LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 RECEIVED BY EXCHANGE 
 
 Class 
 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO ORIENTAL HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY 
 
 No. IV 
 
 THE WITNESS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 VULGATE, PESHITTA AND SEPTUAGINT 
 
 TO THE 
 
 TEXT OF ZEPHANIAH 
 
 BY 
 
 SIDNEY ZANDSTRA 
 
 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE 
 
 OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, IN THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 NEW YORK 
 1909 
 
THE WITNESS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 VULGATE, PESHITTA AND SEPTUAGINT 
 
 TO THE 
 
 TEXT OF ZEPHANIAH 
 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO ORIENTAL HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY 
 
 No. IV 
 
 THE WITNESS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 YULGATE, PESHITTA AND SEPTUAGINT 
 
 TO THE 
 
 TEXT OF ZEPHANIAH 
 
 BY 
 
 SIDNEY ZANDSTRA 
 
 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE 
 
 OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, IN THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF 
 
 NEW YORK 
 1909 
 
Copyright, 1909 
 
 BY THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PEESS 
 Printed from type. Published May, 1909 
 
 THE TUTTLE, MOREHOU6E A TAYLOR COMPANY. 
 
NOTE. 
 
 No complete examination of the relation of the chief Versions 
 of the Old Testament to the original Hebrew has been made with 
 especial reference to the Book of Zephaniah. Dr. Zandstra has 
 in the following Essay supplied this want with much care and 
 discretion. 
 
 RICHARD GOTTHEIL. 
 May 20th, 1909. 
 
 205723 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter 
 
 Introduction, 
 
 I. The Vulgate, 
 
 II. The Peshitta, 
 
 III. The Septuagint, - 
 
 IV. The Interdependence of the. Versions, 
 
 - 1-6 
 
 - 6-17 
 
 - 18-24 
 
 - 24-35 
 
 - 35-38 
 
 V. Departures from Massoretic Tradition and Variants 
 
 from Consonantal Text, - 38-45 
 
 VI. Conclusion, - - 45-47 
 
 Appendix I. Difficulties in the Hebrew Text, - 4749 
 
 Appendix II. Conjectural and Higher Criticism of the 
 
 Text, - 49-52 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 I. It is proposed in the following pages to study the text of 
 Zephaniah in the light of the ancient primary versions. This 
 study was undertaken largely to become familiar with Old Testa- 
 ment Criticism a field of which it is peculiarly true that orien- 
 tation is possible only at first hand. The choice of so short a 
 text is vindicated by the almost unanimous verdict of scholars 
 that the work of the translators of these versions is very uneven 
 in quality. It is in fact still a moot question whether the Minor 
 Prophets were translated into Greek by one individual or by 
 many ; and the arguments that have been advanced 1 to show that 
 the Peshitta is not really a deliberate translation, but rather the 
 final stereotyped form that traditional renderings of various 
 origins assumed, have never been satisfactorily met. The reasons 
 for the choice of this particular text are two. (a.) Though the 
 Hebrew of Zephaniah presents many difficulties, no complete 
 study of its text corresponding to such work as has been done on 
 Micah by Ryssel 2 seems ever to have been made, (b.) In critical 
 commentaries it always occupies a subordinate place among the 
 Minor Prophets, and in textual studies it is entirely overshadowed 
 by the more important books of the division of the Canon to 
 which it belongs. 3 This neglect, whatever its explanation may 
 be, makes Zephaniah a good choice for a textual study. As it 
 would be fatal presumption for one to ignore the work of prede- 
 cessors, whether it bore directly or indirectly on one's theme, it 
 
 1 Perles, Meletemata Peschittoniana, 1859, p. 48. 
 
 a Ryssel, Untersuchungen uber die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches Micha, 
 1887. 
 
 aSchwally's Das Such Zephanja, Z.A.T.W. (1885), pp. 183 ff., is the only separate 
 commentary outside of the well-known English and German critical series accessible to 
 the general student. Bachmann has written specifically about the text of Zephaniah in 
 an article entitled Zur Textkritik des Propheten Zephanja, S.K. (1894) ; his article is, 
 however, but a statement of conclusions, and it is characterized by a most reckless spirit 
 of conjecture. Here and there a brief note on some proposed emendation is to be 
 found ; cf. Z.A.T.W. (1885), pp. 183 ff. and Z.A.T.W. (1891), pp. 185 f., 260 ff. 
 
2 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 goes almost without saying that all available sources of informa- 
 tion have been carefully examined and freely laid under tribute. 
 That which is presented, while based on original investigation, 
 has thus also of necessity the virtue of being a more or less com 
 plete digest of the work of others. 1 
 
 II. Because Old Testament Criticism is still for many reasons 
 a wilderness through which each one must in large part blaze his 
 own trail, it seems necessary to preface the statement of the 
 method chosen in this examination by some more general remarks 
 that shall not only explain it, but also justify its use. 
 
 (A.) The thesis that all extant Hebrew sources for the text of 
 the Old Testament, both in manuscript and in print, go back to 
 a first century archetype, was first advanced by Lagarde in 1863. 
 The chief supports of this thesis are the remarkable uniformity 
 that is found in the manuscripts on the one hand, and the sup- 
 posedly large number of corruptions in the text on the other. 
 These two phenomena are mutually exclusive in an ancient docu- 
 ment that has been accurately transmitted from its autograph, 
 and their conjunction in this case is said to demand a comparatively 
 late date for the common source to which all manuscripts and 
 printed editions converge. The date of this hypothetical archetype 
 is fixed in the first century by certain external characteristics 
 that the text presents and by known facts in Jewish History. 3 
 Strack, who about thirty years ago could pass over this view in 
 silence, 3 states in his article on the Text of the Old Testament in 
 
 1 A bibliography has not been prepared because complete lists of the literature that 
 must be consulted abound. Berger (Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers 
 siecles du moyen dge), Swete (The Old Testament in Greek) and Nestle (Urtext und 
 Ubersetzungen der Bibel, reprinted in the Real-Encyclop'adie fur protest. Theologie 
 und Kirche) are practically exhaustive as far as the general literature is concerned. 
 To the commentaries mentioned in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (article Zephaniah) 
 those of Marti and Driver must be added ; in the miscellaneous literature Ehrlich 
 (Mikrd Ki-Pheschut6, III, pp. 456-463) may well be included. This last work is written 
 in Hebrew, but a German translation of the passages discussed is given. 
 
 2 In a few characteristic paragraphs (Symmicta, II, pp. 120, 121), intended primarily 
 to show that this thesis was entirely original with himself, Lagarde incidentally gives a 
 brief account of how it had been received by scholars up to 1880. It appears that Ols- 
 hausen had independently reached a very similar view through a different process of 
 reasoning. Cf, further Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, pp. 313-320 ; 
 W. R. Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 56 ; Driver, Notes on the Hebrew 
 Text of Samuel, pp. xxxix ff. 
 
 8 Lagarde, Symmicta, II, p. 120. 
 
Introduction. 3 
 
 Hastings 1 Dictionary of the jBible that it is accepted by most 
 moderns. He himself does not accept it, but holds that the cus- 
 tom of consigning manuscripts that had been damaged by the 
 tooth of time, by fire, or by water, or that were found to contain 
 more than a certain number of mistakes, to the so-called genizah, 
 which was generally a room in the cellar of a synagogue, is suffi- 
 cient to explain all the 1 phenomena. This thesis, whether true or 
 not, offers striking proof that the present Hebrew text gives but 
 scant aid in tracing its own history beyond a certain point, or in 
 fixing its earliest form. Moreover, there are but few manuscripts, 
 of which none are very old, and textual types the chief material 
 for the criticism of texts are thus not to be found. 1 But it is a 
 cardinal principle of criticism that to recover the true text of an 
 ancient document it is first necessary to know its history ; and 
 that manuscripts, although the text which they contain is undated 
 and unlocalized, generally furnish the primary data for reconstruct- 
 ing this history with the help of versions, which serve in a sec- 
 ondary capacity to fix the time and place of origin of the differ- 
 ent textual types that the manuscripts present. In the Old Tes- 
 tament, however, there are no types of text in regard to which 
 versions can be made to indicate a choice, but they themselves 
 become the principal data. Instead of being called on to show 
 from which particular type of two or more existing types it was 
 made, a version must surrender the text on which it was based, 
 in order that it may then be decided whether that text agrees 
 with or differs from the single Hebrew textual type. Because a 
 version must thus itself yield the text from which it was made, 
 Old Testament Criticism is complicated by all the variable factors 
 necessarily connected with translation and translators. 
 
 (B.) Languages are for the most part so different in genius that 
 translation from one into another is often impossible without theft 
 
 1 Ginsburg's new ' Edition of the Hebrew Bible according to the Massoretic Text of 
 Jacob Ben Chayim ' (British and Foreign Bible Society, August, 1908) contains the results 
 of a collation of 71 manuscripts and 19 early printed editions. The editor has presuma- 
 bly used everything that seemed worth using in this latest edition and yet there are at 
 most but 27 manuscripts and 9 early printed editions of the Prophets cited. The earliest 
 of the manuscripts is dated 916 A. D. Although sixth century dates have been defended 
 for certain manuscripts, that of the Pentateuch from circa 820-850 (Or. 4445) and the 
 Karaite synagogue manuscript of the Latter Prophets, 'written 827 years after the destruc- 
 tion of the Temple,' i. e., 895 A. D., are generally regarded as the oldest. 
 
4 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 from the thought of the first or assault upon the idiom of the 
 second. The vagaries of translators are also all but incalculable. 
 In testing one's retranslation of a reading the dividing line 
 between the necessary use of the Hebrew text for guidance and 
 prejudicial dependence upon it is hard to locate. Because he 
 cannot entirely penetrate the structural difference of the two 
 dead languages, the critic is inclined to find variants where none 
 exist ; and in obvious disagreements he is apt to make too little 
 allowance for the translator whose mental processes he cannot 
 sufficiently follow, and whose knowledge and ability he cannot 
 accurately gauge. Enough has been said to show that the 
 "peculiarities of each translator, the character of his translation, 
 and the knowledge of both languages displayed " by him infor- 
 mation in regard to these matters can of course be gained only by 
 comparisons both within and beyond the limits of the book being 
 studied 1 are determining factors in the evaluation of his version. 
 It is also evident that the large factor of ignorance by which the 
 critic is necessarily handicapped establishes in all doubtful cases a 
 strong presumption in favor of the agreement of the current 
 Hebrew with the source of a version. 2 
 
 (C.) The necessity of freeing the text of each version from 
 inner corruptions by tracing it as far back as possible is patent. 
 Neither the Vulgate, Peshitta nor Septuagint can, however, be 
 carried back to the time of their origin, 3 and it is therefore neces- 
 sary to seek such help as early quotations can give. The mutual 
 relation of the versions has an important bearing on their value 
 as witnesses, and consequently the presence or absence of inter- 
 dependence must be established. 
 
 1 In the case of the Septuagint these comparisons are much facilitated by the excel- 
 lent concordances available, but with the Peshitta the work is most difficult because of 
 the lack of these helps. Dutripon's Concordantiae Bibliorum Sacrorum Vulgatae 
 Editionis can be used with great advantage together with a Hebrew concordance. 
 
