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH
I have more than once stated my own conviction that the trans lation of the Chronicler's history which now stands in our Greek Bible was the work of Theodotion.5 Others who have held and expressed this view are Grotius (1644), Whiston (1722), Pohl- mann (1859), and most recently, Sir Henry Howorth; see above, p. 16. No one of these scholars, however, excepting the first named, has been able to bring forward any direct evidence tend ing to establish the theory. The manner of the argument has been simply this: 'Our Greek version of the Chronicler's history bears the marks of a late origin, especially when compared with
5 Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, London,1903, pp. 139 f . ; above, pp. 3 f .
TEXTUAL CEITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 67
the version preserved in "First Esdras." Theodotion's version of Daniel supplanted the older translation, in the Greek Bible ; it is therefore a plausible supposition that it was Theodotion who made the later translation of the Chronicler's books.' Grotius, in his annotations to the Old Testament, pointed out an interesting bit of evidence, though in such a way as to leave some doubt as to the conclusion to be drawn from it. In a note on II Chron. 35 : 6, he says that our Greek version of Chronicles is that of Theodotion, while the two chapters (35 and 36) of II Chron. with which I Esdras begins are "from the Septuagint." He also adds: " Theodotionis autem Merpretationem in Parali- pomenis et aliis quibusdam libris recepit Graeca Ecclesia" He expresses himself cautiously in this passage, saying nothing either in regard to the remainder of I Esdras or to the canonical Ezr.- Neh., for the obvious reason that the bit of proof which he hap pens to be using here, namely the rendering of the Hebrew word HC3, would be a conspicuous failure in Ezra 6:19 ff. (=1 Esdr. 7:10 if.). "Theodotion," he has just observed, very acutely, "semper vertit c/xzo-e/c, non ut alii interpretes TraV^a. " f The pos sible value of this observation is apparent when we notice that the form (frao-e/c (or rather </>a<7e^) occurs eighteen times in the book
6 The assertion is a little too sweeping, for some of the "other translators " rendered the Hebrew word in still other ways, though Grotius may not have been aware of the fact. And indeed, from the citations given in Field's Hexapla it might seem that the translite ration </>a<rex, outside the books of Chronicles, is not the property of Theodotion. It is not only lacking in Field's list (pp. xl f.) of the Theodotion transliterations, but is even attributed to Symmachusin the three passages where its occurrence is noted by him, namely Ex. 12:11, 27; Num. 9:2. But whoever examines carefully the material collected in Field's footnotes in these three places will ascertain the following facts : (1) According to the Syr.-Hex. (by far the most trustworthy witness of those cited) the word JlDSt in Ex. 12:27, was rendered by "the LXX" fraaxa; by Aquila vTre'p/Sao-t? ; by Symmachus j-»»^2 ira<T\a. (not </>curex, as Field gives !), the difference from LXX being in the other words of the clause; and by Theodotion "like the LXX." In 12:11 the renderings are the same, except that Symmachus is said to have had nd<r\a (not "4>a<rex " !) vn-ep/oiaxTjo-is. (2) Theodoret, whom we should suppose to have had good means of information, says that Theodotion's rendering was </>a<rex. (3) According to notes found in a few codices, in Ex. 12:11 and Num. 9:2, the transliteration <£<xo-ex is attributed to Symmachus, or to "Aquila and Symmachus." Such attributions as these last, coming from unknown hands, are notoriously untrustworthy. The ancient copyists, scribblers, and annotators were as careless as our modern ones, which is saying a great deal. False ascriptions abound, and each one is likely to be copied into several other MSS. Hence most of the evidence of "double versions" of Aquila (Field, pp. xxiv ff.) or Symmachus (pp. xxxvi f.). With regard to the rendering of FIDS i the transliteration is exactly in the manner of Theodotion, and not at all in the manner of Sym machus. Indeed, the use of this barbarism by the latter translator would be altogether in explicable. The fact is probably this : Theodotion's </>a<rex was replaced at a very early date, in most MSS, by na<r\a. (cf. the many cases of this kind cited below), and in the Theod. text known to Origen the latter word only was found. The Theodotion version was very well known and much used ; then, when the rejected word <t>a<rf\ survived in a few MSS, it is natural that it should have been attributed by some to the work of Symmachus, the least known and used of the later Hexaplaric versions.
