Part 67
Greek and stricter canons of interpretation.
Versions was felt by the Jews to be inadequate, and a group of new translations of
Scripture in the 2d cent. AD supplied the demand We possess considerable fragments of the work ot
three of these translators, viz. Aquila, Symmaohus
Septuagint THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2726
history of the two Gr texts is obscure. Theodotion's renderings have been found in writings before his time
the construction of the 5th column presented diffi-
culties. There were (1) numerous cases of words or paragraphs contained in the LXX but not in the Heb, which could not be wholly rejected, (2) cases of omission from the LXX of words in the Heb,
(including the NT), and it is reasonably conjectured that even before the 2d cent. AD the LXXtext had been discarded and that Theodotion's VS is but a working over of an older alternative VS. Theodotion is tree from the barbarisms of Aquila, but is addicted to transliteration, i.e. the reproduction of Heb words in Gr letters. His reasons for this habit are not always clear; ignorance of Heb will not account for all (cf VIU, 1, [.5], below). Beside the two VSS produced by, and primarily intended for, Jews was a third, presumably to meet the needs of a Jewi.sh Christian sect who
(3) cases of paraphrase and minor divergences,
(4) variations in the order of words or chapters. Origen here had recourse to a system of critical
signs, invented and employed by the grammarian Aristarchus (3d cent. BC) in his ed of Homer. Passages of the first class were left in the text, but had prefixed to them an obelus, a sign of which the original form was a "spit" or "spear," but figuring in LXX MSS as a horizontal fine usually with a dot above and a dot below (^); other varieties are -^, —r, C/5; the sign in Aristarchus indicated censure, in the Hexapla the doubtful authority of the words which followed. The close of the obelized passage was marked by the metobelus, a colon
7. Symma- ^^ei^e dissatisfied with the LXX. Sym-
rViiio nnH machus, its author, was, according to the i^ius <tuu more trustworthy accoimt, an Ebionite, Others who also wrote a comm. on IMt, a copy of which was given to Origen by Juliana, a lady who received it from its author (Euseb., HE, VI, 17). Epiphanius' description of him as a Samaritan convert to Judaism may be rejected. The date of his work, as above stated, was probably the reign of Conimodus (180-92 AD). In one respect the VS resembled Aquila's, in its faithful adherence to the sense of the current Heb text; its style, however, which was flowing and literary, was a revolt against Aquila's monstrosities. It seems to have been a recasting of Aquila's VS, with free use of both LXX and Theodotion. It carried farther a tendency apparent in the LXX to refine away the anthropomorphisms of the OT.
(:), or, in the Syr VSS, a mallet (y). Passages missing in the LXX were supplied from one of the other VSS (Aquila or Theodotion), the beginning of the extract being marked by an asterisk ( -^ ) a sign used by Aristarchus to express special approval—the close, by the metobelus. Where LXX and Heb widely diverged, Origen occasionally gave two VSS, that of a later translator under an asterisk, that of LXX obelized. Divergence in order was met by transposition, the Heb order being followed
Of three other MSS discovered by Origen (one at Nicopolis in Greece, one at Jericho) and known from their position in the Hexapla as Quinta, Sexta, and Septima, httle is known. There is no reason to suppose that they embraced the whole OT. Quinta is characterized by Field as the most elegant of the Gr VSS. F. C. Burkitt has discussed "the so-called Quinta of 4 Kings" in PSBA, June, 1902. The Christian origin of Seita betrays itself in Hab 3 13 ("Thou wentest forth to save thy people for the sake of [or "by"] Jesus thy anointed One").
in Prov, however, the two texts kept their respective order, the discrepancy being indicated by a combination of signs. Minor supposed or real corruptions in the Gr were tacitly corrected. Origen produced a minor edition, the Tetrapla, without the first two columns of the larger work. The Heptapla and Oclapla, occasionally mentioned, appear to be alternative names given to the Hexapla at points where the number of columns was increased to receive other fragmentary VSS. This gigantic work, which according to a reasonable estimate must have filled 5,000 leaves, was probably never copied in exlenso. The original was preserved for some centuries in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea; there it was studied by Jerome, and thither came owners of Bib. MSS to collate their copies with it, as we learn from some interesting notes in our uncial MSS (e.g. a 7th-cent. note appended to Est in cod. S). The Library probably perished c 638 AD, when Caesarea fell into the hands of the Saracens.
These later VSS play a large part in the history of the text of the LXX. This is due to the labors of the greatest LXX scholar of an-
8. Origen tiquity, the celebrated Origen of Alexand the andria, whose active life covers the Hexapla first half of the 3d cent. Origen frankly recognized, and wished Christians to recognize, the merits of the later VSS, and the divergence.s between the LXX and the current Heb. He determined to provide the church with the materials for ascertaining the true text and meaning of the OT. With this object he set himself to learn Heb—a feat probably unprecedented among non-Jewish Christians of that time—and to collect the later VSS. The idea of using these VSS to amend the LXX seemed to him an inspiration "By the gift of God we found a remedy for the divergence in the copies of the OT, namely to use the other editions as a criterion" {Comm. on Mt 15 14). The magnimi opus in which he embodied the results of his labors was known as the Hexapla or "sixcolumn" edition. This stupendous work has not survived; a fragment was discovered toward the end of the 19th cent, in the Ambrosian Library at Milan (Swete, htlro, 61 ff) and another among the Cairo Genizah palimp.scsts (ed C. Tajdor, Cambridge, 1900). The material was arranged in six parallel columns containing (1) the current Heb text, (2) the same in Gr letters, (3) the VS of Aquila,
But, though the whole work was too vast to be copied, it was a simple task to copy the 5th column.
This task was performed, partly in 9. Hexaprison, by Pamphilus, a martyr in the plaric MSS Diocletian persecution, and his friend Eusebius, the great bishop of Caesarea. Copies of the "Hexaplaric" LXX, i.e. Origen's doctored text with the critical signs and perhaps occasional notes, were, through the initiative of these two, widely circulated in Pal in the 4th cent. Naturally, however, the signs became unintelligible in a text detached from the parallel columns which explained them; scribes neglected them, and copies of the doctored text, lacking the precautionary symbols, were multiplied. This carelessness has wrought great confusion; Origen is, through others' fault, indirectly responsible for the production of MSS in which the current LXX text and the later VSS are hopelessly mixed. No MSS give the Hexaplaric text as a whole, and it is jjrcserved in a relatively pure form in very few: the uncials G and M (Pent and some historical books), the cursives 86 and 88 (Prophets). Other so-called Hexaplaric MSS, notably cod. Q (Marchalianus: Proph.) preserve fragments of the 5th and of the other columns of the Hexapla. (For the Syro-Hexaplar see below, VI, 1.) Yet, even did we possess the 5th column
(4) that of Symmachus, (5) that of the LXX, (6) that of Theodotion. The text was broken up into short clauses; not more than two words, usually one only, stood in the first column. The order of the columns doubtless represents the degree of conformity to the Heb; Aquila's, as the mo.st faithful, heads the VSS, and Symmachus' is on the whole a revision of Aquila as Theodotion's is of the LXX. But Origen was not content with merely collating the VSS; his aim was to revi.se the LXX and the 5th column exhibited his revised text. The basis of it was the current Alexandrian text of the 3d cent. AD;
this was supplemented or corrected where necessary by the other VSS. Origen, however, deprecated alteration of a text which had received ecclesiastical sanction, without some indication of its extent, and
2727 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Septuagint
entire, with the complete apparatus of signs, we should not have "the original LXX," but merely, after removing the asterisked passages, a text current in the 3d cent. The fact has to be emphasized that Origen's gigantic work was framed on erroneous principles. He assumed (1) the purity of the current Heb text, (2) the corruption of the current LXX text where it deviated from the Heb. The modern critic recognizes that the LXX on the whole presents the older text, the divergences of which from the Heb are largely attributable to an official revision of the latter early in the Christian era. He recognizes also that in some books (e.g. Job) the old Gr VS was only a partial one. To reconstruct the original text he must therefore have recourse to other auxiliaries beside Origen.