 2 Of the three equations Version <: Massoretic Text, Version = Massoretic Text and 
 Version > Massoretic Text, the possibilities of the second must be exhausted before the 
 others can present themselves. Ryssel assumed that the Massoretic Text was preferable 
 to the Septuagint ; Frankel tried always to make the Massoretic Text equal the Septua- 
 gint ; Streane held that the Septuagint was better than the Massoretic Text (cf. Stek- 
 hoven, De Alexaandrijnsche Vertaling van het Dodekaprofeton, p. 121; Hastings' 
 Dictionary of the Bible, IV, p. 731 b ). Frankel's results are therefore in so far forth the 
 most dependable. 
 
 8 It is not definitely known when the Septuagint and the Peshitta originated ; and 
 although Jerome translated Zephaniah about 393 A. D., the date of the manuscripts used 
 by him is unknown. 
 
Introduction. 5 
 
 III. The method of procedure adopted in the present inquiry 
 is based on the above considerations. The history of the versions 
 has been separately discussed to locate and establish the best 
 obtainable text of Zephaniah in each. The equivalents, which are 
 obviously due to the character of the translation or to linguistic 
 necessity, and those which must, because of the absence of evi- 
 dence to the contrary, be ascribed to the characteristics or nuances 
 of the translator, have been grouped together, and for the Vul- 
 gate presented in a summary, for the Peshitta and Septuagint 
 exhibited in toto. The question of interdependence has been 
 considered, and such readings as have demanded individual con- 
 sideration have been discussed. Thus the versions have been 
 summoned to show cause why they should be regarded as aids in 
 the criticism of the text of Zephaniah, and not rather as worthy 
 monuments of ancient interpretation. Whether they vindicate 
 their value for criticism or not, they can help to fix the history 
 of the Hebrew text only to the time when the earliest of them 
 was made. Beyond this point, if the text obtained does not 
 commend itself as a true copy of the autograph, external criti- 
 cism by the help of translations must yield to Conjectural Criti- 
 cism. A tree only the top of which is visible above some obstruc- 
 tion illustrates quite accurately what can be known of the text of 
 Zephaniah. The angles of convergence must indicate where the 
 continuation of the trunk is, and where branches and trunk join. 
 The present investigation thus resolves itself into a test of the 
 Hebrew transmission at three points, the exact location of which 
 is unknown. This somewhat anticipatory statement has, it is 
 hoped, outlined with sufficient clearness the general trend of the 
 discussion and vindicated the method employed. 
 
 IV. The little that the Hebrew text in editions and manu- 
 scripts offers may be at once presented. 1 I 1 rvpm R. JTpSn , cf. 
 Peshitta; pDK R. j'DK, due to the accidental joining of the 
 strokes for i and final j . I 4 iKtf K. (3 MSS.) Dtf, cf. Septua- 
 gint. run R. Kim, error due to the forgetfulness of a scribe 
 who carried his copy in his memory from clause to clause ; n 
 
 i Kittel's text is used as a basis ; B. = Baer and Delitzsch ; G. =Ginsburg (not his latest 
 edition of 1908); T. = Thiele; W. = Walton's Polyglot; M. = Massoretic Notes; R. = De 
 Rossi's Collations ; K. = Kennicott's Collations as cited by R. 
 
6 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 R. n&O , to avoid possible confusion due to asyndeton. I 6 r\UJ 
 R. rnu, error of vision. I 6 i#p:j G. B. wpi . I 8 ontfn by R. 
 ontyn SD Sy , error of memory, cf. I 4 . I 12 r\^3 R. DV3 , cf. Septu- 
 agint. I 16 D^y R. D^n , error of hearing, frequent with gut- 
 turals. 2 1 itfKnpnn B. nstehpnn. 2 2 p;j T. W. -pnD; D-\DU 
 clause (3) omitted, R. (6 MSS.), K. (8 MSS.), homoioteleuton. 
 2 4 niEhr B. mtfnr . 2 7 onntf M. orratf (G. does not point this 
 word). 2 9 S U R. DTI, error of memory, cf. I 4 ; OITT W. DN3\ 
 2 12 '3in R. mn, cf. Peshitta. 2 14 np_ B. np ; ^D3 M. ^D3. 
 2 16 1T M. iiyKi, odd expression, occurring here only, changed to the 
 usual one. 3 1 runiD G. B. ntnn . 3 2 x 1 ? R. xbi , cf. I 4 ; ^K 
 R. SKI, cf. I 4 . 3 4 D^ma T. o-mia. 3 9 naj; 1 ? R. na^Si , cf. I 4 . 
 3 10 ^ia rn omitted, R. (IMS.), K. (1 MS.), cf. Septuagint and 
 Peshitta. 3 14 T?jn B. 'iSjji . 3 15 p-K R. ^K, error of memory, 
 cf. I 4 ; <Kvn M. R. K. ^-in; ;n B. G. ^. 3 18 ^y M. R. 
 !j^^ , decision must be arbitrary, cf. Peshitta and the Revised Ver- 
 sion. 3 20 D^ry 1 ? R. M. orrr/7, cf. 3 18 . 
 
 The printed texts from Walton to Kittel are identical except 
 in a few pointings and matres lectionis. The sporadic readings 
 in the collations are either due to the versions or are explainable as 
 common corruptions in manuscript transmission. Other explana- 
 tions than those given above may be equally satisfactory ; but the 
 true reading is nowhere in doubt, as each variant has the support 
 of only a few manuscripts at most. It is evident that the arche- 
 type of the manuscripts and printed texts here represented has 
 been transmitted with remarkable accuracy. 
 
 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 THE VULGATE. 
 
 1. The history of Jerome's translation may be divided into 
 three epochs of unequal length, the first and second each cul- 
 minating in an important recension of the text, the third con- 
 tinuing into the present. The first period is one of conflict 
 between it and the Old Latin which it was meant to supersede. 
 The new translation met with violent opposition from many 
 quarters, and its introduction was therefore very gradual. The 
 
The Vulgate. 7 
 
 fact that the older version persisted and the method by which a 
 text had to be transmitted conspired together to rob Jerome's 
 translation of its purity in this conflict of almost four centuries. 
 It could conquer the older version only by absorbing many of its 
 characteristics, while every copy that was made both transmitted 
 and increased errors. The power of the Church was being more 
 and more concentrated and its influence so extended that it was 
 gradually becoming the dominant force in Western Europe ; but 
 the authority of the^ Bible, which was the foundation on which 
 the whole structure of the ecclesiastical hierarchy was felt to rest, 
 was being dissipated more and more, because hardly two copies 
 of it were in agreement. A supreme papacy needed an official 
 text, and it remained for Charlemagne, who was actuated mainly 
 by liturgical motives, to establish one by means of the recension 
 undertaken at his behest by Alcuin. Theodulf (f 821) made an 
 independent recension at about the same time. The Vulgate 
 which was thus established doubtless differed in many important 
 particulars from Jerome's autograph, but unfortunately very little 
 is known of the history of the text during these centuries of con- 
 flict; and the students of Latin Bible texts are consequently 
 unable with any degree of fulness to trace out the process by 
 which the Carolingian Vulgate was evolved. The verses quoted 
 by the church fathers of the period and the few incidental 
 remarks scattered here and there through the pages of their 
 writings throw but a feeble light into the darkness, which begins 
 to lift only in the last century (VIII). 
 
 II. Toward the close of this epoch and in the next the Vul- 
 gate takes higher and higher rank. Wherever the Church goes, 
 it goes as the official version of the Word of God, while Latin 
 becomes everywhere the language of worship. The artificial 
 unity of language thus established was a powerful factor in build- 
 ing up an ecclesiastical sovereignty that practically obliterated 
 national boundaries. The Hildebrandian Papacy had been all 
 but impossible without the Vulgate, which had for many centuries, 
 first through use in missionary propaganda, and then in the litur- 
 gies and lectionaries of worship, been welding together the 
 diverse elements of which it was composed. The torch of learn- 
 ing, though it burned most dimly, was borne along by the Church 
 
8 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 alone during this dark period; and the only text-book in most 
 curricula was the Vulgate. Copies were multiplied with great 
 rapidity in the schools and monasteries. Again, as was inevita- 
 ble, the text became so corrupt that many recensions were made. 
 These sporadic attempts could, however, bring about no perma- 
 nent improvement, because manuscripts were so widely distributed 
 that concerted effort was impossible, while the scribes' choice of 
 exemplars to copy was controlled by the flimsiest critical princi- 
 ples, if by any. 1 Even the early printed editions were for the 
 most part set up from such manuscripts as were near at hand. It 
 remained for the Council of Trent to suggest the remedy that 
 the discovery of printing had made possible, and the Sixtine- 
 Clementine edition is the result of a decree passed by that body. 
 With but few exceptions the 8000 extant manuscripts of the 
 Vulgate belong to this period. The text to be found in them is 
 almost uniformly corrupt. 
 
 111. The third period of the Vulgate's history begins with 
 the Clementine text of 1592. It is still the official text of the 
 Vatican. Many reprints of it have been made ; but no edition, 
 embracing the results of the latest discoveries and based on 
 approved critical methods, has yet appeared, at least not for the 
 Old Testament. Heyse and Tischendorf's pretentious Biblia 
 Sacra Lat. Vet. Test. Hieronymo interprete (1873) is practically 
 identical with Bagster's cheap reprint. 2 The Latin column of 
 Funk and Wagnall's popular Hexapla Bible (1906) differs only 
 in a few punctuations from the de luxe edition, Biblia Sacra Vul- 
 gata (Critice edidit P. M. Helzenover, 1906), in which at least 
 one misprint has escaped the proofreader. 3 Vercellone's Sacra 
 Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V et Clementis VIII (Rome, 1861) is 
 generally regarded as the best. 4 
 
 1 Cf. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siecles du moyen dge, 
 Paris, 1893, pp. 329, 330. 
 
 2 The differences between them in Zephaniah are as follows, Bagster's text being the 
 first cited; I 3 " 5 Coelicaeli, 2 2<a Domini Dm, 2 6 speciosamSpeciosam, 3 14 lauda, 
 lauda, jubila, jubila, corde, corde. 3 1 ' nolitimere noli timer e. 3 ig fuerat,fuerat. 
 
 3 3" Adijcies for adjicies. 
 
 * Now and again more or less extensive excursions have been made into the field of 
 the textual criticism of the Vulgate Old Testament, but on the whole it is still an unex- 
 plored domain. Berger, in the introduction to the work already mentioned, gives a very 
 satisfactory sketch of what has been accomplished both in the Old and New Testaments. 
 The book itself takes rank as a classic in Vulgate studies and contains a complete bibli- 
 ography. 
 
The Vulgate. 9 
 
 IV. The Vulgate manuscripts must be considered in their 
 geographical distribution; for three main types of texts, kept 
 more or less distinct from each other by natural boundaries, are 
 clearly defined. Ireland and Spain because of their location both 
 remained for the most part isolated from the rest of Europe. 
 The Vulgate text, which was early taken to these countries, was 
 thus kept separated from the main continental current of trans- 
 mission. As the purity of a text is, generally speaking, inversely 
 proportioned to the number of times it has been copied, the rate 
 of corruption of manuscripts was much less rapid in Ireland and 
 Spain than elsewhere. But Irish missionaries and Irish monks 
 kept carrying the Irish text to different parts of the continent ; 
 and in the first year of the ninth century the Alcuin recension 
 brought the Irish type of text back into the main stream of trans- 
 mission, for he is known to have sent to York for manuscripts to 
 be used in his work. 1 Theodulf seems to have been familiar with 
 the manuscripts in use in the South of France, and his collations 
 may have brought into the main current many characteristic 
 Spanish readings. In the Clementine text these three types are 
 blended, for manuscripts from many places were collated for it. 
 As compared with each other, the pure Irish type is much better 
 than the pure Spanish. The known national characteristics of 
 the two peoples lead to the inference that Irish manuscripts 
 would be less ornamental and more accurate, and this is confirmed 
 by all that is known of the types. 
 