68 EZRA STUDIES
of Chronicles, but nowhere else in our Greek Old Testament. As for the one passage in Ezr.-Neh. in which the passover is men tioned, namely Ezr. 6 : 19-21, it is of course easy to suppose that the long familiar word Trda^a was substituted at an early date; there were many such substitutions in the early history of the Greek Bible.
The problem of identifying a given translation as the work of Theodotion is in some respects a peculiar one. Whoever makes the search for this translator's own work, with the purpose of setting apart everything that could be called characteristic of him, will probably be surprised to find how little in extent the material really is. We have, it is true, "Theodotion's version" of the whole book of Daniel; but this is in reality merely a revision of the old Greek translation, whose renderings and construc tions are generally retained, the alteration consisting mainly in such cutting, shaping, and supplementing as to make it fit closely the later traditional Hebrew text. In the case of the extensive fragments of Theodotion's version of Jeremiah which have been preserved (see Swete, Introduction to the Old Testa ment in Greek, pp. 44-46) it is not known whether the work is merely a version, or an independent effort. At all events, there is here extremely little that could contribute to any basis of com parison with such a book as the Chronicler's history. The manner of the author, or reviser, in his attempt to hold fast to the Hebrew, is indeed apparent, and it is the same in all three of the versions named: Daniel, Jeremiah, and the Chronicler; but more definite evidence than this is required. The comparison of the diction of our Greek version of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. with that of Theodotion's part in Daniel reveals a few striking coincidences, which will be noticed below, as well as the obvious general resemblance. In addition to the material already mentioned, we have, for our knowledge of Theodotion's work, only the scattered renderings of his in various parts of the Old Testament which have been preserved in Hexaplar codices. It might therefore seem to be a very difficult matter to collect material sufficiently extensive, and sufficiently characteristic, to serve as a sure basis for com parison. If we were dealing with ordinary translators, this would be true, and a trustworthy conclusion might be despaired of; but fortunately this translator has one peculiarity so pronounced and so well understood that the proof can be rendered complete.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 69
As students of the Hexaplar versions long ago observed, Theodotion's chief characteristic is his tendency to transliterate the difficult or doubtful words of his Hebrew text. See especially Field's Hexapla, I, xxxix-xlii, and Swete's Introduction, p. 46. Because of his extreme caution, he refuses to decide in cases of uncertainty, but simply writes out the troublesome Hebrew word in Greek letters. The extent to which he has done this is very remarkable. Field gives a list (pp. xl f.) of more than ninety words of this kind, collected from the material already known to us as Theodotion's, including the most of the books of the Old Testa ment. Doubtless this number could be considerably increased, even from the sources which we already have, if we were better able to criticize them ; moreover, it may safely be taken for granted that the ancient collectors of Hexaplaric readings generally dis regarded such of Theodotion's transliterations as had resulted from an obviously corrupt and easily corrected text. Even in the MSS, indeed, the tendency to get rid of these unnecessary barbarisms is quite marked; see below. Now, this very same striking peculiarity of transliteration is found in the Greek of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., from the beginning to the end of the work, and with the examples pretty evenly distributed. The fact has not hitherto been observed, and the number and char acter of the instances will probably prove a surprise to Old Testament scholars. When the comparison is made with the similar instances collected by Field, it will at once be plain that we are dealing with the same translator. I subjoin a list of the transliterations of this kind which occur in Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., not claiming that it is complete. It will be seen that it includes examples of all the classes of instances found elsewhere in Theo- dotion. There are the unusual words, such as *fi35 /ce<jxf)ovp, D"1"!