'pars prior, Gottingen, 1883); his death prevented the completion of the work. Lagarde's edition is vitiated by the fact that he does not quote the readings of the individual MSS composing the group, and it can be regarded only as an approximate reconstruction of "Lucian." It is evident, however, that the Lucianic LXX possessed much the same qualities as the Syrian revision of the NT; lucidity and completeness were the main objects. It is a "full" text, the outcome of a desire to include, so far as possible, all recorded matter; "doublets" are consequently numerous. While this "conflation" of texts detracts from its value, the Lucianic revision gains importance from the fact that the sources from which it gleaned include an element of great antiquity which needs to be disengaged; where it unites with the Old Lat VS against all other authorities its evidence is invaluable. VI. Reconstruction of LXX Text; Versions, Manuscripts and Printed Editions.—The task of restoring the original text is beset with difficulties. The materials (MSS, VSS, patristic citations) are abundant, but none has escaped "mixture," and the principles for reconstruction are not yet securely established (Swete, hitro, I, iv-vi; III, vi). Among the claief aids to restoration are the daughter VSS made from the LXX. and above aU the Old Lat
Such assistance is partly furnished by two other recensions made in the century after Origen. Jerome (Praef. in Paralipp.; ci Adv. Ruf., ii.27) 10. Recenstates that in the 4th cent, three resions censions circulated in different parts of Known to the Christian world: "Alexandria and Jerome Egypt in their Septuagint acclaim Hesychius as their authority, the region from Constantinople to Antioch approves the copies of Lucian the martjT, the intermediate Palestinian provinces read the MSS which were promulgated by Eusebius and Pamphilus on the basis of Origen's labors, and the whole world is divided between these three varieties of text."
(pre-Hieronymian) VS, for the earhest
1 Anriont (African) Old Lat VS dates from the
ij "^'-i^"'- 2d cent. AD, i.e. before Origen, and conversions tains a te.xt from wliich the asterisked Made from passages in Hexaplaric MSS are absent; tliATYY ^* thus "brings us the best independent tne LiJ^Ji. proof we have that the He.xaplar signs introduced by Origen can be reUed on lor the reconstruction of the LXX" (Burkitt). The Old Lat also enables us to recognize the ancient element in the Lucianic recension. But the Lat evidence itself is by no means unanimous. Augustine {De Doctr. Christ., ii.l6) speaks of the infinite variety of Lat VSS, though they may ultimately prove all to fall into two main families, African and European. Peter Sabatier's collection of patristic quotations from the Old Lat is still useful, though needing verification by recent editions of the Fathers. Of Old Lat MSS one of the most important
Hesychius is probably to be identified with the martyr bishop mentioned by Eusebius {HE, VIII,
1.3) along with another scholar martyr,
11. HesychPhileas bishop of Thmuis, and it is ian Rethought that these two were engaged cension in prison in revising the Egyp text at the time when Pamphilus and Eusebius were employed on a similar task under similar conditions. How far existing MSS preserve the Hesychian recension is uncertain; agreement of their text with that of Egyp VSS and Fathers (Cyril
is the cod. Lugdunensis, edited by U. Robert {Pentateuchi
in particular) is the criterion. For the Prophets Ceriani has identified cod. Q and its kin as Hesychian. For the Octateuch N. McLean {JTS, II, 306) finds the Hesychian text in a group of cursives,
e cod. Lugd. versio Lat. antiquissima, Paris. 1881; Heptateuchi partis post, versio Lat. antig. e cod. Lugd., Lyons, 1900). The student should consult also Burkitt's ed of The Rules of Tyconius ("Te.xts and Studies," III, 1, CamlDridge, 1894) and The Old Latin and the Itala (ib, IV, 3, 1896).
44, 74, 76, 84, 106, 134, etc. But the first instalments of the larger Cambridge LXX raise the question whether cod. B (Vaticanus) may not itself be Hesychian; its text is more closely allied to that
Jerome's Vulgate is mainly a direct tr from the Heb, but the Vtilg Psalter, the so-called GalUcan, is one of Jerome's two revisions of the Old Lat, not his later VS from the Heb, and some details in our Prayer-book Psalter are ultimately derived through the Vulg Psalter from the LXX. Parts of the Apoc (Wisd, Ecclus, Bar,
of Cyril Alex, than to any other patristic text, and the consensus of these two witnesses against the
1 and 2 Mace) are also pure Old Lat, untouched by Jerome.
rest is sometimes (Ex 32 14) curiously striking. In the Psalter also Rahlfs {Sepluaginla-Sludien,
The early date (2d cent. AD) once claimed for the Egyp or Coptic VSS (Bohairic. i.e. in the dialect of Lower Egypt, Sahidic or Upper Egyp, and Middle Egyp) has not been confirmed by later researches, at least as regards the first-named, which is probably not earlier than the :3cl or 4th cent. AD. Rahlfs {Sept.-Studien, II, 1907) identifies the Bohairic Psalter as the Hesychian recension. The Sahidic VS of Job has fortunately preserved tiie shorter text lacking the later insertions from Theodotion (Lagarde. Mittheilungen, 1884, 204); this does not conclusively prove that it is pre-Origenic;
2. Heft, 1907, 23-5) traces the Hesychian text in B and partially in S (Sinait.). Cf von Soden's theory
for the NT and see Text and MSS of the NT.
The Lucianic recension was the work of another martyr, Lucian of Antioch (d. 311-12), probably with the collaboration of the Hebraist
12. Lucianic Dorotheus. There are, as Hort has Recension shown, reasons for associating Lucian with a "Syrian" revision of the NT in
it may be merely a Hexaplaric text with ttie asterisked passages omitted (Burkitt, EB, IV, 5027). The influence of the Hexapla is traceable elsewhere in this VS.
the 4th cent., which became the dominant type of
The Ethiopic VS was made in the main from the Gr and in part at least from an early text; Rahlfs (Sept Stud., I, 1904) considers its text of S-K, with that of cod. B. to be pre-Origenic.
text. That he produced a Syrian recension of the Gr OT is expressly stated by Jerome, and we are moreover able with considerable certainty to iden-
The Vulg or Peshitta Syriac VS was made from the Heb, though partly' influenced by the LXX. But another Syr VS is of primary importance for the LXX text, viz. that of Paul, bishop of Telia (Constantino in Mesopotamia), executed at Alexandria in 616-17 and known as the Syro-Hexaplar. This is a bald Syr VS of the LXX column of the Hexapla, containing the Hexaplar signs. A MS of the poetical and prophetical books is in the Ambrosian Library at Milan and has been edited by Ceriani (Monumenta sacra et profana, 1874): fragments of the historical books arc also extant (Lagarde and Rahlfs, Bibliolhecae Sliriacae, Gottingen, 1892). This VS supplements the Gr Hexaplaric MSS and is the principal authority for Origen's text. For the original VS of Dnl, which has survived in only one late MS, the
tify the extant MSS which exhibit it. The identifi-
cation, due to Field and Lagarde, rests on these
grounds: (1) certain verses in 2 K are in the Arab. Syro-Hexaplar marked with the letter L, and a note
explains that the letter indicates Lucianic readings;
(2) the readings so marked occur in the cursives 19,
82, 93, 108, 118; (3) these MSS in the historical books agree with the LXX citations of the Antioch-
_ This clue
ene Fathers Chrysostom and Theodoret.
enabled Lagarde to construct a Lucianic text of
the historical books (Lihrorum Vet. Test, canonic.