 V. It is clear from what has been said that a comparison of 
 manuscripts of these three types will yield the earliest obtainable 
 text. The Codex Amiatinus is earlier than the Alcuin recension, 2 
 and the Codex Toletanus antedates Theodulf. 3 For the conti- 
 nental type, in lieu of anything better, the Clementine must needs 
 be used. The results of such a comparison for Zephaniah are as 
 follows: 4 I 1 Sophoniam filium Chusi. A. Sofoniam filium Cusi 
 
 1 Jaffe, Monumenta Alcuiniana, p. 346. 
 
 3 A very interesting account of how the age of this, the best of the Irish manuscripts, 
 was finally fixed is to be found in Studio, Biblica et Ecclesiastica, Oxford, 1890, II, pp. 
 273 ff. 
 
 3 A description of these manuscripts may be found in Berger's Histoire de la Vulgate^ 
 etc., pp. 37 f. and pp. 12 f. 
 
 * The Clementine text is used as a basis. A=Amiatinus; T.=Toletanus. The collation 
 of A. is taken from Heyse and Tischendorf s apparatus ; that of T. from Migne's Patrolo- 
 ffia Latina, XXIX, p. 1027. Italics have been used to indicate the readings which 
 deserve the preference. Where more definite criteria fail (cf. 2 14 ), It is necessary, since 
 relative values have not yet been fixed, to decide by simple majority rule. Readings 
 that are evidently corruptions have been marked as such. 
 
10 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 (Jerome is known to have aspirated the Begadkefat ; cf . Lagarde's 
 Onomastica, index), filii Godaliae A. T. filium Godaliae (this 
 is perhaps an Old Latin reading as it agrees with the Septuagint). 
 ftlii Amariae filii T. filium Amariae filium (the sense demands 
 the genitive). Hheciae A. Ezechiae (p was not aspirated by 
 Jerome in transliteration ; cf . Lagarde's Onomastica, index) . Amon 
 A. Ammon. Judae T. Juda. I 3 volatilia A. T. volatile. I 6 
 super omnem A. omnem. omnem .... qui ingreditur T. 
 omnes .... qui ingrediuntur. I 11 Pilae T. filiae (corruption). 
 disperierunt T. dispergerunt (corruption). I^faecibus A. feci- 
 bus (spelled foecibus, Jer. 48"; the spelling fex is allowable; cf. 
 Harper ' Latin Dictionary , p. 744). faciet A. faciat (corruption). 
 I 14 Juxta est A. Juxta et (corruption). I 17 corpora A. corpus. 
 I 18 faciet cunctis T. faciet Dominus cunctis (interpretative addi- 
 tion, suggested perhaps by I 12 ). 2 2 super vos ira A. ira; ante- 
 quam clause (2) omitted T. (This may be Old Latin, cf. p. 31.) 
 Indignationis A. furoris (in the Liber de Divinis Scripturis 
 sive Speculum, XVI, De Libro Sophoniae, this same variant 
 occurs in an evident Vulgate text, and therefore the reading of 
 A. is to be adopted). 2 s qui T. quia (corruption). 2 B Philisthino- 
 rum A. Philistinorum (cf. I 1 ), inhabitator T. habitator. 2' 
 pecorum T. ovium (this may be Old Latin). 2 7 remanserit A. 
 manserit. 2 H quae T. qui (corruption). 2 9 Gomorrha A. Gomorra 
 (cf. I 1 ), in aeternum T. in sempiternum (this may be another 
 Old Latin reading), eoset . . . . illos A. T. illos . . . . illos (the 
 agreement of A. and T. is hard to explain unless they represent 
 
 the Old Latin ; the Septuagint has avroi>s K<U avrovs, thus 
 
 the agreement with it is only partial). 2 11 viri A. T. vir (in a 
 quotation, evidently made from memory, Augustine has vir with 
 adorabit. He seems to have changed the number of the verb to 
 turn this Hebraism into intelligible Latin, whereas the Clemen- 
 tine text has changed the number of the noun). 2 12 et vos Aethi- 
 opes T. et vos et Aethiopes (dittography). 2 13 Speciosam A. 
 T. Speciosa (Jerome's translation of Nineveh is hardly intelligible 
 in Latin, and the unusual fern. sing. adj. was early corrupted into 
 the ordinary neut. plu.). 2 14 quoniam T. quum. 2 15 civitas glori- 
 osa A. gloriosa civitas (accidental inversion). 3 2 confisa T. 
 confixa (corruption), appropinquavit A. adpropiavit (corrup- 
 
The Vulgate. 11 
 
 tion). 3 5 mane mane A. T. mane (homoioteleutonic omission; 
 or perhaps better, the Hebraism was early removed), lucem A. 
 luce (corruption). 3 6 disperdidi A. disperdi, T. disperdit (cor- 
 ruptions), neque ullo A. nee ullo. 3 7 dixi attamen A. dixit 
 tamen (corruption), suscipies T. suscipe (as timebis was read, 
 suscipe must be a corruption). 3 s et effundam A. T. ut effun- 
 dam (the reading ut may be accepted, not only because it is sup- 
 ported by these two ancient manuscripts, but because it brings 
 out the meaning of the Hebrew better; per se a corruption is 
 possible either way ; the Old Latin has et). indignationem T. 
 oninem indignationem (dittography due to following omnem). 
 3 9 invocent A. T. vocent. 3 13 mendacium et non T. menda- 
 cium non (accidental omission). 3 H Jubila A. Jubilate (inter- 
 pretative with Israel in distributive sense). 3 17 salvabit T. 
 salvabit te (perhaps due to Old Latin influence; cf. Septuagint). 
 exsultabit T. et exsultabit (cf. Septuagint; more likely, how- 
 ever, an ordinary sporadic reading). 3 19 earn quae ejecta fuerat 
 T. ea quae electa fuerant (corruption). 3 20 tempore quo con- 
 gregabo T. tempore congregabo (monograph y). 
 
 VI. Since the distance of the text now established from the 
 autograph must still be measured in centuries, many Old Latin 
 elements that crept in after Jerome had finished his work may be 
 contained in it. The Spanish text as a whole is known to betray 
 an especially strong Old Latin influence, and perhaps the syno- 
 nyms of T. in 2 7> 8 , as well as other readings peculiar to this man- 
 uscript (3 17 ), come from this source. The Old Latin of Zephaniah 
 has not survived, 1 and consequently it cannot be directly deter- 
 mined how much of it, if anything, has passed into the Vulgate 
 either originally through Jerome himself, who sometimes con- 
 sciously, and perhaps more often unconsciously, incorporated its 
 readings, or through subsequent confusions due to their transmis- 
 sion side by side. In the belief that they would be of interest, 
 and, perhaps, even of importance in this connection, a collection 
 of quotations from the early Latin Fathers was made. 3 It was 
 
 1 There seems to be a manuscript in the Vatican which contains the last eight verses of 
 the Old Latin of Zephaniah ; cf. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 
 p. 97. 
 
 2 After the collection was completed it was found that a similar collection had already 
 been published ; cf. Journal of Theological Studies, 1903, p. 76. The results of these 
 two independent examinations are in substantial agreement. 
 
12 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 rather disappointing to find that only a few of the Latin ecclesi- 
 astical writers before the middle of the fifth century were cited 
 in the critical editions of their works as having referred to 
 Zephaniah. In Tertullian only an allusion to the dies irae was 
 to be found. A single clause occurs in Nolan us: 
 
 l llb JExterminati sunt omnes qui exultati fuerant auro et 
 argento. 
 
 Vulgate: disperierunt omnes involuti argento. This can be 
 regarded only as an expansive allusion to Zephaniah. Cassian 
 quotes a clause, the thought of which is of such a nature that 
 divergence in its expression is practically impossible except in 
 particles : 
 
 I 12b Qui dicunt in cordibus suis, non faciet Dominus bene, sed 
 neque faciet male. 
 
 Vulgate: Qui dicunt in cordibus suis : non faciet bene domi- 
 nus, et non faciet male. 
 
 More than a third of the book can be recovered from Cyprian, 
 Augustine and Tyconius. 1 For the purposes of comparison that 
 which seems to be genuine Old Latin has been here placed 
 between the Vulgate and the Septuagint. 
 
 1 The Liber de Divinis Scripturis sive Speculum is here regarded as the work of 
 Augustine, to whom it is attributed by its editor for the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasti- 
 corum Latinorum, Vienna Academy. It is, however, by many attributed to an unknown 
 author. Augustine's capriciousness in quotation is abundantly sustained. His text 
 agrees with that of the Vulgate in five passages, I4h.7a- nb t 2 i-3, ssa-ia-isa. F Or 21.3 and 312 
 he has also quoted the Old Latin. His two quotations of 2 11 are so mingled that he 
 must have quoted from memory in both cases. 
 
 Augustine (1). Praevalebit dominus adversus eos et exterminabit omnes deos gen- 
 tium terrae, et adorabunt eum unus quisque de loco suo, omnes insulae gentium. 
 
 Augustine (2). Horribilis Dominus super eos, et exterminabit omnes deos terrae, et 
 adorabit eum vir de loco suo, omnes insulae gentium. 
 
 Vulgate. Horribilis Dominus super eos, et attenuabit omnes deos terrae; et adora- 
 bunt eum vir de loco suo, omnes insulae Gentium. 
 
The Vulgate. 
 
 13 
 
 VULGATE. 
 
 (I 8 ' 3 ) Congregans congre- 
 gabo omnia a facie terrae, 
 dicit Dominus : Congregans 
 hoininem, et pecus, congre- 
 gans volatile eoeli, et pisces 
 
 marls : et disperdam 
 
 homines a facie terrae 
 
 (P) Silete a facie Domini Dei : 
 quia juxta est dies Domini 
 quia praeparavit Dominus 
 hostiam, sanctificavit voca- 
 tos suos. (l llb ) Disperierunt 
 omnes i n v o 1 u t i argento. 
 (list- i4a) Aedificabunt domos, 
 etnon habitabunt: et planta- 
 bunt vineas, et non bibent 
 vinum earum. Juxta est dies 
 Domini magnus. (I 14b - 16 ) Vox 
 die! Domini amara, tribula- 
 bitur ibi fortis. Dies irae 
 dies ilia, dies tribulationis 
 et angustiae, dies calamitatis 
 et miseriae, dies tenebrarum 
 et caliginis, dies nebulae et 
 turbinis, dies tubae et clan- 
 goris super civitates munitas, 
 et super angulos excelsos. 
 (Ii7b- isa) Et effundetur san- 
 guis eorum sicut humus, et 
 corpora eorum sicut stercora. 
 Sed et argentum eorum, et 
 aurum eorum non poterit 
 liberare eos in die irae Dom- 
 ini. (2i-8) Convenite, congre- 
 gamini gens non amabilis: 
 Priusquam pariat jussio quasi 
 pulverem transeuntem diem, 
 
 antequam veniat 
 
 super vos dies furoris Dom- 
 ini. Quaerite Dominum, 
 
 OLD LATIN. 
 