^!"! OavvovpeifjL-, words of ambiguous meaning in their context like "GDSl a/cxexap, fYVV^TiE o-epo-epcoO ; technical terms not capable of exact translation, such as rVT^bS a\r]fjL(06, "jTQ ftadwv. Then there are the many cases where, the text had become slightly corrupt. In a considerable number of the examples which follow, the difficulty with the word was due solely to the confusion of 1 and "» by copyists; thus, ^w\^\a for tlb^b fcTji, /ue#o>e<7et^ for D^irrrri/J . In other cases, two of the letters of the Hebrew word had become accidentally transposed; thus afieSTjpei/j, for for D^UniVJ , apaaeveiti for tV^n ,
70 EZRA STUDIES
for 2£2. 7 In the most of these cases of text-corruption, the true reading was not hard to find, and almost any translator would have made the emendation for himself. It is eminently characteristic of Theodotion and his method that he refused to take any such responsibility. Then, finally, there are the per fectly well-known words, such as aiv, yai, yav, pavaa, regarding whose exact meaning or use in certain passages the translator may have been in doubt.8 Concerning the occasional procedure of Theodotion in such cases, see again Field and Swete, in the places named. One must agree with Field, that there are some instances in which it is impossible for us to find any sufficient excuse for the transliteration. The following is the list:9
1. a/3/3ovs (See no. 37.)
2. a£e&; Ezr. 2:58. For 'H33?, "servants." In the phrase
nb'blZJ "Ha? , the name Solomon was not recognized : viol aftefy 2eX/>ta, hence the nT23> was cautiously trans literated. It was certainly not thought of as forming part of a proper name. (L has viol TWV SovXcov fjicov: two alterations.)
3. a/3e8r)pew adovicieip I Chron. 4:22. MT Dy
"the words are ancient."
4. a/3eipa Neh. 1:1. fTPan, "the palace." So 7:2, fleipa.
(L has /3a/ot9 in both places.)
5. ayyat, II Chron. 26:9; in the L text only. For argfi , "the
valley." See also no. 29, and below, p. 80.
6. ayovyeifji II Chron. 9:10; in three cursives only; see below,
p. 80. MT D"B*Db» (but in I Kings 10:11 f. D"Mb»), "algum wood."
7 Of course, such instances as these and the preceding ones would generally not be recorded by the ancient collectors of Hexaplaric readings. The fact that they originated in mere blunders was apparent.
8In the case of the transliteration <J>ea, for HHS > "governor," it may be that Theodo tion evaded the translation because he was not quite satisfied with any of the ordinary readings of the word: o-rpaTTj-y/os, eTrapxos, ap^wv, r)yen<av; or because he did not wish to take the responsibility of choosing among them. It is perhaps worthy of remark, in this connec tion, that in the Greek of Hag. 1:1, 14, the word HHS is not rendered at all.
9The orthography varies considerably in the MSS, and I record usually only one form, without wasting time over the vain attempt to determine the original. Of course the varia tions between i and ei, ai and e, etc., have no significance whatever, and are rarely of any use even in determining groups of manuscripts. Scribes were free to exchange them at pleasure, and did so. As ei is used most commonly (though not consistently) for the long i sound in our best-known uncials, I have adopted it. The plural endings -ei/t and -eiv (the latter apparently later and due to the influence of spoken Aramaic) are also frequently exchanged in the MSS.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 71 7. aScoprjefji Neh. 3:5. MT DITTW, "their nobles." (L: ol
8. aOepaada Ezr. 2:63; Neh. 7:65, 70. For MVJhnn (title).
9. aOov/cieifJi (See no. 3.)
10. ai\afji IIGhron. 3:4. MT DblK , "porch."
11. aiv Neh. 2:14; 12:37; in the'latter passage the MSS have
alvdv. For "^y , "spring." (L has in both cases rr)? 777777)9.)