Septuagint THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2728
students. The text is that of B, or (where B fails) of A, and the apparatus contains the readings of the principal uncial MSS. New materials discovered since the ed of H. and P., esp. cod. S, are employed, and greater accuracy in the presentation of the other evidence has bwen made possible by photography. The fact that the text here printed is but a provisional one is sometimes overlooked. Swete's ed was designed as a precursor to (7) the larger Cambridge LXX, of which three instalments embracing the Pent have (1913) appeared {The OT in Gr, ed A. E. Brooke and N. McLean, Cambridge, 1911 pt. Ill, Nu and Dt). The text is a reprint of Swete's except that from E.x onward a few alterations of errors in the primary MS have been corrected, a delicate task in which the editors have rejected a few old readings without sufficient regard to the pecuUarities of Hellenistic Gr. The importance of the work lies in its apparatus, which presents the readings of all the uncials, VSS and early citations, and those of a careful representative selection of the cursives. The materials of H and P are brought up to date and presented in a more reliable and convenient form. Besides these there is (8) Lagarde's reconstruction of the Lucianic recension of the historical books, which, as stated, must be used with caution (see above).
Syro-Hexaplar supplies a second and older authority of great value.
The Armenian VS (ascribed to the 5th cent.) also owes its value to its extreme literalness; its text of the Octateuch is largely Hexaplaric. A bare mention must suffice of the Arabic VS (of which the prophetical and poetical books, Job excluded, were rendered from the LXX) : the fragments of the Gothic VS (made from the Lucianic recension), and the Slavonic
(partly from LXX, also Lucianic) and the Georgian VSS.
For a full description of the Gr MSS see Swete, Intro, I, ch V. They are divided according to their script (capi-
tals or minuscules) into uncials and cur2 Manusives, the former ranging from the 4th cent.
. , (four papyrus scraps go back to the 3d scnpts cent.; Nestle in PRE, XXIII, 208) to the 10th cent. AD, the latter from the 9th to the 16th cent. AD. Complete Bibles are few; the majority contain groups of books only, such as the Pent, Octateuch (Gen-Ruth), the later historical books, the Psalter, the 3 or 5 "Solomonic" books, the Prophets (major, minor or both). Uncials are commonly denoted by capital letters (in the ed of Holmes and Parsons by Roman figures) ; cursives, of which over 300 are known, by Arabic figures ; in the larger Cambridge LXX the selected cursives are denoted by small Roman letters.
The task of reconstructing the oldest text is still unaccomplished. Materials have accumulated, and much preliminary "spade-work" has been done, by Lagarde in particular (see his "axioms" in Swete, Intro, 484 ff) and more recently by Nestle and Rahlfs; but the principles which the editor must follow are not yet finally determined. The extent to which "mixture" has affected the documents is thestumbUng-block. Clearly no single MS presents the oldest text. That of cod. B, as in the NT, is on the whole the purest. In the 4 books of "Reigns" (1 S-2 K), e.g., it has escaped the grosser interpolations found in most MSS, and Rahlfs (Sept.-Studien, I, 1904) regards its text as pre-Origenic. It is, however, of unequal value and by no means an infallible guide; in Jgs, e.g., its text is undoubtedly late, no earher than the 4th cent. AD
The following are the chief uncials containing, or which once contained, the whole Bible: B (Vaticanus, at Rome, 4th cent. AD), adopted as the standard text in all recent edd; S or S< (Sinaiticus, at St. Petersburg and Leipzig, 4th cent. AD), discovered by Tischendorf in 1844 and subsequent years in St. Catherine's Convent, Mt. Sinai; A (Alexandriniis, British Museum, probably 5th cent. AD); C (Ephraemi rescriptus, Paris, probably 5th cent.), a palimpsest, the older Bib. matter underlying a mediaeval Gr text of works of Ephrem the Syrian. For the Octateuch and historical books: D (Cottonianus, Brit. Mus., probably 5th or 6th cent.), fragments of an illuminated Gen, the bulk of which perished in a fire at Ashburnham House in 1731, but earlier collations of Grabe and others are extant, which for the lost portions are cited in the Cambridge texts as D (Dsi'I, i.e. silet Grabius, denotes an inference from Grabe's silence that the MS did not contain a variant): F (Ambrosianus, Milan, 4th to 5th cent.), fragments of the Octateuch; G (Sarravianus, fragments at Leyden, Paris and St. Petersburg, 4th to 5th cent.), important as containing an Origenic te.xt with the Hexaplar signs; L (Purpureus Vindobonensis, Vienna, 5th to 6th cent.), fragments of an illuminated MS Genesis on purple veUinn; M (Coislinianus, Paris, 7th cent.), important on account of its marginal Hexaplaric matter. For the Prophets, Q (Marchalianus, Rome, 6th cent.) is valuable, both for its text, which is "Hesychian" (see above), and for its abundant marginal Hexaplaric matter. A curious mixture of uncial and cursive writing occurs in E (Bodleianus, probably 10th cent.), fragments of the historical books (to 3 R 16 28) preserved at Oxford, Cambridge (1 leaf), St. Petersburg and London: Tischendorf, who brought the M3 from the East, retained the tell-tale Cambridge leaf, on which the transition from uncial to cursive script occurs, until his death. The long-concealed fact that the scattered fragments were part of a single MS came to light through Swete's identification of the Cambridge leaf as a continuation of the Bodleian fragment. Many of the cursives still await investigation, as do also the lectionaries. The latter, though the MSS are mainly late, should repay study. The use of the LXX for lectionary piirposes was inherited by the church from the synagogue, and the course of lessons may partly represent an old system: li^ht may also be expected from them on the local distribution of various types of text.
4. Reconstruction of Original Text
according to one authority (Moore," Jgs," ICC). Inrelationtotwo of the 4th-cent. recensions its text is neutral, neither predominantly Lucianic nor Hexaplaric; but it has been regarded by some authorities as Hesychian. Possibly the recension made in the country which produced the LXX adhered more closely than others to the primitive text; some "Hesychian" features in the B text may prove to be original. Still even its purest portions contain marks of editorial revision and patent corruptions. Cod. A presents a quite different type of text, approximating to that of the MT. In the books of " Reigns " it is practically a Hexaplaric text without the critical signs, the additional matter being mainly derived from Aquila. Yet that it contains an ancient element is shown by the large support given to its readings by the N'T and early Christian writers. Individual MSS must give place to groups. In order to reconstruct the texts current before Origen's time, it is necessary to isolate the groups containing the three 4th-cent. recensions, and to eliminate from the recensions thus recovered all Hexaplaric matter and such changes as appear to have been introduced by the authors of those recensions. Other groups brought to light by the larger Cambridge text have also to be taken into account. The attempt to penetrate into the earher stages of the history is the hardest task. The Old Lat VS is here the surest guide; it has preserved readings which have disappeared from all Gr MSS, and affords a criterion as to the relative antiquity of the Gr variants. The evidence of early Christian and Jewish citations is also valuable. Ultimately, after elimination of all readings proved to be " recensional " or late, the decision between outstanding variants must depend on internal evidence. 'These variants will fall into two classes: (1) those merely affecting the Gr text, by far the larger number and presenting less difBculty; (2) those which imply a different Heb text. In adjudicating on the latter Lagarde's main axioms have to be borne in mind, that a free tr is to be preferred to a slavishly literal one, and a tr presupposing another Heb original to one based on the MT.