 (!, Cyprian) Defectlone 
 deticiat a facie terrae dicit 
 Dominus, deficiat homo et 
 pecudes, deficiant volucres 
 caeli et pisces marls et au- 
 feram iniquos a facie terrae. 
 (V, Cyprian) Metuite a facie 
 Domini Dei, quoniam prope 
 est dies ejus; quia paravit 
 Dominus sacriflcium suum, 
 sanctificavit vocatos suos. 
 (l llb , Speculum) Disperierunt 
 omnes qui exaltantur in 
 argento [et auro]. (lb. ", 
 Cyprian) Aedificabunt domos 
 et non inhabitabunt, et insti- 
 tuent vineas et non bibent 
 vinum earum, quia prope est 
 dies Domini, (li^-is, Specu- 
 lum) Vox diei domini amara 
 et dura constituta, dies po- 
 tens, dies iracundiae dies ille, 
 dies tribulationis et necessi- 
 tatis, dies infelicitatis et ex- 
 terminii, dies tenebrarum et 
 tempestatis, dies nubis et cali- 
 ginis, dies tubae et clamoris 
 super civitates firmas et super 
 angulos excelsos. (I 17b> 18a , 
 Speculum) Et effundam san- 
 guinem eorum sicut limum, 
 et carnes eorum sicut stercus 1 
 bourn et argentum et aurum 
 eorum non poterit liberare 
 eos in die irae domini. 
 (2i-3, Speculum) Convenite 
 et congregamini populus in- 
 disciplinatus, priusquam 
 emciamini sicut flos prae- 
 teriens priusquam super- 
 veniat super vos dies iracun- 
 diae domini. Quaerite dom- 
 
 SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 1 stercora in another place. 
 
 dirb Trpoff&irov rijs 7775, 
 Kvpios. 'ExXiTT^Tw avdp(t)iros 
 
 Kal KTT?)Vr) ^XlTT^TW TO. 7TC- 
 
 Teivd TOV ovpavov Kal ol 
 TTJS da\d<ro"rjs ' . . . . Kal 
 TOVS dv6fwvs dirb irpo- 
 XT)? yijs .... (!') 
 atrb irpoffdirov 
 TOU 0eou ' 5i6rt ^771)5 17 
 -rj/ji^pa TOU Kup/ou, 8ri ^r 
 
 Kf TOI>S K\r}TOVS O.VTOJ. (l llb ) 
 
 .... (i}\o0pti0Trjffa,v Trdvres ol 
 dpyvpiy. (Ii3b.i4a) 
 
 Kal ov /j. 
 avrais ' Kal KaTa<pVTev<rov<riv 
 d/LtTreXtDvas, Kal ov ^ irluffi. 
 TOV olvov auTwv. "Ort ^771)$ 17 
 Wpa Kvpiov .... (Ii4b.i6) 
 (fxavTj ij^pas Kvpiov iriKpa Kal 
 ffK\-rjpa rtraKTai. Avvarij 
 6pyi)S, i) 
 ^X^ews Kal 
 awplas Kal d<pavifffJU)v, 
 GKOTOVS Kal yv6<pov, 
 ve0A7;s Kal oplx^*}*, 
 (T(X7ri77os Kal Kpav- 
 7^s lirl ras 7r6Xets TCLS 6xv- 
 /oas, Kal irl ras ywvlas ras 
 
 %ee? rb a?/xa avr&v 
 
 Kal rds ffdpKas avruv a>s 
 
 /86Xj3tra. Kai rb dpyvpiov 
 
 avruv Kal rb xP vff tov avrGiv 
 
 ov IJ.T] dtivyrai %\t(rdai av~ 
 
 TOVS tv ijiJ-tpa dpyijs Kvpiov. 
 
 (2 1 * 8 ) Svvdx^re, 
 
 6-rjTe rb fdvos rb 
 
 irpb TOV yevtffdat v/j.as 
 
 Trpb TOV 
 
 yfdpav dv/Jiov Kvpiov. 
 
 (Tare Tbv Kvpiov irdvTes Tairei- 
 
14 
 
 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 VULGATE. 
 
 omnes mansueti terrae, qui 
 judicium ejus estis operati: 
 quaerite just urn, quaerite 
 mansuetum : si quomodo ab- 
 scondamini in die furoris 
 Domini. (2i3_35a)Et extendet 
 manum suam super Aquilo- 
 
 nem, et ponet Specio- 
 
 sam in solitudinem, et in 
 invium, et quasi desertum. 
 Et accubabunt in medio ejus 
 greges, omnes bestiae Gen- 
 tium : et onocrotalus, et eri- 
 cius in liminibus ejus mora- 
 buntur : vox cantantis in 
 fenestra, corvus in superlimi- 
 n a r i, quoniam attenuabo 
 robur ejus. Haec est civitas 
 gloriosa habitans in confiden- 
 tia: quae dicebat in corde 
 suo: Ego sum, et extra me 
 nonest aliaamplius: quomodo 
 facta est in desertum cubile 
 bestiae? omnis, qui transit 
 per earn, sibilabit, et move- 
 bit manum suam. Vae pro- 
 vocatrix, et redempta civitas, 
 columba. Nonaudivitvocem, 
 et non suscepit disciplinam : 
 in Domino non est confisa, 
 ad Deum suum non appropin- 
 quavit. Principes ejus in 
 medio ejus quasi leones rugi- 
 entes : judices ejus lupi ves- 
 pere, non relinquebant in 
 mane. Prophetae ej us vesani , 
 viri infideles : sacerdotes ejus 
 polluerunt sanctum, injuste 
 egerunt contra legem. Domi- 
 nus Justus in medio ejus non 
 faciet iniquitatem. (38) 
 expecta me, dicit Dominus, 
 in die resurrectionis meae in 
 futurum, quia judicium meum 
 ut congregem Gentes et colli- 
 gam regna : ut effundam su- 
 per eos indignationem meam, 
 
 OLD LATIN. 
 
 inum omnes humiles terrae, 
 aequitatem operamini, et 
 justitiam quaerite, et respon- 
 dete ea , ut protegamini in die 
 irae domini. (2i3-35a ) Tycon- 
 ius) Et extendet manum suam 
 in Aquilonem et ponet illam 
 Nineve exterminium sine 
 aqua in desertum, et pascen- 
 tur in medio ejus greges 
 omnes bestiae terrae. et 
 chameleontes, et hericii in 
 laquearibus ejus cubabunt, et 
 bestiae vocem dabunt in fos- 
 sis ejus, et corvi in partis ejus 
 quoniam cedrus altitude ejus. 
 Civitas contemnens quae 
 habitat in spe, quae dicit in 
 corde suo Ego sum, et non est 
 post me adhuc ! Quomodo 
 facta est in exterminium pas- 
 cua bestiarum ! Omnis qui 
 transit per illam sibilabit, et 
 movebit manus suas. O in- 
 lustris et redempta civitas, 
 columba quae non audit vo- 
 cem, non recepit disciplinam. 
 in Domino non est connsa, et 
 ad Deum suum non adpro- 
 pinquavit, principes ejus in 
 ea ut leones frementes, judices 
 ejus ut lupi Arabiae non re- 
 linquebant in mane, profetae 
 ejus spiritu elati viri contemp- 
 tores, sacerdotes ejus profa- 
 nant sacra e t conscelerant 
 legem. Dominus autem Justus 
 in medio ejus, non faciet in- 
 justum. 1 
 
 SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 vol 7775, Kplfjia e"p7ife<r0e, 
 
 1 Cyprian's exegesis of 3 1 ' 2 
 shows the substantial agree- 
 ment of his text with that 
 ofTyconius : C o 1 u m b a 
 non exaudit vocem, id 
 est, praeclara et redempta 
 civitas non recipit doctrinam 
 et in Dominum fidens non 
 fuit. In the Speculum a 
 clause of 3 4 is quoted: Sacer- 
 dotes ejus contaminant sancta 
 et reprobant legem. This is 
 perhaps a quotation from 
 memory, as Tyconius has a 
 reputation for accuracy, es- 
 pecially in long passages. 
 
 diroKpivecrde avrd, oirus <r/ce- 
 iracrQiJTe ev 77/^/39 6/37775 Ku- 
 plov. (2 13 3 5a ) Kal eKTevei TT> 
 Xeipa avrov eirl fiopbav .... 
 Kal #77<rei TTJV Nti/eu^ els 
 d(pat>i<r fJJbv avvdpov, ws eprj/MV. 
 Kal ve^ffovraL ev jtteVy avrijs 
 TTofyma, Kal travra ra Orjpla 
 TTJS 7775, Kal x a / 
 
 avrijs 
 dypla 
 
 Kal 
 
 tv TOIS 
 
 rb avd<TTT}fj.a 
 77 7r6Xis 77 <pav\iffTpia, 77 
 KaroiKOVffa tir" 1 ATT/SI, 77 
 \tyovffa tv KapStq. ai/TTjs, 
 'E7w ftfu, Kal OVK ftrri ner" 1 
 ifj^ en * TTcDs tyevfiOf) eis 
 a<t>avLffpJbv, vo/J-rj dfiplwv; iras 
 6 diairopev6/j,vos Si 1 avrrjs <rv- 
 ptet, Kal Kivfoei ras xetpas 
 avrov. "ft 77 eirt<pav7]S Kal 
 diro\\VTpufJi.t}>r) 7r6Xts, 77 TTC- 
 purrepa OVK elff^Kovffe <p<i)i>r)S ' 
 O$K fS^aro iratSelav, iri rf 
 Kvplfp OVK eTrcTrot^et, Kai irpbs 
 rbv Qebv avrijs OVK tfyyicrev. 
 01 apxovres avrijs ws \VKOL 
 TIJS 'Apa/3/as, ovx vireKlirovTO 
 els TO irput 01 irpotpTjrat 
 avTijs irvVfj.aTo<f>6poi, avdpes 
 Kara(ppovT]Tai ' iepeis avrrjs 
 f3ef3-r)\ov<ri rd ayia, Kal dffe- 
 (Bovo't vbfjkov. '0 d Kvpios 
 OLKCLLOS v jn&rtjj auTT^s, Kal ov 
 
 'l aOLKOV ' (3 8 ) . . . 
 