12. a\w<oO I Chron. 15:20. MT rfeb? . (L: irepl TW /cpv-
(frfov, as in the Psalm-superscriptions.)
13. apaacv&e I Chron. 15:21. MT rrrEEn . (L: irepl r^
67807;?; cf. Ps. 6:1; 12:1.)
14. apaa I Chron. 2:52. For nXVJ (MT ninrj , "the seer").
It seems impossible to determine whether Theodotion regarded this as a proper name, or not. The original rendering here seems to have been: '°2ical rjaav viol TO> 2o)/3aX jrarpl KapiaOiapeifA apaa ecrei A.fifiavuo09 ^v^acr- (f>ea)0 KapiaQiaeLp, Ai^aXet/^, At(/)ei^etft, K.T.\. See nos. 38 and 63.
15. apiri\ I Chron. 11:22. MT b^^X, which Theodotion cer
tainly did not regard as a proper name. (L inserts mow?, from the Greek of II Sam. 23:20.)
16. aaafaifji I Chron. 26:15, 17. MT D^SCK , "stores."
17. a<txt>ov(ra)0 II Chron. 26:21. MT (ketlb) rVTOSfi , "sepa-
rateness."
18. axexap Neh. 3:22. For *©3n , "the circuit." (L: rov
TrpwTord/cov, corrected from a reading "Out"! . )
19. axovX II Chron. 25:18 (twice). For Him, "the thistle."
20. j3aa\Taafji Ezr. 4:8, 9, 17. For D?B ^"2 , "reporter of
21. fiaOvv (A /3aSo>z/,L Parent) Ezr. 7:22. For -pro, "baths"
(the liquid measure).
22. Patcxovpiois Neh. 13:31. For D^3S , "firstfruits." (L:
TTptoroyevr) fJLao~i v. )
23. papa I Chron. 16:39; 21:29; II Chron. 1:13. For fTJa ,
"high place."
24. Peipa (See no. 4.)
25. (Bev- for 1^, "son," in compounds: I Chron. 11:34, @eve
Acra/i, for DISH ^^ (see below, p. 79) ; see also no. 33.
72 EZRA STUDIES
26. firjO- for fYD, "house," in cases where it is evidently a
separate word: Neh. 3:16, /3i]0 ayafiapeip D^'^Jl 3TT2 ; 3:20 f., j3rj0 e\iacrovfi irurbtf IVa (Eliashib named in this very verse as the high priest, and cf. vs. 1) ; 3:24, a&pia m72 fVU; 3:31, faO avva6iveip rru cf. vs. 26! (In all of these cases, L trans lates the word ITU.)
27. 7a/3??9 I Chron. 4:9. From a reading yi3?2 , rendered &>?
7a/3?;?, where MT has 2£22 , "in pain." (L: ev &a- TTTcocret. )
28. yafa Ezr. 5:17; 6:1; 7:20. For XTDj , "treasure."
29. yai Neh. 2:15, in the L text and the cursive 121; 3:13, in L
only. For &Tj, "valley." See also no. 5, and below, p. 80.
30. yav o?a II Chron. 36:8. For fcWr "j? , "the garden of
'Uzza." The passage containing these words is wanting in MT, and also in I Esdras, but certainly stood in the Hebrew text from which Theodotion translated; see further below. The phrase occurs also in II Kings 21:18, 26, where it is rendered (in all the Greek texts) ev TO) KiJTrq) Of a.
31. yao-/3apr)vo$ Ezr. 1:8. For "Bra, "treasurer." The ter
mination -77^09 suggested by ya£apr]v6s (for fcOTj), Dan. 5:7, 11, 15, etc.?
32. ycSSovp I Chron. 12:21. For 1TO , "troop." (The same
transliteration — origin unknown — in one of the texts of I Sam. 30:8. It may well be doubted whether the ascription, by the cursive 243, of the rendering o-varpe^- /xaro? to Theodotion, in I Sam. 30:8, is correct. Notice the similar mistake — this time concerning Aquila — recorded in Field's Hexapla on II Sam. 3:22, in regard to this same word. May not the transliteration be Theo dotion' s in all these places?)