Of the printed text the first four editions were (1) the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes, 1514-17.
comprising the Gr, Heb and VuJg texts, 3 Printed '''"^ '''^* '^ ^^^ middle place of honor being ~ , compared to Jesus in the midst between lextS the two thieves (!). The Gr was based on MSS from the Vatican and one from Venice
it exhibits on the whole the Lucianic recension, as the Hesychian is by a curious coincidence represented in (2) the Aldine ed of 1518, based on Venetian MSS. (3) The monumental Sixtine ed, pubUshed at Rome in 1586 under the auspices of Pope Sixtus V and frequently reprinted, was mainly based on the cod. Vaticanus, the superiority of which text is justly recognized in the interesting preface (printed in Swete's Intro). (4) The Eng. ed (Oxford, 1707-20) begun by Grabe (d. 1712) was based on the cod. Alexandrinus, with aid from other MSS, and had the peculiarity that he employed Origen's critical signs and different sizes of type to show the divergence between the Gr and the Heb. Of more recent edd three are preeminent. (5) The great Oxford ed of Holmes and Parsons (Oxford, 1798-1827, 5 vols, folio) was the first attempt to bring together in a gigantic apparatu.i criticus all the evidence of uncial and cursive MSS (upward of 300), VSS and early citations from Philo and Jos onward. As a monumental storehouse of materials " H. and P." will not be wholly superseded by the latest ed now (1913) in preparation. (6) The serviceable Cambridge "manual," ed of Swete (Isted 1887-94, ed 3, 1901-7, 3 vols, 8vo) , is in the hands of all serious LXX
VII. Number, Titles and Order of Books.—In addition to the Heb canonical books, the LXX in-
cludes all the books in the Eng. Apoo 1. Contents except 2 Esd (Pr Man only finds a place among the canticles appended in some MSS to the Ps) besides a 3d and 4th book of Mace. Swete further includes in his text as an appendix of Gr books on the borderland of canonicity the Ps of Sol (found in some cursives and mentioned in the Ust in cod. A), the Gr fragments of the Book of En and the ecclesiastical canticles above mentioned. Early Christian writers in quoting freely from these additional books as Scripture doubtless perpetuate a tradition inherited from the Jews of Alexandria. Most of the books being original
2729 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Septuagint
Gr compositions were ipso facto excluded from a place in the Heb Canon. Greater latitude as regards canonicity prevailed at Alexandria; the Pent occupied a place apart, but as regards later books no very sharp line of demarcation between "canonical" and "uncanonical" appears to have been drawn.
of the Gr Hagiographa, which includes quasi-his-
torical (Est, Tob, Jth) and Wisdom books, is va-
riable. Dnl now first finds a place among the Prophets. The 12 minor prophets usually precede the major (S and Western authorities give the Four precedence), and the order of the first half of their company is shufHed, apparently on chronological grounds, Hos being followed by Am, Mic, Joel, Ob, Jon. Jer has his train of satellites. Bar, Lam (transferred from the "Writings") and Ep. Jer; Sus and Bel consort with and form integral parts of Dnl. Variation in the order of books is partly attributable to the practice of writing each book on a separate papyrus roll, kept in a cylindrical case; rolls containing kindred matter would tend to be placed in the same case, but there would be no fixed order for these separate items until the copying of large groups in book-form came into vogue (Swete, Intro, 225 i, 229 f).
Palestinian Jews employed the first word or words of each book of the Pent to serve as its title; Gen
e.g. was denoted "in the beginning," 2. Titles Ex "[And these are the] names"; a few of the later books have similar
titles. It is to the LXX, through the medium of the Lat VSS, that we owe the famOiar descriptive
titles, mostly suggested by phrases in the Gr VS. In some books there are traces of rival titles in the Ptolemaic age. Exodus ("outgoing") is also called Exagogt ("leading out") by Philo and by the Hellenist Ezekiel who gave that name to his drama on the deliverance from Egypt. Philo has also alternative names for Dt Epinomis ("after-law") borrowed from the title of a pseudo-Platonic treat-
VIII. Characteristics of the Version and Its Component Parts.—Notwithstanding the uncertain state of the text, some general characteristics of the VS are patent. It is clear that, like the Heb itself,
ise, and for Jgs "the Book of Judgments." The last title resembles the Alexandrian name for the books of S and K, viz. the four Books of Kingdoms or rather Reigns; the name may have been given in the first place to a partial VS including only the reigns of the first few monarchs. Jerome's influence in this case restored the old Heb names as also in Ch ( = Heb "Words of Days," "Diaries"), which
it is not a single book, but a library. It is a series of VSS and Gr compositions covering weU-nigh 400 years, since it includes a few productions of the 2d cent. AD; the bulk of the tr», however, fall within the first half of the period (Sir, prol.). The tr8 may be grouped and their chronological order approximately determined from certain character-
istics of their style. (1) We may inquire
in LXX is entitled Paraleipomena, "omissions," as being a supplement to the Books of Reigns.
1 GrouDinp ^°^ ^ ^^^ word or phrase is rendered in
', J YY different parts of the work. Diversity of ol IrAA renderings is not an infallible proof that Books on different hands have been employed, since Internal invariable uniformity in tr is difficult of
Another innovation, due apparently to the Gr translators or later editors, was the breaking up of
some of the long historical narratives
T-, ., attainment and indeed was not the aim iiviaence of the Pent translators, who seem rather to have studied variety of expression. If, however, a Heb word is consistently rendered by one Gr word in one portion and by another elsewhere, and
3. Bipartiinto volumes of more manageable
tion ot compass. In the Heb MSS, S, K, Ch, Books Ezr-Neh form respectively one book apiece. In the LXX the first three of these collections are subdivided into two volumes
if each of the two portions has other features peculiar to itself, it becomes highly probable that the two portions are the work of different schools. Among "test-words" which yield results of this kind are "servant" in "Moses the servant of the Lord," "Hosts" in "Lord of Hosts," "Phihstines" (Swete, //i^ro, 317 f; Thackeray, Grammar of the OT, 7 ft). (2) We may compare the Gr with that of dated documents of the Ptolemaic age. The trs were written in the koini or "common " Gr, most of them in the vernacular variety of it, during a period when this new cosmopolitan language was in the making; the abundant dated papyri enable us to trace some stages in its evolution. The Petrie and Hibeh papyri of the 3d cent. BC afford the closest parallels to the Gr Pent. The following century witnessed a considerable development or "degeneracy" in the language, of which traces may be found in the Gr of the prophetical books. Beside the vernacular Gr was the Uterary language of the "Atticistic" school which persistently struggled, with indifferent success, to recover the literary flavor of the old Gr masterpieces. This style is represented in the LXX by most of the original Gr writings and by the paraphrases of some of the "Writings." (3) We may cora-
as in modern Bibles; an acquaintance with the other arrangement is, however, indicated in cod. B by the insertion at the end of 1 R, 3 R, 1 Ch of
the first sentence of the succeeding book, a reminder
. to the reader that a continuation is to follow. EzrNeh, the Gr VS (2 Esd) being made under the
influence of Palestinian tradition, remains undivided.
Originally Ch-Ezr-Neh formed a unit, as was ap-
parently still the case when the oldest Gr VS (1 Esd) was made.