 ^7ei Kfyuos, ds 
 dvaffrdcreibs pov els 
 ftapTvpiov ' 5t6 rb Kpl/ma /JLOV els 
 o-vvaywyds 0vu>v, TOV elff- 
 dej-a<r6ai j3a<rtXe?s, TOV 
 
The Vulgate. 15 
 
 VULGATE. OLD LATIN. SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 ..... (3- 13a ) Quia tune red- (8, Cyprian) Expecta me, & afoote ira<rav dpyijv 6vfwv 
 
 dam populis labium electum, dicit Dominus, in die resur- /gg.iaax "Q Tt 
 
 ut vocent omnes in nomine rectionis meae in testimon- 
 
 Domini, et serviant ei humero ium ; quoniam j u d i c i u m *f^W* tirl Xaoi/j 
 
 uno. Ultra flumina .... de- meum ad congregationes gen- ffo-v ets yeveav ayrT/s, TOV iri- 
 
 ferent munus mini. In die tium, ut excipiam reges et /taXear^at Train-as TO 6vofML 
 
 ilia non confunderis super effundam super eos iram K . - 5ouXej j etJ/ aljT /j 
 
 cunctis adinventionibus tuis, meam. (3-is, Augustine) ' 
 
 , , 
 
 quibus praevaricata es in me : Transvertam in populos lin- U7rd &"* v ? " a - E/c 7re / ) a TW " 
 
 quia tune auferam de medio guam et progenies ej us, ut in- iroTa/j-iov 'At0w7r/as 6i<rov<ri 
 
 tui magniloquos superbiae vocent omnes nomen Domini 0v<rlas (ju>i. 'Ej> 
 
 tuae et non adjicies exaltari et ser-viant ei sub jugo uno ; a ^ 
 amplius in montesancto meo. finibus flummum Aethiopae , 
 
 Et derelinquam in medio tui adferenthostiasmihi. Inillo 7ra " TW J' 
 
 populum pauperem, et ege- die confunderis ex omnibus ffov i & v fyrtpyffas ets fyt 
 
 num : et sperabunt in nomine adinventionibus tuis, quas 3rt rbre irepieXu airb <rov rd 
 
 Domini. Reliquiae Israel. . . inpie egisti in me ; quia tune 0auX Z(ruoTa rm CSecis aov 
 auferam abs te pravitates in- n ~ 
 
 juriae tuae ; et jam non ad- ** OVK Ti ** TOV 
 
 jicies, ut magnificeris super fJya\avxi)<rai tirl rb 6pos 
 montem sanctum meum, et S^tbv /*ou. Kai 
 subrelinquam in te populum 
 
 
 
 mansuetum et humilem ; et 
 
 verebantur a nomine Domini, "*", "* 
 qui reliqui fuerint Israel. ^T^ TOU 6v6fj.affTos Kupiou Oi 
 
 KaraXouroi TOU 
 
 In these verses positive proof of Jerome's use of the Old Latin 
 is not to be found. There are a few agreements, but these may 
 well be accidental. 1 The remarkable differences, even in places 
 where greater similarity would hardly have been surprising 
 because of the nature of the ideas to be expressed, seem to pre- 
 clude literary dependence on Jerome's part; for this could be 
 established only by more striking agreements in more character- 
 istic passages. The so-called Itala Question does not present 
 itself in connection with these quotations. In only one case 
 (3 1 * 2 ) are the same verses recovered from two sources. In one of 
 these it is in an interpretation and not in a quotation, and this 
 may well account for the slight differences found. It may now be 
 stated positively that the text already established must be con- 
 sidered as the purest text of the Vulgate of Zephaniah that can 
 be obtained. 
 
 1 Cf. I 7 sanctificavit vocatos suos; I 18 angulos excelsos; 2 1 convenite, congregamini; 
 3* in Domini non est confisa, (et) ad Deum suum non (ap) adpropinquavit. 
 
16 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 VII. No more emphatic proof of the high esteem in which 
 the Vulgate is still held could be offered than the fact that 
 modern Catholic scholarship is about to engage in the stupendous 
 task of a new revision which will, when completed, be the crown- 
 ing tribute of Latin Christianity to St. Jerome. 1 Doubtless the 
 choiceness of its diction and the majesty of its style have been 
 largely instrumental in raising this version to the commanding 
 position which it has so long occupied in the Catholic Church ; 
 but it could not continue to usurp the place of the inspired 
 Hebrew Old Testament so entirely, if its general faithfulness as a 
 translation were not beyond dispute. In Textual Criticism, 
 however, accuracy in detail is the measure of a version's value; 
 and entire consistency in translation, even to the complete subor- 
 dination of all matters of style and diction, is the translator's 
 chief virtue. The Latin text of Zephaniah reveals frequent con- 
 flict beween the careful translator and the literary artist. Occa- 
 sionally Jerome's faithfulness to the Hebrew leads him to do vio- 
 lence to the Latin idiom (l u congregans congregabo ; 2 11 adora- 
 bunt eum vir de loco suo). More frequently he is satisfied with 
 an ad sensum rendering from which the reading of his exemplar 
 could never be recovered without the help of the Massoretic Text 
 (2 T * qui remanserit de domo Juda=mMV JV3 rriKiy; ibi= orp 1 ?;; ; 
 3* injuste egerunt cowra=iDon; 3 6 dum non est qui transeat= 
 "131 y ll ?3D; non remanente viro, neque ullo habitatore=r#ft ETK sl ?3D 
 atfr ; 3 7 omnia, in quibus visitavi eam=rrS;rrnpJD "i^xSD; 3 17 
 fortis^ ipse salvabit=yw 113J). His translations of participles 
 prove him a firm believer in the principle of varietas delectat 
 (participle = participle I 4 ; participle with article = participle I 12 ; 
 participle with article = relative clause I 12 ; participle = relative 
 clause 3 8 ; participle = adjective 3 s ; participle = noun I 18 ; parti- 
 ciple = finite independent verb I 14 ; cf. further 2 14 , where finite 
 independent verb = participle, and I 4 , 1", 2 5 - 6 , 3 8 , where 3tfr is in 
 each case differently rendered). Connectives he supplies or 
 omits quite arbitrarily (I 11 , I 18 , 2 1 , 3 5 ' 6 , 3 9 ), and occasionally he 
 inserts the copula (1 s , 2 10 , 2 15 eveniet). Prepositions are for the 
 
 The work is to be directed by the Rt. Rev. F. A. Gasquet, Abbot President of the 
 English Benedictines. The many uncatalogued cathedral libraries of Spain and Italy 
 are being systematically overhauled, and special copies of the Clementine text are to be 
 printed to aid in the work of collation. 
 
The Vulgate. 17 
 
 sake of variety or interpretatively supplied, omitted or changed 
 (2 a , 2% 3 3 , 3 7 , 3 16 ; in I 8 - 4 he seems to distinguish between Sj?D and 
 |D, the former being rendered by ab, the latter by de). He 
 sometimes shows a very accurate knowledge of Hebrew syntax 
 
 (I 8 et erit visitabo^mpQi rrni , the Septuagint has 
 
 Kai rrcH /cat cKSiKijo-w ; 3 7 diluculo surgentes corruperunt= 
 
 irrniyn iD'Diyn). In matters of vocabulary he is, however, not a 
 safe guide. riDT destroy and StfJ pollute were unknown to him. 
 Speciosam in 2 13 is due rather to his failure to understand the 
 passage than to his fondness for translating proper names (cf. l n , 
 Pilae) ; at any rate his etymology of Nineveh, if he read the 
 word, is far-fetched. 1 The richness of his Latin vocabulary is of 
 course largely responsible for his lack of consistency in the choice 
 of words. For almost every Hebrew word to be translated there 
 were many Latin equivalents and near-equivalents at his command. 
 pS is rendered in the Vulgate Old Testament by morari (2 14 ), com- 
 morari, demorari, man ere, remanere, permanere, quiescere, requi- 
 escere, habitare, esse, resider effing ere tentoria, dormire (cf. further 
 * 49 13 , 59 16 , Job 27 7 , II Sam. 12 16 for less accurate or mistaken ren- 
 derings). *\D33=porrigere, par are, concupiscere, desiderium esse, 
 amabilis (2 1 ). Within Zephaniah the same root is sometimes trans- 
 lated by different words (2 16 , 3", 3 14 ; 3 7 , 3 11 ). In I 3 - 4 'ivon is ren- 
 dered by disperdam ; and mjj in I 11 is very properly rendered by dis- 
 perire, which is the regular passive of disperdere ; 3 in 2 5 , however, 
 disperdere is the translation of T3KH, which in 2 IS is rendered by 
 perdere, and in 2 7 mDJ is translated by perire. Pertinent illus- 
 trations might be multiplied almost indefinitely, but enough have 
 been given to indicate Jerome's general habit of translation and 
 to show how wide are the limits within which the equation, Vul- 
 gate equals Massoretic Text, may with entire safety be allowed 
 to obtain. The readings that demand more special consideration 
 will be noted later. For the rest of the text it can be shown on 
 the basis of the above analysis either that the present Hebrew 
 and the Vulgate agree, or that proof of their disagreement is 
 impossible. 
 
 His derivation of Nineveh is perhaps based on some Midrashic interpretation. He 
 has connected mrj with n*O or HU, cf. Jer. 6" and Zeph. 2. 
 * Cf. Harper's Latin Dictionary (Lewis and Short), p. 592. 
 
18 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 CHAPTEE II. 
 
 THE PESHITTA. 
 
 I. There is no apparatus criticus for the study of the 
 Peshitta text of Zephaniah, and with the exception of Ceriani's 
 photolithographic reproduction of the Cod. Ambrosianus no man- 
 uscripts are available. As far as can be gathered from the 
 scattered and incidental notices of various writers, there are only 
 a few old Syriac manuscripts containing this book in the libraries 
 of Europe. That there are none in Berlin rests on the authority 
 of Strack. In England those earlier than the seventeenth century 
 are British Museum Add. 14,432, 14,443 and 14,468 (I 1 ' 6 ) ; Cam- 
 bridge L. e. 2.4, Uni. Add. 1965, Buchanan Bible. In lieu of 
 manuscripts the printed editions, of which there are five, must be 
 used to establish a critical apparatus for the text. Of these the 
 Syriac text of the Paris Polyglot is the earliest (1645). This 
 was reproduced in Walton's London Polyglot (1657), and again, 
 but without vowels, by Lee for the British Bible Society (1821). 
 A Syriac Bible was printed in Nestorian characters and with 
 Nestorian vowels by American missionaries in Urmiah (1852). 
 More recently the Dominicans of Mosul have printed a text 
 (1887-1892). It is difficult to determine the critical value of 
 these editions. P. (=Paris Polyglot), W. (= Walton's Polyglot) 
 and L. (=Lee's text), are generally allowed to count as only one 
 witness, because their differences are either misprints or improve- 
 ments in spelling. That L. was used for U. (=Urmiah) can be 
 deduced from the text itself. 1 It has not as yet been made certain 
 whether M. (=Mosul) has independent value or not, because those 
 competent to judge seem to have been unable to obtain copies. 2 
 The text of P. is known to have been taken from the manuscript 
 Syriaque 6 of the JBibliotheque Nationale, which dates from the 
 seventeenth century. As a manuscript it has no special merit, 
 
 1 Cf. Nestle, Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, IV, p. 651 a . 
 
 2 Cf. Barnes, An Apparatus Criticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta Version, with a 
 Discussion of the Value of the Codex Ambrosianus, Introduction. 
 
The Peshitta. 19 
 
 and it seems to have been used only because it was convenient for 
 the printers to handle. The sixth tome of Walton's Polyglot 
 (pp. 19 if.) contains a collation of two manuscripts, Usher and 
 Pocock. In the Prolegomena to this work (p. 165 2 ) it is stated 
 that Us. ( = Usher) was copied "from a codex of the Patriarch 
 of Antioch," who is the head of the Maronites. In all likelihood 
 this was an old codex not on sale. According to Barnes (Journal 
 of Theological Studies, II, p. 186), Lee had access to the Bu- 
 chanan Bible and to Cambridge L. e. 2.4, and it may therefore be 
 assumed that he did not find in them any readings which seemed 
 to warrant a departure from the London Polyglot. These as well 
 as Cod. Ambrosianus are Jacobite manuscripts. If manuscripts 
 were used for U. and M., they were undoubtedly of Nestorian 
 and Jacobite or Maronite character respectively. 1 These few 
 facts and probabilities, in which practically all that is known 
 about the origin of these texts is comprised, can in themselves 
 hardly support any positive conclusions ; but in the light of the 
 history of Syrian Christianity they are of paramount importance 
 for the textual criticism of the Peshitta. 
 