33. 777 0ev evvop II Chron. 28:3; 33:6. For D3J1 p iC3, "the
valley of the son of Hinnom." Cf. no. 25; also nos. 5 and 29. (L has ev <t>dpayyi Be^ewo/i.)
34. 7o)Xa(9 II Chron. 4:12, 13. MT ttfe , "bowl-capitals."
(L: ra? /3a<m?. )
35. <ya)\rj\a Neh. 2:13. MT nW K^Gl) , ("and I went out
through the gate of the) valley by night." (L has
TEXTUAL CRITICISM or CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 73
36. Safap II Chron. 3:16; 4:20; 5:7, 9. For TTJ , the
"innermost sanctuary" of Solomon's temple. This transliteration is used by others than Theodotion.
37. e/3Sa0 aj3/3ov<; I Chron. 4:21. For y5Qn ma*, "manu
facture of fine linen."
38. eo-et I Chron. 2:52. For ^H, "half." Immediately below,
in vs. 54, the word is translated; cf. no. 63. (The passage is lacking in the L text, which omits — because of homoeoteleuton — the last three words of vs. 52 and the first three words of vs. 53. In both A and B the passage is badly miswritten; see no. 14.)
39. e(f>ovS I Chron. 15:27. For TSK, "ephod." (L: eV o-roXg
Pvaa-ivrj.') The transliteration occurs outside of Chron. - Ezr.-Neh.
40. &KX<» I Chron. 28:11, 20. MT, in vs. 11, V3TD?,10 "its
treasuries." (L, in both verses: rwv aTroBrjfccov auroO.) In MT the word and its context are missing in vs. 20, though they must have stood there originally — a fact which seems to have been generally overlooked. Neither in his Polychrome Chronicles (1895) nor in his Backer der Chronik ( 1902 ) does Kittel discover that our Hebrew text has accidentally lost a considerable passage (more than a dozen words) at this point. Benzinger (1901) does no better. This is a good illustration of the way in which "the Septuagint" is commonly used. The passage in the Greek, in its original form, reads as follows: real IBov TO TrapdSei'yfJLa TOV vaov /cal TOV oi/cov avTOV KOI %aK%G) avTOV fcal TO, VTrepwa /cal ra? ra? ecrarrepa? ical TOV ol/cov TOV IXcur/JLOV, ical TO oifcov KvpLov. The necessity of this to its context is apparent from vs. 21 compared with vss. 11-13. The omission in the Hebrew of MT was caused by homoeote leuton, the passage being preceded by HIIT IT2 mia* and ending with FTlfT ITa r\^2T\ . The translator, then, actually wrote this word £a#%&> twice.
41. Oavvovpew Neh. 3:11; 12:38. For D^DH , "furnaces."
Neh. 12:38 is wanting in the codices A B tf , but is present in many cursives and in the L text, and was included in Theodotion's translation. See further, below.
i°It is possible that the original transliteration was yw£aK\<a, and that the first syl able was corrupted to rwf fas in cod. B in vs. 11), which was subsequently dropped.
74 EZRA STUDIES
42. Oepafain II Chron. 35:19. For D^n , "teraphim"— but
the Hebrew original of this passage is now lost; see no. 44. This transliteration is used by others than Theo- dotion.
43. 6d)&a0a (most MSS, including all the uncials, 6co\a6a; an
early blunder, A for A) Neh. 12:27. For firrin , "thanksgivings." (L: (ev) ayaXXidaei.)
44. /caSrjo-eLfji (? So cod. 121; the others have /capeaei^11) II
Chron. 35:19. For DMTJp, "temple-prostitutes." The passage, which is a highly important one for the history of our Hebrew text, is found neither in MT nor in I Esdras. See below, p. 88. Observe that Theodotion has the transliteration /ca^rjaei/ji in Judg. 5:21.