, , . ,. , In the arrangement of books there is a radical
departure from Palestinian practice. There were
three main unalterable divisions in the
4. Grouping Heb Bible, representing three stages in and Order the formation of the Canon: Law,
of Books Prophets ("Former," i.e. Josh, Jgs, S, K, and "Latter") and "Writings." This
f)are the Gr books as translations, noting in which books
icense is allowed and which adhere strictly to the Heb. The general movement is in the direction of greater literalism; the later books show an increasing reverence for the letter of Scripture, resulting in the production of pedantically literal VSS; the tendency culminated in the 2d cent. AD in the barbarisms ol Aquila. Some
arrangement was known at Alexandria at the end of
the 2d cent. BC (Sir, prol.) but was not followed The "Writings" were a miscellaneous collection ot
history and poetry with one prophetical book (Dnl).
of the " Writings " were freely handled, because they had not yet obtained canonical rank at the time of tr. Investigation on these lines goes to show that the order of
Alexandrian scholars introduced a more hterary and
symmetrical system, bringing together the books
the tr was approximately that of the Heb Canon. The Gr Hexateuch may be placed in the 3d cent. BO, the Prophets mainly in the 2d cent. BO, the "Writings" mainly in the 2d and 1st cents. BO.
of each class and arranging them with some re-
gard to the supposed chronological order ot their
authors. The Law, long before the Gr tr, had
secured a position of supreme sanctity; this group
(1) The Hexateuch.—The Gr Pent should undoubtedly be regarded as a unit: the Aristeas story may so far be credited. It is distinguished by a
was left undisturbed, it kept its precedence and
the individual books their order (Lev and Nu,
however, exchange places in a few lists) . I he other
uniformly high level of the "common" vernacular
two groups are broken up. Ruth is removed trom
style, combined with faithfulness to the Heb,
the 'Writings" and attached to Jgs. Ch and JizrNeh are similarly transferred to the end of the his-
rarely lapsing into literalism. It set the standard which later translators tried to imitate. The text was more securely established in this portion and
torical group. This group, from chronological con-
siderations, is followed by the poetical a,nd other
"Writings,*' the Prophets coming last (so m B, etc,
substantial variant readings are comparatively few. The latter part of Ex is an exception; the Heb had
in SA prophets precede poets) . The mtemal order
Septuagint THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2730
race; for another reason the Gr translators were at
here not reached its final form in the 3d cent. BC, and there is some reason for thinking that the VS
first content with a partial VS. They omitted as unedifying the more disastrous portions, David's
is not the work of the translator of the first half. In Dt a few new features in vocabulary appear
sin with the subsequent calamities of his reign and the later history of the divided monarchy culminating in the captivity. Probably the earliest VSS embraced only (1) 1 R, (2) 2 R 1 1—11 1 (David's early reign), (3) 3 R 2 12—21 13 (Solomon and the beginning of the divided monarchy) ; the third book of "Reigns" opened with the accession of Solomon (as in Lucian's text), not at the point where 1 K opens. These earlier portions are written in a freer style than the rest of the Gr "Reigns," and the Heb original differed widely in places from that tr-^ in the Eng. Bible (JTS, VIII,
(e.g. ek1;lesia; see Hort, Christian Ecclesia, Iff). The Gr VS of Jos forms a link between the Pent and the later historical books. The text was not yet fixed, and variants are more abundant than in the Pent. The earliest VS, probably of selections only, appears from certain common features to have been nearly coeval with that of the Law.
(2) The "Latter" Prophets.—There is little doubt that the next books to be tr** were the Prophets in the narrower sense, and that Isa came first. The style of the Gr Isa has a close similarity, not wholly attributable to imitation, to that of the Pent: a certain freedom of treatment connects it with the earlier tr period: it was known to the author of Wisd (Isa 3 10 with Ottley's n.). The tr shows "obvious signs of incompetence" (Swete), but the task was an exacting one. The local Egyp coloring in the tr is interesting (R. R. Ottley, Book of Isa according to the LXX, 2 vols, Gr text of A, tr and notes, Cambridge, 1904-6, with review in JTS, X, 299). Jer, Ezk and the Minor Prophets were probabty tr'^ en bloc or nearly so. The Palestinian Canon had now been enlarged by a second group of Scriptures and this stimulated a desire among Alexandrian Jews to possess the entire collection of the Prophets in Gr. The undertaking seems to have been a formal and quasi-official one, not a haphazard growth. For it has been ascertained that Jer and Ezk were divided for tr purposes into two nearly equal parts; a change in the Gr style occurs at the junctures. In Jer the break occurs in ch 29 (LXX order) ; the clearest criterion of the two styles is the twofold rendering of "Thus saith the Lord." The last ch (52) is probably a later addition in the Gr. The translator of the second haK of Jer also tr<i the first half of Bar (1 1—3 8); he was incompetent and his work, if our text may be relied on, affords flagrant examples of Gr words being selected to render Heb words which he did not understand merely because of their similar sound. Ezk is similarly divided, but here the translator of the first half (chs 1-27) undertook the difficult
262).
(4) The "Writings"—The Hagiographa at the end of the 2d cent. BC were regarded as national lit.
(Sir, prol. "the other books of our fathers"), but not as canonical. The translators did not scruple to treat these with great freedom, undeterred by the prohibition against alteration of Scripture (Dt 4 2; 12 32). Free paraphrases of extracts were produced, sometimes with legendary additions. A partial VS of Job (one-sixth being omitted) was among the first; Aristeas, the historian of the 2d cent. BC, seems to have been acquainted with it (Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 1875, 136 ff). The translator was a student of the Gr poets; his VS was probably produced for the general reader, not for the synagogues. Hatch's theory (Essays in Bib. Gr, 1889, 214) that his Heb text was shorter than ours and was expanded later is untenable; avoidance of anthropomorphisms explains some omissions, the reason for others is obscure. The first Gr narrative of the return from exile (1 Esd) was probably a similar VS of extracts only from Ch-EzrNeh, grouped round a fable of non-Jewish origin, the story of the 3 youths at the court of Darius. The work is a fragment, the end being lost, and it has been contended by some critics that the VS once embraced the whole of Ch-Ezr-Neh (C. C. Torrey,
Ezra Studies, Chicago, 1910). The Gr is obviously earlier than Esd B and is of great value for the reconstruction of the Heb. The same translator appears from peculiarities of diction to have produced the earliest VS of Dnl, treating it with similar freedom and incorporating extraneous matter (the Three Children, Sus, Bel). The maximum of interpolation is reached in Est, where the Gr additions make up two-thirds of the story. The Gr Prov (probably 1st cent. BC) includes many maxims not in the Heb ; some of these appear to be derived from a lost Heb collection, others are of purely Gr origin. This translator also knew and imitated the Gr classics; the numerous fragments of iambic and hexameter verse in the tr cannot be accidental (JTS, XIII, 46). The Psalter is the one tr in this category in which liberties have not been taken; in Ps 13 [14] 3 the extracts from other parts of Pss and from Isa included in the B text must be an interpolation possibly made before St. Paul's time
last quarter as well (chs 40-48), the remainder being left to a second worker. An outstanding
test is afforded by the renderings of the refrain, "They shall know that I am the Lord." The Gr VS of "the twelve" shows no trace of a similar division; in its style it is closely akin to the first half of Ezk and is perhaps by the same hand (JTS, IV,
24.5, 398, 578). But this official VS of the Prophets had probably been preceded by VSS of short passages selected to be read on the festivals in the synagogues. Lectionory requirements occasioned the
earliest VSS of the Prophets, possibly of the Pent as weU. Two indications of this have been traced. There exists in four JMSS a Gr VS of the Psalm of Habakkuk (Hab 3), a chapter which has been a Jewish lesson for Pentecost from the earliest times, independent of and apparently older than the LXX and made for synagogue use. Similarly in Ezk LXX there is a section of sixteen verses (36 24-38) with a st3de quite distinct from that of its context. This passage was also an early Christian lesson for Pentecost, and its lectionary use was inherited from Judaism. Here the LXX translators seem to have incorporated the older VS, whereas in Hab 3 they rejected it (JTS, XII, 191; IV, 407).
(Rom 3 13 ff), or else taken from Rom. The little Ps 151 in LXX, described in the title as an "autograph" work of David and as "outside the number,"
is clearly a late Gr production, perhaps an appendix added after the VS was complete.