 II. The Peshitta version owes its survival largely to the 
 Christological heresies of the fifth century. After the Council 
 of Ephesus (431) the followers of Nestorius were so bitterly 
 persecuted by their Monophysitic opponents that the heresy 
 taught by him was speedily stamped out in Italy and Greece. 
 The Oriental Nestorians, over whom the ecclesiastical control of 
 Rome and Constantinople was but feeble because they were sep- 
 arated both by language and character from the Christians of 
 Europe, maintained their peculiar tenets despite all opposition, 
 and Syria became virtually a theological battle-ground. The 
 Monophy sites were victorious because of the powerful advocacy 
 of Anastasius and Zeno, and they succeeded in driving the Nes- 
 torians more deeply into the territory of the Sassanian kings of 
 Persia. Since the Gospel was first preached within their king- 
 dom, these kings had watched with suspicion the "aliens who 
 had embraced the religion, and who might favor the cause, of 
 the hereditary foes of their realm;" 2 but now that they were 
 
 1 Rahlfs made the assumption that Nestorian manuscripts were used by the American 
 missionaries (Beltrage zur Textkritik der Peschita, Z.A.T.W., 1889, pp. 161 ff.). 
 a Cf. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, XLVII. 
 
20 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 rebels against the Roman Empire and fugitives from Roman 
 jurisdiction, they were eagerly welcomed, and in the year 483 or 
 484 1 at the Synod of Beth Lapat Nestorianism was officially 
 adopted as its confession of faith by the Christian Church in 
 Persia. The Monophysites were themselves anathematized by 
 the Council of Chalcedon (451), and the same influence of lan- 
 guage and character operated to perpetuate this heresy in Syria. 
 They were in turn harassed by the Nestorians, for whom apparent 
 defeat had become a triumph through the powerful allies gained, 
 and their ecclesiastical organization was accomplished only with 
 the greatest difficulty by Jacob Baradaeus, from whom they 
 obtained the name of Jacobites. The odium theologicum thus 
 kindled between Nestorians and Jacobites has never ceased to 
 burn. Toward the close of the following century many of the 
 Syrian Christians who had escaped both Nestorianism and Mono- 
 physitism and who were called Melkites because of their loyalty 
 to the Empire, were wrecked on the rock of Monothelitism ; and 
 a third sect resulted whose members are called Maronites. They 
 never became entirely free from Roman influence and were finally 
 brought back into the Church, when certain minor concessions of 
 ritual and clerical privilege were made by the Papacy. 
 
 III. The Peshitta remained the official version of Scripture 
 for these three sects ; and though Arabic or Persian became 
 their vernacular after the Mohammedan conquest, the Bible con- 
 tinued to be read in the sacred language. Their common accept- 
 ance of the Peshitta in spite of their lasting hostility to each 
 other amounts to proof positive that the Peshitta antedates the 
 schisms which separated them; and the schisms, in that they 
 would tend to produce three distinct lines of transmission, give 
 to Textual Criticism its only means of determining an ancient text. 
 
 (A.) Where all the authorities agree, it may be safely affirmed 
 that the text is older than the last quarter of the fifth century. 
 
 (B.) Am. (^Ambrosianus) and Us. together establish the 
 West-Syrian reading, for one is Jacobite and the other Maronite. 
 
 (C.) If U. contains any distinctly Nestorian readings, they 
 ought to be easily recognized because they stand alone. 
 
 1 Cf. Noldeke, Aufsatze zur persischen Geschichte, p. 107. 
 
The Peshitta. 21 
 
 (D.) In the absence of more positive criteria U. may be 
 allowed to decide between West-Syrian readings. These vaguely 
 general and by no means absolute rules, 1 aided here and there by 
 the scholia of Bar Hebraeus and the quotations of other writers, 
 must in the absence of anything better fix this important text for 
 the entire fifteen centuries or more of its existence. Though 
 Assemani, himself a Syrian, has written a tome of 950 pages 
 concerning Syrian Christianity, 2 he throws little light on the 
 history of the Peshitta as such ; and little more is now known of 
 its origin 3 than Theodore of Mopsuestia seems to have known 
 when he wrote : 
 
 fjpfjirivcvTai 8e ravra ets fJ^v rrjv r<av Svpon/ Trap' OTOV S^TTOTC, ovBe yap 
 lyvaKTTai /u-e'xpt TT/S riy/xepov ocrns -TTOTC OVTOS eoTtv. 4 
 
 IV. The following is a collation of P., W., Us., Po. ( = 
 Pococl$), U., M. and Am. with L. : I 8 * ^ * * ^\ Am. 
 
 I 9 * .cov^Jf^o p o> .oouaJj^ao . I 11 * . ^V ft ^ Ain "" ^" * A . I 11 * 
 
 Am. *oZ ? . I 12 P Am. Us.* P?. I 15 * l?co ?? _Am. fecofo. I 15 * 
 |J^I P. P^l. I 17 * U 1*1 -Am. UJ] ^1^. I 18 * gold and 
 silver Am. silver and gold. 2 2 * Pr^o(3) U. M. Pr^ . 2 9 - 10 - 13 - 14 - 16 * 
 "^-4.1^0-.] U". M. omit both alephs, Am. omits the first. 2 9 * U^ 
 Am. tt^X 2 n * ^X^l U. ^X 1 !?. 2 12 Am. v cJJ additional. 
 (3 7 - 8 break in Am.) 3 11 ^-r- Am. U.* 
 U. M. *-^. 3 17 * h^r^ M. ^r^. 3 19 
 -M. U. Us. Am. * v ociZZoi^ ? \i] oi^as. 320 jy[ jj. 
 Us. Am. add at the beginning of the verse * ^a-^-l 001 U^^ ouo . 
 3' V OOUJL^^_U. M. Am. * v ooi-J.^ . 
 
 The readings to be preferred according to the rules formulated 
 above have been starred. With one exception the variants are 
 of no importance, consisting either in omissions and additions of 
 , ?, and ^, or in differences of spelling. In 3 19 - 20 the collation gives 
 a reading which commends itself as original. The text obtained 
 from these different lines of transmission contains inner-Syraic 
 corruptions, and these must therefore be very early. In I 9 Po. 
 
 1 The rules here formulated agree substantially with those given by Rahlfs (Z.A.T.W., 
 1889, pp. 161-210) , though much less positively stated. 
 
 2 Assemani, Bibliolheca Orientalis, IV. 
 
 3 Cf. Berg, The Influence of the Septuagint upon the Peshitta Psalter, New York, 1895. 
 Cf. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, LXVI, p. 241. 
 
22 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 has corrected one of these by reading sf 01 ^i^ for ^pqi * i, SP . The 
 
 others are l^*- for i^^ (2 11 ) ; IH^ (pointed Ij^ in W.) for 1-=^ 
 (2 14 , cf. Brockelmanrf s Lexicon Syriacum, p. 258 b , and Ez. 
 17 3.-^. ^ , for )^oi (3 ? c f. i"). 
 
 V. Bar Hebraeus cites Zephaniah in the following verses, 
 quoting at most a clause though generally only a word: 1 I 1 , I 2 , 
 I 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 , I 8 , I 10 ' 10 , I 11 - 11 , I 17 , 2 7 - 7 , 2 12 , 2 13 , 2 14 - 14 ," 2 15 , 3 4 , 3 5 , 3 9 , 3 15 . In 
 I 11 one of the three codices collated by Moritz agrees with Am. 
 in omitting the final o of cjoZ? . J n 2 7 , where the editions all have 
 ] *v>i^> ? Bar Hebraeus seems to have read i-^- i-aurs (i n ripa 
 maris). This may be an explanation of the geographical location 
 of Askalon; some connection with the S^n of 2 5 - 6 ' 7 is not unlikely. 
 The remainder of his citations agree with the text of the editions. 
 The scholia have no textual value, being either on the vocaliza- 
 tion of words or of an interpretative character. Quotations of 
 Zephaniah must be exceedingly rare in early Syriac religious 
 literature, because a patient search of many indices and footnotes 
 yielded only a few allusions to Zephaniah by Ephraem Syrus in 
 his poetical Homilies, and two partial quotations of the same verse 
 (3 9 ) by Aphraates, in which he does not differ from the accepted 
 text. 2 
 
 VI. The translation of Zephaniah, while literal, is not 
 slavish, and its style is smooth and flowing. The similarity of 
 Hebrew and Syriac in idiom and vocabulary was evidently of 
 great help to the translator ; but still the Peshitta, as the Vulgate, 
 falls far short of that accuracy of detail and consistency in 
 translation which gives a version its chief value for Textual 
 Criticism. The data which show the general character of the 
 translation, and which thus, though of little or no importance per se, 
 indicate where possible variants may be looked for and where not, 
 may be at once collected and dismissed from further considera- 
 tion. 3 
 
 1 Cf. Moritz, Oregorii Bar Hebraei in Duodecim Prophetas Minores Scholia, 
 Leipzig, 1882. 
 
 2 It was impossible to find out whether the recension of Jacob of Edessa made in 704-5 
 was still extant; cf. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 116, n. 4; and 
 Ryssel, Untersuchungen uber die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches Micha, 
 p. 173. 
 
 s Cf. Introduction; the Syriac readings are always mentioned first. The plus and 
 minus of the Peshitta in regard to Vau are not noted; it is added about forty times and 
 not once omitted. 
 
/ Of THE 
 
 I UNIVERSITY 
 
 V or 
 
 '""fa* Peshitta. 23 
 
 I* | *1 *1^ ma (always except in Ez.). I 4 ? additional (name of 
 the Chemarim with the priests = name of the Chemarim with that 
 of the priests). ! 6 Va (2) additional. T Part. = part, and looi 
 (cf. l a , 3 5 , part.^impf.). l 6 ^ (2) additional. I 6 ^ ^<* = :DJ 
 nnKD (cf. Is. 59 13 ). I 7 Ur* 1r^=ni7V ^1N (only in the Minor 
 Prophets and Ez.). I 7 0=0 (cf. 3 20 , few). I 7 ^iol=anpn (cf. 
 Jer. 12 3 ). I 8 Part.=part. and looi w ith ? (cf. 2 15 ). I 11 ^^o^= 
 (of. 3 1 , <Jo-) ^ ^ *' additional. l ia U^tt 1 ?!. I 14 
 
 ^r^ eoi UU-D J. i V>> 1-05 oi^oo* ooi uOu^O=VtJFI mn s DV D'lp 
 a^ip (the changes here are for the sake of clearness). 
 1" 1M=ni3^ (cf. 1 18 =1>^05). I 17 Impf. with ?=i consecutive 
 with perf. I 18 Gold and silver = silver and gold (cf. Am.). I 18 
 jj^ajoo ^a^? ^nSnaj ]K n^D (this is perhaps a good interpretation, 
 but not a very exact translation, cf. I 9 ll"^ ^aok- ^offiXs ^ 
 jnsDn^^nn). I 18 Part.=impf. 2 4 vor^P ?i-*'l 3 =ninnE;K . 2 6 
 Part, with ^ part, construct. 2 9 ^^ i-^-^i? 5^=^ Vn. 
 2 9 looLi additional. 2 9 ' 5 ^-lr ia -'i^^ additional. 2 11 ^o^o^^nSK (for 
 theological reasons). 2 12 minus suffix and HDH . 2 14 l^aiQ^j Ueu^ 
 = s u in^n . 2 14 J?i its houses =in its capitals. 2 14 01Q -^ j^na . 2 16 
 jua^j? ^SnSizziaijy SD . 2 15 oioJ and i^opo additional (due to the 
 fact that the following verses were referred to Nineveh). 3 1 
 I&JL^ additional (interpretative). 3 1 ^a*-=n:rn (this is read as 
 the name of the prophet because of the interpretation just men- 
 tioned [2 16 J; the order of the words is changed for the same 
 reason). 3 2 ? additional. 3 5 V ^ 1 3a ^= l ?ij; jnr *6i . 3 6 AS^4 
 =1D27J. 3 6 Part, with ?=part. 3 6 -^> ^o=" l ?aD = pKO (cf. 2 6 ). 
 