45. Ke^ovpr) I Chron. 28:17; Ezr. 1:10; 8:27. For
"cups."
46. KoOvvoi Ezr. 2:69. For m'])Tti, "robes." (L: o-roXa? iepa-
rt/ca?.) See also no. 69.
47. \afjL(fji)aave II Chron. 22:1. All our Greek texts are cor
rupt here. For nsrtab, "for a raid."12 Some justifi cation for Theodotion's transliteration here may be found in the ambiguity of the expression, which I believe to have been mistranslated by every modern scholar as well as in the ancient versions. This strange word, Xa/Lt(ft)aaz/e, immediately following ol "A/9a/3e?, was of course supposed to be a proper name, and was accordingly made, by some copyist, to end with a ?. aka^aaves became aXa/u-afoz/e?, a form attested by several MSS. A and B have [01 "Apa/Bes ot] aXt/iafo^ei?.13 (L: teal rwv AfJia^oviei/Ji ev ry 7rapejji^o\7h a characteristic specimen of the crimes com mitted by this recension.)
UThe Greek letters 8 and p are frequently confused by scribes; some other examples will be given in the sequel. There is therefore room for doubt as to the original form of this^transliteration. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, on II Chron. 35:19, prints: u/capa(i)<ret/iA = (sic) ; but in this he is certainly mistaken.
12 Cf. tflSfc, "for war," " to give battle," the use of the verb HDll, "to attack," in Ps. 53:6; I Mace. 5: 49 f., etc., and of rCTO in II Chron. 18: 33= I Kings 22:34, etc.
13 Hence in 14:14 (15) the g'oss, TOV? 'A/ma^oveZs (!), derived solely from the pas sage 22:1, has come into the Greek text (all recensions). Benzinger, Commentary on Chron., would emend the Hebrew text of 14:13f. accordingly. But there is no excuse for "emending;" the context shows, as plainly as a context can show anything, that Ql^ is right as it stands. The connection between the two passages would be made by any reader ; the enemies of Israel in both cases are the Philistines and the neighboring Arabs.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 75
48. fAavaa II Chron. 7:7; Neh. 13:5, 9. For HTOJ , "meal
offering." (L substitutes in each case the word Ovcria.) Observe that in Dan. 2:46 Theodotion has substituted this transliteration for the older translation Ova-ias.
49. pavavai II Chron. 34: 22. For HDlZJ/p, "the second (district)."
50. peOaxafiei/jL (the correct reading in codd. 56, 121) I Chron.
21:20. For D^^n/J, "hiding themselves." (L:7ropev- o/^eVou?, a reading which evidently originated in a cor ruption of the KpvfBofjLevoi which most MSS have here.)
51. p€0o)c<rcip Ezr. 2:62. For D^TDrPtYa , "listed by geneal
ogy." (L: yeveaXoyovvres.}
52. fjiere/Saae (?) I Chron. 18:8. For nrGEE, "fromTibhat"
(name of a city). It is evident from the way in which the following word is translated that Theodotion did not regard this as a proper name. L has etc TT)? ra/3aa#, translating the preposition; and this translation (evi dently secondary) has also found its way into the Egyp tian text: A, e/c rr)? /xare/3e0; B, etc r?}? /Ltera/3r;%a9.u
53. iJLexwvO II Chron. 4:14, twice. For tYiriM , "bases."
Observe that Theodotion gives us this same translitera tion in Jer. 27:19 (Greek 34:15).
54. vaxaXrj I Chron. 11:32. For ^H? , "wadys"(?).
55. o0aX II Chron. 27:3; 33:14; Neh. 3:26, 27; 11:21. For
bs'9(n), the "hill" in Jerusalem.
56. aafiaxtoQ II Chron. 4:12; only in the cursives 56 and 121;
see below, p.