(5) The latest LXX translations.—The latest VSS included in the LXX are the productions of the Jewish translators of the 2d cent. AD; some books may be rather earlier, the work of pioneers in the new school which advocated strict adherence to the Heb. The books of "Reigns" were now completed, by Theodotion, perhaps, or by one of his school; the later portions (2 R 11 2—3 R 2 11, David's downfall, and 3 R 22—4 R end, the downfall of the monarchy) are by one hand, as shown by pecu-
(3) Partial version of the "Former" Prophets (1-3 R).—The Gr style indicates that the history of the monarchy was not all tr^ at once. Ulfilas is said to have omitted these books from the Gothic VS as likely to inflame the military temper of his
2731 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Septuagint
liarities in style, e.g. "I am have with child" (2 R 11 5) = "I am with child," a use which is due to a desire to distinguish the longer form of the pronoun 'anohhl ("I," also used for "I am") from the shorter 'anl. A complete VS of Jgs was now probably first made. In two cases the old paraphrastic VSh were replaced. Theodotion's Dnl, as above stated, superseded in the Christian church the older VS. A new and complete VS of Ch-Ezr-Neh was made (Esd B), though the older VS retained its place in the Gr Bible on account of the interesting legend imbedded in it; the new VS is here again possibly the work of Theodotion; the numerous transliterations are characteristic of him (Torrey, Ezra Studies; the theory had previously been advanced by Sir H. Howorth). In the Gr Ecol we have a specimen of Aquila's style (see McNeile's ed, Cambridge, 1904). Canticles is another late VS. A marked feature of the whole tr is the scrupulous avoidance of anthropomorphisms and phrases
mandments in the Alexandrian order (7, 8, 6), attested in Philo and in the NT. (2) Deliberate rearrangement has taken place in the history of Solomon, and the LXX unquestionably preserves the older text. The narrative of the building of the Temple, like that of the Tabernacle, contains some of the clearest examples of editorial revision in the MT (Wellhaasen, Hist of Israel, 67, 280, etc). At the end of 3 R LXX places chs 20 and 21 in their proper order; MT reverses this, interposing the Naboth story in the connected account of the Syr wars and justifying the change by a short preface. (3) In Jer the chapter numbers differ from the middle of ch 26 to the end of ch 51, the historical appendix (ch 62) concluding both texts. This is due to the different position assigned to a group of prophecies against the nations: LXX places them
in the center, MT at the end. The items in this group are also rearranged. The diversity in order
is earlier than the Gr tr; see JTS, IV, 245. (4) The order of some groups of maxims at the end of Prov was not finally fixed at the time of the Gr
derogatory to the Divine transcend-
2. General ence. Thus Ex 4 16, "Thou shalt Characterbe to him in things pertaining to God"
tr; like Jeremiah's prophecies against the nations, these httle groups seem to have circulated as late as the 2d or 1st cent. BC as separate pamphlets. The Ps numbers from 10 to 147 differ by one in LXX and MT, owing to discrepancies in the lines of demarcation between individual pss.
istics (Heb "for" or "as God"); 15 3, "The Lord is a breaker of battles" (Heb "a Man of war"); 24 10, "They saw the place where the God of Israel stood" (Heb "they saw the God of Israel"); ver 11, "Of the elect of Israel not one perished and they were seen in the place of God"
Excluding the end of Ex, striking examples of divergence in the Pent are few. LXX alone preserves Cain's words to his brother,
(Heb "Upon the nobles .... He laid not His hand, and they beheld God"). The comparison of God to a rock was consistently paraphrased as
2. Subject- "Let us go into the field" (Gen 4 8). Matter The close of Moses' song appears in an expanded form in LXX (Dt 32
idolatrous, as was sometimes the comparison to the sun from fear of sun-worship (Ps 83 [84] 12, "The Lord loves mercy and truth" for Heb "The Lord is a sun and shield"). "The sons of God" (Gen 6 2) becomes "the angels of God." For mmor liberties,
43) . Similarly Hannah's song in 1 R 2 (? originally a warrior's triumph-song) has been rendered more appropriate to the occasion by the substitution in ver 8c of words about the answer to prayer, and enlarged by the insertion of a passage from Jer; the changes in both songs may be connected with their early use as canticles. In Josh the larger amount of divergence suggests that this book did not share the peculiar sanctity of the Law. But the books of "Reigns" present the widest differences and the fullest scope for the textual critic. The LXX here proves the existence of two independent accounts of certain events. Sometimes it incorporates both, while the MT rejects one of them; thus LXX gives (3 R 2 35a ff .46a ff) a connected summary of events in Solomon's personal history; most of which appear elsewhere in a detached form, 12 24a-z is a second account of the dismemberment
e.g. shght amplifications, interpretation of difficult words, substitution of Gr for Heb coinage, tr of place-names, see Swete, 7n«ro, 323 ff. Blunders m
tr are not uncommon, but the difficulties which
these pioneers had to face must be remembered, esp.
the paleographical character of the Heb originals. These were written on flimsy papyrus rolls, in a
script probably in a transitional stage between the
archaic and the later square characters; the words were not separated, and there were no vowel-points; two of the radicals (wdw and yodh) were also fre-
quently omitted. Add to this the absence at Alex-
andria, for parts at least of the Scriptures, of any sound tradition as to the meaning. On the other hand the vocalization adopted by the translators,
of the kingdom; 16 28a-h a second summary of Jehoshaphat's reign (cf 22 41ff); 4 R 1 ISa another summary of Joram's reign (cf 3 Iff). Conversely in 1 R 17-18, MT has apparently preserved two contradictory accounts of events in David's early history, while LXX presents a shorter and consistent narrative (Swete, I?itro, 245 f). An "addition" in LXX of the highest interest appears
e.g. in the proper names, is of great value in the his-
tory of early Sem pronunciation. It must further
be remembered that the Sem language most famil-
iar to them was not Heb but Aram., and sonie mis-
takes are due to Aram, or even Arab. coUoquiahsms
(Swete, Inlro, 319). ^ t j w IX. Salient Differences between Greek and Hebrew Texts.—Differences indicating a Heb original
other than the MT affect either the sequence or
in 3 R 8 536, where a stanza is put into the mouth
of Solomon at the Temple dedication, taken from "the Song-book" (probably the Book of Jashar); the MT gives the stanza in an edited form earlier in the chapter (8 12 f) ; for the reconstruction of the original Heb see JTS, X, 439; XI, 518. The last
the subject-matter (cf Swete, Intro, 231 ff).
The most extensive discrepancies in arrangement
of materials occur in (1) Ex 35—39, the construc-
tion of the Tabernacle and the orna-
1. Sequence ments of its ministers, (2) 3 R 4-11,
line proves to be a title, "For the Sabbath—On Alamoth" (i.e. for sopranos), showing that the song was set to music for liturgical purposes. In Jer, besides transpositions, the two texts differ widely
Solomon's reign, (3) Jer (last half),
(4) Prov (end) . (1) In Ex the LXX gives precedence
to the priests' ornaments, which m the Heb follow
the account of the Tabernacle, and omits altogether
in the way of excess and defect; the verdict of
the altar of incense. The whole section describing
critics is mainly in favor of the priority of the LXX (Streane, Double Text of Jer, 1896). For divergences in the "Writings" see VIII, above; for addi-
the execution of the instructions given in the pre-
vious chapters in aknost identical words is one ot
the latest portions of the Pent and the text had
clearly not been finaUy fixed in the 3d cent. BC; the
tional titles to the Pss see Swete, Intro, 250 f
LiTEBATURE.—The most important works have been mentioned in the body ol the article. See, further, the
section was perhaps absent from the oldest Gr Vb.
In Ex 20 13-15 cod. B arranges three of the com-
Sepulchre Sermon on Mount THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2732
very full lists in Swete's Intro and the bibliographies by Nestle in PRE\ III, 1-24, and XXIII, 207-10 (1913)
gested etymologies. It remains, however, that in Isaiah's use there is nothing of the popular legend or superstition. These seraphim are august beings whose forms are not at all fully described. They had faces, feet, hands and wings. The six wings, in three pairs, covered their faces and feet in humility and reverence, and were used for sustaining them
HDB. IV, 45.3-54.