 3 7 ?=!jK . 3 7 ^^^ additional (interpretative). 3 7 j^j^cVa nty ^3. 
 
 3 8 p] ^0^05 ^Dip. 3 8 ^^ additional (this verb is inserted to 
 guard against ambiguity). 3 8 h-^=Djfl=a|H (cf. I 16 ). 3 9 ^-r-<no 
 = m^3 (cf. 3 n =T^i-<n). 3 9 ? withimpf.=inf. of purpose (2). 
 3 10 Shall bring to me offerings shall bring my offerings. 3 11 
 
 aipD (cf. 3 17 , ^a-^ = ^a")pa). 3 
 (cf. 2 7 ). 3 15 **u* additional (cf. 3 7 ). 3 16 
 
 = |ry . 3" Vr* ^^=^2^ "^^ 3 18 
 !j 1 3j;D SD (it is unnecessary to suppose that D^D was read). 
 3 20 ooi additional (cf . I 14 ' 16 ). 3 20 Impf. =inf . with suffix. 3 20 ? l^ 
 with part, and pronoun subject^inf. with suffix. 
 
24 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 It is evident from this collection of "peculiarities" that the 
 motive of the Peshitta translator was religious rather than 
 scholarly, and that he desired to make a readable rather than an 
 exact translation. He much preferred expansion to condensation. 
 Interpretative additions, especially in places where the style of 
 the Hebrew is concise or elliptical, are not infrequent (2 15 , 3 1 , 3 7 , 
 3 8 ). There is a marked preference for long sentences, and these 
 are formed by adding connective particles (passim). Pronouns 
 are both supplied and omitted (2 12 , 3 11 ). Interpretations and 
 paraphrases are occasionally found (I 4 , I 9 , I 18 ). There is at least 
 one change for theological reasons (2 11 ). A word denoting a 
 general conception is sometimes substituted for one that denotes 
 a particular part of the conception (2 14 ). A plural is often used 
 to render a collective (I 3 , 2 14 ). Minor changes of order, the 
 reason for which is not clear, also occur (I 18 , 3 8 ). Gross ignorance 
 of Hebrew syntax and vocabulary cannot be laid to his charge 
 (cf., however, 1", 3 1 ). Ryssel's general estimate of the Peshitta 
 of Micah 1 will serve equally well for that of Zephaniah. His 
 words are : Fassen wir . . . unser Urtheil tlber den Syrer zusam- 
 men, so muss die grosse formelle Gewandtheid anerkannt werden, 
 mit welcher er die Gedanken des hebr. Textes ins Syrische 
 tiberzutragen versteht, und der leichte, fltissige Stil, in dem alle 
 Unebenheiten des Ausdrucks beseitigt sind; dabei schreibt er 
 korrekt und vermeidet deshalb meist Hebraismen. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 I. For many centuries after its origin the Septuagint was 
 a potent religious force, first among Hellenized Jews and later 
 more especially among Christians. Its importance is shown by 
 the translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian indirectly, 2 
 and directly by Origen's Hexapla and the recensions of Hesychius 
 and Lucian. Through the gradual ascendancy of Rome, its place 
 
 1 Ryssel, Untersuchungen uber die Textgestalt und die Echtheitdes Buches Micha, 
 p. 171. 
 
 It is generally agreed that these translations were made in antagonism either to the 
 Septuagint or to each other. 
 
The Septuagint. 25 
 
 was, however, more and more usurped by the Vulgate, and its 
 direct religious influence continued only in the many secondary 
 versions that were based on it. 1 During this time through the 
 mixture and conflation of recensions and translations a process 
 which was much facilitated by the lazy and ignorant use of 
 Origen's Hexaplaric Septuagint the text of the manuscripts be- 
 came exceedingly corrupt. Humanism in its passionate love for 
 the literature of Occidental antiquity, and the Protestant Reforma- 
 tion in that it rejected the authority of the Vulgate while its 
 formal principle demanded an authoritative Scripture, combined to 
 revive a critical interest in the Septuagint which has been steadily 
 growing; but it has long ceased to undergo recension for religious 
 motives, and the printing-press has checked all further corruption 
 by eclectic manuscript transmission. The history of the Septua- 
 gint thus falls into two general epochs, which may be called the 
 Epoch of Construction and the Epoch of Reconstruction. Between 
 these lies the period of manuscript transmission in which the 
 second epoch must find its material with which to work. Many 
 editions of the Septuagint have appeared, but the process of 
 reconstruction is still far from complete. 2 The great problem is 
 to recover the pre-Hexaplaric (pre-Origenic) text; but this can 
 be obtained only after the Hexaplaric, Hesychian and Lucianic 
 texts, which lie confused together in the manuscripts, have been 
 separated from each other. The three types thus obtained would, 
 after the recensional elements of each had been removed, represent 
 the texts current in Palestine, Egypt and Syria in the early and 
 late third century, and their collation would yield a very early 
 Greek text. Along these lines comparatively little has as yet 
 been done. 3 The extant Hexaplaric fragments have been collected 
 
 1 In the East, where it is still recited by the\Orthodox Church in the Ecclesiastical 
 Offices, it lost much of its influence over the thought and life of the people. Swete 
 Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 433. 
 
 2 As many as sixty-three editions and reprints between the Complutensian text and 
 that of the larger Cambridge Septuagint (now in preparation) are enumerated by Nestle 
 and Swete. The editions from which the reprints have been made are he Complutensian 
 (4), the Aldine (6), the Sixtine (45) and the Alexandrian [Grabian] (5). The Cambridge 
 Manual Septuagint completes a total of sixty-five. There are also several facsimile and 
 photolithographic editions of manuscripts, but these are not generally accessible. Many 
 editions of single books or groups of books have appeared; the text of Zephaniah seems 
 never to have been separately published. 
 
 3 The larger Cambridge Septuagint will when completed be valuable mainly for its 
 critical apparatus, for in its text it will but repeat the Manual Septuagint text of Codex B. 
 
26 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 by Field in his Hexapla Origenis, but the text is not restored in 
 a connected form. Lagarde began the reconstruction of a pro- 
 visional Lucianic text, but only one volume of his work appeared 
 before his death. 1 The Hesychian recension has not yet been so 
 much as definitely identified. 2 The collations of H. P. (= Vetus 
 Testamentum G-raecum, cum variis Lectionibtis, ed. Robertus 
 Holmes [ . . . editionem a Roberto Holmes inchoatarn continuavit 
 Jacobus Parsons], Oxford, 1798-1827), and S. (= Cambridge 
 Manual Septuagint, The Old Testament in Greek according to 
 the Septuagint, H. B. Swete, 1887-1894, 2 1895-1899) contain 
 practically all the evidence of manuscripts and editions ; but the 
 former has been severely criticised on the score both of accuracy 
 and arrangement, 3 while the latter contains the variations of only 
 the important uncials. 
 
 II. The pre-Hexaplaric text of Zephaniah cannot thus be 
 directly and positively established; indirectly something may, 
 however, be done. In the apparatus criticus resulting from the 
 combination of H. P. and S. there are numerous itacistic and 
 sporadic readings which are easily recognized as such. Many 
 rival readings, having good manuscript support, in regard to 
 which nothing positive can be determined because of their nature, 
 are also to be found; but since Cod. B. (=Vaticanus) on the 
 whole presents the version in its oldest form, the balance of 
 probability is in its favor in these cases. There are, however, 
 several pronounced variations from B. and its supporters B. of 
 
 1 Cf. Lagarde, Symmicta, II, pp. 137-148. 
 
 2 To what extent the Hesychian recension is still accessible in manuscripts and 
 versions of the Septuagint is uncertain Swete. Field made no mention of it in the 
 Introduction to his Hexapla, although he discussed Lucian and his work extensively. 
 Ceriani made the claim that the Codex Marchalianus (Q., XII) of the Prophets agrees 
 very closely with the text presupposed in the Egyptian versions and in the works of 
 Cyril of Alexandria, and that it is supported by 26, 109, 198 and 306. According to Tischen- 
 dorf this codex belongs to the recension of Eusebius and Pamphilus, i. e. , it Is Hexa- 
 plaric. The Hesychian group in Ezekiel according to Cornill is 49, 68, 87, 90, 91, 228, 238. 
 Lagarde and Cornill thought that this recension was to be sought in the Aldina edition, 
 which generally follows 68 even in its mistakes; but Stekhoven claimed that the Complu- 
 tensian text in the Minor Prophets agrees with 40, a manuscript which is closely related 
 to the text used by Cyril of Alexandria and therefore to Hesychius. Grabe found the 
 recension in Codex B. For the remaining books of the Old Testament (i. e., with the 
 exception of the Prophets) we have as yet no published list of manuscripts containing 
 a probable Hesychian text Swete. 
 
 3 A complete stemma exhibiting the filiations of these manuscripts and recensions 
 cannot be made from the collations of H. P. Moore, Judges, p. 14. 
 
The Septuagint. 27 
 
 course represents all manuscripts not cited as differing from it, at 
 least in so far as the collations are dependable, which are of such 
 a character that either they or the readings of B. from which 
 they differ must be due to the recensions ; and for the attribution 
 of at least some of these more or less positive criteria are available. 
 The critical notes in the margin and text of the Syro-Hexapla in 
 some cases indicate a choice, and in others a reading is shown to 
 be due to Lucian by the known characteristics of his work. The 
 fragments of Origen's Hexapla (fifth column) collected by Field, 
 the Syro-Hexaplaric version and the Old Latin fragments can also 
 here and there be used as a test. The text of B., thus confirmed 
 or corrected as the case may be by the available evidence, may be 
 accepted as original. Although many elements of uncertainty 
 must remain in a text thus established, these will be in matters of 
 detail which are of importance mainly for the editor of a critical 
 edition, and which do not materially affect the use of the version 
 for Old Testament Textual Criticism. 
 
 111. The Greek manuscripts of Zephaniah contained in the 
 collations are the following: 
 
 SYMBOL. NAME. DATE. 
 
 A. (III.) Alexandrinus. V. 
 
 K. Sinaiticus. IV. 
 
 Q. (XII.) Marchalianus. VI. 
 
 V. (23.) Venetus. VIII. 
 
 T. Cryptoferratensis. IX. 
 
 22. British Museum Reg. 1, B. 2. XII. 
 
 26. Vat. Gr. 556. XI. 
 
 36. Vat. Gr. 347. XIII. 
 
 40. Dorotheus Moldaviens. XII. 
 
 42. Demetrius Moldaviens. XII. 
 
 49. Laur. XI. 4. XI. 
 
 51. Laur. X. 8. XI. 
 
 62. Ox. New Coll. XIII. 
 
 68. St. Mark's, Gr. 5. XV. 
 
 86. Barber V. 45. X. 
 
 87. Chigi 2. IX. 
 91. Vat. Ottob. Gr. 452. XI. 
 95. Vindobon, Th. Gr. 163. ? 
 97. Vat. Gr. 1153. X. 
 
 106. Bibl. Comm. Gr. 187, Ferrara. XV. 
 
 114. Evora, Carthus. 2. ? 
 
28 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 SYMBOL. NAME. DATE. 
 
