Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus -- By: Harold M. Wiener
BSac 70:280 (Oct 1913) p. 669
Studies in the Septuagintal Texts of Leviticus
In the preceding article we had occasion to assume that a close relationship existed between the Armenian Version and certain groups of cursives, particularly gn. This phenomenon is one that constantly impresses itself on the student of the text; but to enable the reader to see it clearly for himself, the following tables are printed. In Table V., the most important Armenian readings possessing support from authorities in Leviticus 8 are taken as the standard, and it is shown how far they meet with support from other authorities. In Table VI., on the other hand, the text of gn in certain passages of Leviticus 24 is the standard.
Table 5 reveals a number of very interesting phenomena. The close relationship between gn and Arm appears in such readings as those in verses 9, 10–11, 16, 19, 30, 32, embracing grammatical points, erroneous readings, and alterations of order. Occasionally, as in verses 17 and 35, Arm appears to part company with gn through accommodation to the Hebrew. The grouping of the authorities makes it reasonably probable that the Armenian presents pre-Hexaplar readings in verses 2, 11, 19, 27, 30, 31; for in most of these we have clearly Egyptian witnesses going with the Armenian in preserving non-Massoretic readings which contrast with the later Hebrew readings that have influenced most of our texts. On
BSac 70:280 (Oct 1913) p. 670
the other hand, B appears to have preserved Hesychian readings in verses 2 and 35.
Special interest attaches to verses 28 and 33. In the latter we have to distinguish four readings of importance: —
(1) ἡμερα πληρωθη ἡμερα τελειωσεως (clearly the reading of Origen, as it has the support of Hexaplar witnesses).
(2) ἡμερας πληρωσεως ἡμερων τελειωσεως (Arm and its allies, and M.T.).
(3) πληρωθη ἡμερα τελειωσεως (h, Spec, Cyr).
(4) ἡμερα πληρωθη τελειωσεως (B, m, Chr).
That (2) is the reading either of Lucian or of a later insertion in Lucian seems clear. Incidentally it should be noticed that the Armenian and its allies here, as in some other places, show a closer approximation to the Massoretic text than Origen himself. There can be no doubt that the recension has been influenced by an independent study of a Hebrew text. The difference between (3) and (4) ...
Click here to subscribe