SEPULCHRE, sep'ul-ker (2 Ch 21 20; 32 33; Jn 19 41 f; Acts 2 29, etc). See Burial; Jerusalem, VIII.
in their positions about the throne of Jeh. One of them is the agent for burning (with a coal off the
SERAH, se'ra (TI'llJ , serah, "abundance"): Daughter of Asher (Gen 46 17; Nu 26 46, AV "Sarah"; 1 Ch 7 30).
altar, not with his own power or person) the sin from the lips of the prophet.
Seraphim are in Jewish theology connected with cherubim and ophanim as the three highest orders of attendants on Jeh, and are superior to the angels who are messengers sent on various errands. As the cherubim in popular fancy were represented by the storm-clouds, so the seraphim were by the serpentine flashes of the lightning; but none of this appears in Isaiah's vision.
SERAIAH, se-ra'ya, s5-rl'a (^iT^^W, s'raydhu, "Jeh hath prevailed"; LXX 2apa£as, Saraias, or Zapata, Saraiu) :
(1) Secretary of David (2 S 8 17); in 2 S 20 25 he is called Sheva ; in 1 K 4 3 the name appears as Shisha. This last or Shasha would be restored elsewhere by some critics; others prefer the form Shavsha, which is found in 1 Ch 18 16.
In the NT the only possible equivalent is in "the living ones" ("beasts" of AV) in Rev 4, 6, etc. Here, as in Isa, they appear nearest Jeh's throne, supreme in praise of His hohness.
(2) A high priest in the reign of Zedekiah; executed with other prominent captives at Riblah by order of Nebuchadnezzar (2 K 25 18.21; Jer 52 24.27). Mentioned in the list of high priests (1 Ch 6 14). Ezra claims descent from him (Ezr 7 1[3]). See Az.-iRAiAs; Saraias.
William Owen Carver SERAR, se'rar (Sepdp, Serdr; AV Aserer) : Name of one of the families which returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esd 5 32) = "Sisera" of Ezr 2 53; Neh 7 55.
(3) The son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and one of the heroic band of men who saved themselves from the fury of Nebuchadnezzar when he stormed Jerus. They repaired to Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, but killed him on account of his allegiance to the Chaldaeans (2 K 25 23.25).
SERED, se'red ("ID
, ^eredh) : Son of Zebulun (Gen 46 14; Nu 26 26).
(4) Son of Kenaz, and younger brother of 0th-
SERGIUS PAULUS, sflr'ji-us po'lus. See Paulus, Sergius.
niel, and father of Joab, the chief of Ge-harashim
(1 Ch 4 13.14).
(5) Grandfather of Jehu, of the tribe of Simeon
SERJEANTS, sar'jents, -jants (papSovxoi, rhdbdouchoi): In Acts 16 35.38 the word (ht. "holders of rods," corresponding to Rom "lictors," thus RVm) is used of the officers in attendance on the Philippian magistrates, whose duty it was to execute orders in scourging, etc, in this case in setting prisoners free. Paul and Silas, however, as Romans, refused thus to be "privily" dismissed.
(1 Ch 4 35).
(6) A priest, the third in the list of those who returned from Babylon to Jerus with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 2; Neh 7 7, here called Azariah; 12 1), and third also (if the same person is meant) in the record of those who sealed the covenant binding all Jews not to take foreign wives (Neh 10 2). As the son of Hilkiah, and consequently a direct descendant of the priestly family, he became governor of the temple when it was rebuilt (Neh 11 11). He
SERMON, stir'mun, ON THE MOUNT, THE:
is mentioned (under the name Azariah) also in 1 Ch 9 11. Neh 12 2 adds that "in the days of Joiakim" the head of Seraiah's house was Meraiah.
I. P.\RALLEL Accounts II. Historicity of the Discourse III. Time and Occasion IV. Scene V. The Hearers VI. The Message: Summary
(7) Son of Azriel, one of those whom Jehoiakim commanded to imprison Jeremiah and Baruch, the son of Neriah (Jer 36 26).
1. Analysis 2. Argument: The Kingdom of God (Heaven) (1) Characteristics of the Subjects (2) Vocation of the Subjects (3) Relation of New Righteousness to Mosaic Law (a) The Relation Defined
(8) The son of Neriah, who went into exile with Zedekiah. He was also called Sar M'mlhdh ("prince of repose"). The Tg renders Sar M'nuhah by Rabh Tlkrabhla' , "prince of battle," and LXX by ipxt^" Siipoiv, drchon dordn, "prince of gifts," reading Minhah for M'nuhah. At the request of Jeremiah he carried with him in his exile the passages containing the prophet's warning of the fall of Babylon, written in a book which he was bidden to bind to a stone and cast into tlie Euphrates, to symboHze the fall of Babylon (Jer 51 59-64).
(6) The Relation Illustrated (4) Motives and Principles of Conduct
(a) In Worship
Ih) In Life's Purpose (c) In Social Relations (5) Hortatory Conclusion (o) The Narrow Way (b) The Tests of Character VII. Principles Literature
Horace J. Wolf SERAPHIM, ser'a-fim (Q"^Sliri , s-rdphlm): A
The Sermon on the Mount is the title commonly given to the collection of sayings recorded in Mt 5-7 and in Lk 6 20-49. The latter is sometimes called the Sermon on the Plain from the fact that it is said to have been dehvered on a level space somewhere on the descent of the mountain. The Sermon appears to be an epitome of the teachings of Jesus concerning the kingdom of heaven, its subjects and their life. For this reason it has always held the first place of attention and esteem among the sayings of Jesus. See Sermon on the Plain.
pi. word occurring only in Isa 6 2 ff—Isaiah's vision of Jeh. The origin of the term in Heb is uncertain. Sarap/i in Nu 21 6; Isa .14 29, etc, sig-
nifies a fiery serpent. A Bab name for the fire-god, Nergal, was Sharrapu. In Egypt there have been found eagle-lion-shaped figures guarding a grave, to which is applied the name senf. The equivalent Eng. term is "griffin."
It is probable enough that popular mythology connected fire with the attendants of the deity in various ways among different peoples, and that burning lies at the base of the idea in all these sug-
/. Parallel Accounts.—As indicated above, the Sermon is reported by both Matthew and Luke.
2733 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA fermoSon Mount
A comparison of the two accounts reveals certain striking differences. A total of 47 verses of the account in Mt have no parallel in Lk, while but 4J verses of the latter are wanting in the former. On the other hand, many of the sayings in Mt that are lacking in the Sermon of Lk, amounting in all to 34 verses, appear elsewhere distributed throughout the Lukan narrative and in some instances connected with different incidents and circumstances.
when the great crowds pressed about Him, He resorted to open-air preaching after the manner of the Sermon. Along with the growth in His popular-
ity there is observed a change in the character of His teaching. His earher message may be summed up in the formula, "Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" {Mi 4 17). Later, both in His pubhc discourses and in His more intimate conferences with His disciples. He was occupied with the principles of the kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount belongs to this later type of teaching and fits naturally into the circumstances to which it has been assigned. Luke probably gives the true historical occasion, i.e. the appointment of the Twelve.
