Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 03.djvu/44

BIBLE. years before Alexander Polyhistor, seems to have used the Greek Pcntateich. Two books give direct statements as to wlicii and by whom they were transUited. A colophon to Estlior states that the 'letter of I'hurai.' or Piirim, by which probably the Book of Esther is meant, was brought to Egypt in the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy iind Cleopatra, by Dosithous and his son Ptolemy, having been translated in Jeru- salem by I.ysimachus. Ptolemy's son. The year meant i's probably eitber B.C. 113, the fourth year of Ptoleniv X. 8oter II. (Latbyrus). or B.C. 48. the fou'rth of Ptolemy XIV. and Cleo- patra VII. But the statement itself is unre- liable. Of greater value is the preface to Eecle- siasticus (q.v.), in which the grandson of Jesus Siracides refers to books that had already been translated, such as the Law, the Prophets, and some other works, and mentions that he came to ECTpt in the thirty-eighth year of Eucrgetes, who "must be Ptolemy IX. Euergetcs II. (Phy- Bcon). consequently in B.C. 1.32. He does not state how many years he had been in Egypt. The impression is that translations were the order of the day. Many valuable works had already been done into Greek: others remained untranslated. The Law, no doubt, was first trans- lated. Whether this was done already in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus. as many scholars, influenced by the Aristeas letter, still think, or in the days of Ptolemy VII. Philometor (b.c. 181-145), "as others maintain, cannot be deter- mined with certainty. But as yet there is no evidence of any considerable body of .Jews having been in Egypt in the time of Ptolemy Philadel- phus. Papyri from the reign of Ptolemy Eucr- getes I. (247-221) mention a town called Sama- ria in the Fayum, as well as some .lewish settlers in Pseruris, "and this King greatly favored the Jews in Alexandria. The version is likely to have grown out of the necessities of synagogue and temple rather than out of royal curiosity. It was an oral, and then a written, fargiim, or interpretation, accompanying the reading of the text, before it became a substitute for the He- brew. Such a tarytnn to the Law may well have develo[)ed in the synagogues of .lexandria. But it is more likely that the Psalter was translated for use in a temple. Prom Isaiah xix. wo know that 'the language of Canaan' was maintained for a while by the colonies that went witl Onias lU. into thcHeliopolitan nnnie B.C. 170: but this cannot have lasted long, and particularly in the Temple of l.eontopolis (see Onias'.s Te.mple) the need of a version of the Psalter for liturgical purposes would be felt. There is nnuh that points to the reign of Ptolemy Philometor for the beginning of the process of translation. The version was i)robably completed by the begin- ning of our era.

Our knowledge of the version is derived from printed editions, extant nuinuscrii)ts, transla- tions made from it, and quotations in early writers. The edUio priiiceps appeared in the Complutensian Polyglot (ir>14-17). based chiefly upon the MSS. numbered 08, 108, and 248 in Holmes and Parsons's collection; the Aldine, printed in Venice in l.'ilS. was based on Holmes and Parsons's 20, fi8, and 121 ; the Sixtine edi- tion was published in I'ome (l.')a7). and was based on Codex Vaticanus. but supplied and al- tered by other MSS.; the Crabian edition, based on Codex Alexandrinus, appeared at Oxford, in 1707-20; the magnificent and indispensable edi- tion of Holmes and Parsons, for which 207 sep- arate codices were more or less carefully col- lated, among them 20 uncials, was published at Oxford, in 1708-1827. Tischendorf was able to use Codex Sinaiticus for his editions (18.')0fT.) ; and Nestle Cozza's facsimile of Codex N'aticanus for the edition of 1SS7 ; Swete's Cambridge edi- tion (1887-04 and ISOo-OO) was based on the Vatican MS., but gave the reading of some of the leading uncials. A larger Cambridge edition is in course of jjreparation.

The extant manuscripts are in part uncials or majuscules, and in part cursives or minuscles; some are ap])ro.imately complete Bibles ; others give only portions of the Bilile. .n0ng the un- cials, the most important are Codex .lexnndrinu3 (A), written in the Fifth Century, ])rl)ably m Egj'pt, now in the British Museum. pul)lishcd in autotype facsimile in 1881-83: Codex Vaticanus (B), probably written in Eg^'pt after a.d. 3(!7, published in a facsimile by Cozza ( 1881 ), and in a more accurate photographic reproduction in 1890; Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C), written in Egypt in the Fifth Century, now in Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1845; Codex Si- naiticus (X). written probably in the Fifth Cen- tury, now in Leipzig and Saint Petersburg, pub- lished by the discoverer. Tischendorf. partly in Leipzig." 1846, 1855, and 1857; partly in Saint Petersburg, 18G2 and 1867. Codex Ambrosianus (F). of the Fifth Century, now in Milan, pub- lished by Ceriani in his Monumeiita III. (1864) ; Codex Sarravianus (G) of the Fifth Century, now in Leyden, Paris, and Saint Petersburg, published in 1807; and Code.x-Marchalianus (Q), of the Sixth Century, now in Rome, published in heliotype, 1800, are of particular value because of their Hexaplaric notes and signs. Some recently discovered papyri fragments may date from the Third Century. Of the numerous cursive manuscripts, none is likely to be older than the Ninth Century, though some may have been made from uncials older than those in our possession. They manifestly belong to different families, but the classification is as yet imperfect. Of especial interest is Codex Chisianus (88), now in Rome, possibly written in the Eleventh Centiiry, containing a different trans- lation of Daniel from that of the uncials.

No extant manuscript seems to be older than the three recensions of the text undertaken in the beginning of the Fourth Century by Lucian in Antioch. ilesychius in Alexandria, and Euscl)i>is and Panipliilus in Ca'sarea. But some codices unqucstional)ly have preserved independent and earlier textual traditions, while olliers represent later corrupted forms of these standard texts. Among the daughter-versions, the Gothic, Arme- nian, Georgian, and Slavcmic appear to have been made from a text of the Lucianic recension; the Buhairic Egyptian .seems to refiect the Hesy- ehian recension, while the Sahidic, in part at least, is earlier in origin; the Ethiopic version has in certain books a marked similarity to Codex Alexandrinus, while elsewhere it ap))arent- ly was based on Greek ^ISS. not known li> us; the Arabic version of the Prophets also shows kinship to Codex M the Old Latin is earlier than Origen ; the Syriae version of Paul of Telia was made either from a copy of Origen's Hexapla or from the column edited I y Eusebius.