These facts give rise to some interesting literary and historical questions : Do the two accounts represent two distinct discourses dealing with the same general theme but spoken on different occasions, or are they simply different reports of the same discourse ? If it be held that the Sermon was delivered but once, which of the accounts represents more closely the original address 7 Is the discourse in Mt homogeneous or does it include sayings originally spoken on other occasions and early Incorporated in the Sermon in the gospel tradition 7
IV. Scene.—According to the evangelists, the scene of the delivery of the Sermon was one of the mountains or foothills surrounding the Galilean plain. Probably one of the hills lying N.W. of Capernaum is meant, for shortly after the Sermon we find Jesus and His disciples entering that city. There are no data .justifying a closer identification of the place. There is a tradition dating from the time of the Crusades that identifies the mount of the Sermon with Kam Haltin, a two-peaked hill on the road from Tiberias to Nazareth, but there are no means of confirming this late tradition and the identification is rather improbable. V. The Hearers.—The Sermon was evidently addressed, primarily, to the disciples of Jesus. This is the apparent meaning of the account of both evangelists. According to Matthew, Jesus, "seeing the multitudes, .... went up into the mountain: and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him: and he opened his mouth and taught them." The separation from the multitudes and the direction of His words to the disciples seem clear, and the distinction appears intentional on the part of the WTiter. However, it must be observed that in the closing comments on the Sermon the presence of the multitudes is implied. In Luke's account the distinction is less marked. Here the order of events is : the night of prayer in the mountain, the choice of the twelve apostles, the descent with them into the presence of the multitude of His
//. Historicity of the Discourse.—There have been and are today scholars who regard the sermons recorded in Mt and Lk as collections of sayings spoken on different occasions, and maintain that they do not represent any connected discourse ever delivered by Jesus. In their view the Sermon is either a free compilation by the evangeUsts or a product of apostolic teaching and oral tradition.
The prevailing opinion among NT scholars is, however, that the gospel accounts represent a genuine historical discourse. The Sermon as recorded in Mt bears such marks of inner unity of theme and exposition as to give the appearance of genuineness. That Jesus should deliver a discourse of this kind accords with all the circumstances and with the purpose of His ministry. Besides, we know that in His teaching He was accustomed to speak to the multitudes at length, and we should expect Him to give early in His ministry some formal exposition of the kingdom, the burden of His first preaching. That such a summary of one of His most important discourses should have been preserved is altogether probable.
On the other hand, it may be conceded that the accounts need not necessarily be regarded as full or exact reports of the discourse but possibly and probably rather summaries of its theme and substance. Our Lord was accustomed to teach at length, but this discourse could easily be delivered in a few minutes. Again, while His popular teaching was marked by a unique wealth of illustration the Sermon is largely gnomic in form. This gnomic style and the paucity of the usual concrete and illustrative elements suggest the probability of condensation in transmission. Moreover, it is hardly probable that such an address of Jesus would be recorded at the time of its delivery or would be remembered in detail.
There is evidence that the account in Mt 5-7 contains some sayings not included in the original
disciples and a great number of people from Judaea, Jerus and the coast country, the healing of great numbers, and, finally, the address. While the continued presence of the multitudes is implied, the plain meaning of the words, "And he hfted up
discourse. This view is confirmed by the fact that a number of the sayings are given in Luke's Gospel in settings that appear more original. It
is easy to believe that related sayings spoken on
his eyes on his disciples, and said," is that his address was intended esp. for the latter. This view is borne out by the address itself as recorded in both accounts. Observe the use of the second person in the reference to suffering, poverty and persecution for the sake of the Son of Man. Further the sayings concerning the "salt of the earth" and
other occasions may have become associated with
the Sermon in apostolic teaching and thus handed down with it, but if the discourse were well known in
a specific form, such as that recorded in Mt, it is hardly conceivable that Luke or anyone else would break it up and distribute the fragments or associate them with other incidents, as some of the sayings
"the light of the world" could hardly have been addressed to any but His disciples. The term
recorded in both Gospels are found associated in
disciple, however, was doubtless employed in the broader sense by both evangelists. This is clearly the case in Matthew's account, according to which the Twelve had not yet been appointed.
Lk.
///. Time and Occasion.—Both Matthew and Luke agree in assigning the dehvery of the Sermon to
the first half of the Galilean ministry. The former
VI. The Message : A Summary.—It is hardly proper to speak of the Sermon on the Mount as a digest of the teaching of Jesus, for it does not include any reference to some very important subjects discussed by Our Lord on other occasions in the course of His ministry. It is, however, the most comprehensive and important collection or summary
apparently places it a httle earlier than the latter, in whose account it follows immediately after the appointment of the twelve apostles. While the
time cannot be accurately determined, the position
assigned by the Gospels is approximately correct and is supported by the internal evidence.
_ Por-
tions of the Sermon imply that the opposition of
the religious teachers was already m evidence, but
of His sayings that is preserved to us in the gospel record. For this reason the Sermon properly holds
it clearly belongs to the first year of Our Lord s
in Christian thought the first place of esteem among
ministry before that opposition had become serious. On the other hand, the occasion was sufficiently late
all the NT messages. As an exposition of the ideal
life and the program of the new society which Jesus ,)« proposed to create, its interpretation is of the deepest interest and the profoundest concern.
for the popularity of the new Teacher to have reached
its climax. In the early Galilean mmistry Jesus
confined His teaching to the synagogues, but later.
Sermon on Mount THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2734
It may assist the student of the Sermon in arriving at a clear appreciation of the argument and the saUent teatiu-es of the discourse if the whole is
deal with personal qualities: humility, penitence,
self-control, desire for righteousness. These are the sources of inner peace. The second group deals with social qualities; mercifulness toward others, purity of heart or reverence for personaUty, peacemaking or sohcitude for others, self-sacrificing loyalty to righteousness. These are the sources of social rest. The blessings of the kingdom are social as well as individual.
1 Anali7<;r<; *'''^* viewed in outline. There is some i. /uiaij/sis difference of opinion among scholars as to certain features of the analysis, and consequently various outUnes have been presented by diftereut writers. Those of C. W. Votaw in HDB, Canon Gore in The Sermon on the Mount, and H. C King in The Ethics of Jesus are worthy of special mention. The following analysis of the Sermon as recorded by Matthew is given as the basis of the present discussion.
(2) Vocationof the subjects (5 13-16).—Men of the qualities described in the Beatitudes are called "the
It is not implied that there was any such formal plan before the mind of .Jesus as He spoke, but it is believed that the outline presents a faithful syllabus of the argument of the Sermon as preserved to us.
salt of the earth," "the hght of the world." Their happiness is not, then, in themselves or for themselves alone. Their mission is the hope of the kingdom. Salt is a preservative element; light
theme: the kingdom of god (heaven), its subjects AND ITS righteousness (5 -3—7 27),
I. The .subjects of the kingdom (5 .3-16).
is a life-giving one; but the world is not eager to be preserved or willing to receive life. Therefore such men must expect opposition and persecution, but they are not on that account to withdraw from the world. On the contrary, by the leaven of character and the light of example they are to help others in the appreciation and the attainment of the ideal life. By their character and deeds they are to make their influence a force for good in the lives of men. In this sense the men of the kingdom are the salt of the earth, the hght of the world. See Beatitudes,
1. The qualities of character essential to happiness and influence (vs 3-12). 2. The vocation of the subjects (vs 13-16). 11. The relation of the new rigliteousness to the INIosaic Law (5 17-48). 1. The relation defined as that of continuance in a higher fulfilment (vs 17-20). 2, The higher fulfilment of the new righteousness illustrated by a comparison of its principles with the Mosaic Law as currently taught and practised (vs 21-48).
(1) The higher law of brotherhood judges illwill as murder (vs 21-26). (2) The higher law of purity condemns lust as
adultery (vs 27-32).
(3) The higher law of truth forbids oaths as unnecessary and evil (vs 33-37). (4) The higher law of rights substitutes self-restraint and generosity for retaliation and resistance (vs 38-42).
(3) The relation of the new righteousness to the Mosaic Law (5 17-4S).— (a) Relation defined
(6 17-20) : The qualities of character thus set before the citizens of the kingdom were so surprising and revolutionary as to suggest the inquiry: Wliat is the relation of the new teaching to the Mosaic Law? This Jesus defines as continuance and fulfilment. His hearers are not to think that He has come to destroy the law. On the contrary. He has come to conserve and fulfil. The old law is imperfect, but God docs not despair of what is imperfect. Men and institutions are judged, not by the level of present attainment, but by character and direction. The law moves in the right direction and is so valuable that those who violate even its least precepts have a very low place in the kingdom.