 131. 1 Vindobon, Th. Gr. 23. XII 
 
 147. Ox., Bodl. Laur. 30. ? 
 
 153. Vat. Gr. 273. X. 
 
 185. Vindobon, Th. Gr. 18. XI. 
 
 198. Paris, Nat. Gr. 14. IX. 
 
 228. Vat. Gr. 1764. XIII. 
 
 233. Vat. Gr. 2067. XII. 
 
 238. Vat. Gr. 1153. IX. 
 
 239. St. Salvator Bonon. 641. XI. 
 
 240. Laur. VI. 22. XIII. 
 
 310. Mosq. Syn. 209. XI. 
 
 311. Mosq. Syn. 341. XI. 
 
 IV. Approximately 500 different readings are noted in H. P. 
 and S. (a) To this total K* has contributed a large number. 
 He seems to have been a very poor copyist, as the following 
 specimens of his work will show: I 3 yx^ves (t^vcs), I 4 ^tpa (^et/oa), 
 I 15 ras TrdXts, 2 10 TravTO/cpdro/aav, 3 3 lire\L(f>Or)O-av. (>) Evident cor- 
 ruptions of all kinds abound: I 12 dya&OTronJo-ei (dya^OTroi^o-r;), I 14 
 Taxwv) and raxvvr) (ra^eux), 2 4 SieaTracr/xoo^and Biecnrap/^evr) 
 2 5 K/OITWI/ (KpryTwv), 2 7 KaraXvTrots (KaraXotVots) , 3 8 e^e'Xcn 
 3 6 KarcWa (/carcWao-a). (c) The sporadic readings of single or of 
 related manuscripts are numerous : spelling, 'lov&W ('lovSa) ; mood, 
 I 7 vXa/?eicr0at (evXa/?er0e) ; tense, 1 s eKXeiTrera) (eKXiTreVa)) ; number, 
 3 B avraij/ (avr^s), I 3 eKXtTreroxrav (e/cXiTreTco) ; person 2 1 i)/xas (v/xas), 
 3 6 e^cpTyttaxrav (c^epry/xwo-w) ; case, I 6 Sw/xcuri (Sw/xara) ; preposition, I 10 
 OTTO (cTrt'), I 10 eKKevTowTwv (aTTo/cevTowTcov) , 2 2 eX^etv (cTTcX^etv) ; syno- 
 nyms, I 16 tcr^vpds (o^vpds), dSt/cuxs and dvo/xoxs (dcreySetixs) ; words of 
 similar appearance, 3 12 TroXw (TT/DCIVI/), 3 6 tixfrOrjcrav (rj^avLcrO^a-av) , 
 3" Trpovxy? (TT/OOO-^S); additions, I 4 ev (before Jerusalem), 3 2 <rov; 
 omissions, I 1 6s: homoioteleutonic, 2 9 /xe'w? to /xeviy; dittography, 
 
 I 4 7Tt *IOV&XV Kttt 7Ti *Iov8aV (7Tt 'lovStt Kttt'). 
 
 V. Between a large number of rival readings which both have 
 good manuscript support, decision must, as has already been sug- 
 gested, be arbitrary. I 4 icpoiv tepeW. I 7 ^roe/xaKe ^Toi/xa<re. I 10 
 v rrj T7/Apa CKUVT) ev Kf.cvy ry -jy/xe/oa. I 11 Oprjvrja-aTe. OpyvtiTt. I 13 
 ov xi^| KaroiKr](TOv<rw ov /x^ Karot/CT/crowrtv. I 14 ^ ^xupa ly/xepa. I 18 
 ([i/Xov iyXovs. 2 4 'AaKaXcov 'AcTKaXcov <rrat. 2 8 
 
 1 130 and 131 is the same manuscript. It is by Lagarde assigned to the thirteenth 
 century (cf. Z.A.T.W., 1908, p. 11). 238 is said to be a copy of 87. 
 
The Septuagint. 29 
 
 2 11 7ri^>av7/o-CTat em^av^s efrrat (cf. Joel 2 11 ' 31 , Hab. I 7 ). 3 a OVK 
 ovSe. 3 4 01 icpcis tepcis. 3 6 &o8eveo-0ai, SioSeveiv. 3 8 8ta Trapa. It 
 is with equivalents of which these are representative that the 
 elusive Hesychian recension may sometime be connected, unless 
 indeed the view that it was a new version now lost ultimately 
 prevail. 1 Comparatively few variants remain, after B's readings 
 have been accepted in all the cases that belong to this class. 
 
 VI. Lucian had a double purpose in revising the Septuagint 
 text. He wished to improve its Greek and at the same time make it 
 conform more nearly to the original. His reverence for the Sep- 
 tuagint sometimes led him to place two translations side by side. 
 In supplying lacunae he made use of the translations of Aquila, 
 Symmachus, and Theodotian. His text also has interpolations that 
 serve only to indicate the nexus of the thought or to make an obscure 
 passage clearer. He seems to have allowed himself to introduce 
 only minor changes for the sake of better Greek. An occasional 
 removal of stiffness by a slight change of construction, and the sub- 
 stitution of a singular for a plural predicate with a neuter subject, 
 of a more familar word or form for one less familar, of one com- 
 pound verb for another, and of a simple for a compound verb or 
 vice versa, as far as now known, mark the extent of his literary 
 revision. It is evident that there are no absolute criteria for 
 detecting his merely literary changes, and therefore many variants 
 of which one or the other is perhaps due to him belong to the 
 class of which illustrations have already been given. ( V.) Cor- 
 rections according to the Hebrew and interpretative additions 
 may, however, be identified with more or less certainty. Accord- 
 ing to Stekhoven the following readings are Lucianic: l a iravra 
 additional; I 3 TO. trKavSaAa o-vv rots dcre/Jecrtv; I 4 TO>V )8aa\t/w., /u-era ran/ 
 tepetov additional; I 6 Kara TOV Mc'X^o/x; I 12 TOVS Aeyovras; I 17 KXD; 
 2 a ^/xcpas additional ; 2 s ^T^crare SiKawxrw^v ^TT/crare irpaor-qra Kat 
 
 vra; 2 13 ve/XTycrcrat ; 2 15 eycvcro; 3 s \\vTpo)fJivrj ; 3 1 * 
 3 20 ov additional. To these may be added: I 1 eyeVero; 
 I 18 Svv^rai; 2 13 KTvu>, fjioV) airoXu*, 6rf<T<^\ 3 4 eis TOV vo/u,ov; 3 7 ctTrov, 
 8u<0apT<u; 3 13 ov /txij. There are also two readings from the other 
 Greek versions which may have been introduced by Lucian: I 16 
 
 Aquila; 3 8 eye/oo-e'ws pov cuwvuxs, Symmachus. These 
 
 Nova potius versio quam ' Septuagintae ' interpretum dicendaGr&be. 
 
30 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 readings, none of which are to be found in B., must all be rejected 
 as recensional; they give no indication as to the nature of Lucian's 
 Hebrew text. 
 
 VII. (a). In its text and margin the Syro-Hexapla has a few 
 important critical notes: I 4 */xra TWV lepeW. I 5 * *at TOV? Trpoo-- 
 (margin) ; 2 2 * yuepa (note ; hoc ex reliquis) , * Trpo TOV 
 <' v/xas ^/xepav 6vfj.ov Kvptou; 2 7 -j-r^s ^aXa(r<r>ys, -r- 'lovSa 1 ; 
 3 6 * cts <ws Kat OVK aTreKpvftfj Kat OVK eyvto doW'av cv aTratTTyo'et (margin) ; 
 3 6 -r-KaTO"7ra<ra VTrep^aVovs fi<f>avi(T0r)<raVy 3 10 * TrpocrSe^o^tat ei/ 8te<T7rap- 
 /xe'vots fte (margin) ; 3 14 0vyarep; -4-Aeyet Kvptos. (5) From the text 
 of the Syro-Hexapla additional data may be gathered: I 7 Kat 
 omitted before ^yta/ce; I 9 rt Travras additional, cov omitted; I 11 
 Kat before tguXoOpevOrjo-av omitted; I 16 the order of words is O-KOTOVS 
 Kat yvo<ov; 2 2 Ovpov additional; 2 14 Kat before KopaKcs omitted; 3 6 
 the order is Kpt/ua avrov Swo-et, VIKOS for VCIKOS; 3 8 Tr)v opyirjv fjtov -jrao-av 
 opyyv Ovfjiov /xov was read ; vTroXeti^o/xat for vTroXiy^o/xat. (c) Field's 
 fragments of the fifth column of the Hexapla, in so far as they 
 were not derived from the Syro-Hexapla, were obtained from 
 Codd. 86 and Q, and from the commentaries of Jerome, Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria on the Minor 
 Prophets. Some have thus already been cited ; the rest are here 
 added. 1 s Kat aaOevrjo-ov&iv ot dcreySers; I 4 Kat ra ovo/xara TWV tepcwv; 
 I 5 Kara TOV /Sao-iXews; I 9 Kat KStK>/<ra> fjL<f>av<*)<s ?rt ra TrpoVvAa; I 10 dwro 
 7rvAr;s aTTOKCvrowTcov ; I 11 ot KarotKovvres rrjv KaraKCKO/x/Aeviyv ; I 12 e^epev- 
 v^o*a); I 16 OXtyetvs, dwptas Kat d^>avto-p,ov) ; I 18 o-vvreXctav Kat 
 2 1 (rvvd^drjTe. Kat o*w8e'^>yTe; 2 3 Kpt/xa, Kat aTroKptVeo^e avra; 2 4 
 eo-rat; 2 B TrdpotKOt Kpryrtuv; 2 6 Kp^rry; 2 9 Kat Aa/xao^Kos, w? 
 
 2 14 ws ^a/xatAcovTCS ; 3 1 w 17 e7rt<^av^s Kat a7ro\e\VTp(afievr) TroAts, 
 ^ 7Tpto*Tepa; 3 3 XvKOt T^5 'ApayStas ; 3 6 ev 8ta^>^opa, ycovtat avraiv; 3 8 cts 
 fjfjiepOLV dvao"Tao"co>s p,ov cts fAaprvpiov ; 3 9 on TOT p,eTaoTpi^<o CTTI Xaov? 
 yXo>o"o*av fits yeveav avr^s; 3 10 CK Treparwv Trora/xoiv 'At^tOTrtas otcrovo-t 
 ^vo-tas ;u,ot; 3 18 ws ev ^epa eopr^s, ovat. 
 
 VIII. In the passages represented in these collections the 
 text of B. is for the most part confirmed; and its readings, except 
 
 1 In the course of transmission an obelus has evidently fallen out before 
 The one before 'Iotf5a is perhaps due to the fact that in some manuscripts a new line was 
 begun with this word, for the diacritical marks were repeated before the first word of a 
 new line. 
 
The Septuagint. 31 
 
 such as are about to be individually considered, may be at once 
 adopted in preference to their alternates. 
 
 1 B All the evidence goes to show that /cat TOVS Trpotr/cvvowras 
 was absent from the original text of the Septuagint, and these 
 words must be deleted from B. 
 
 I 9 In omitting CTTI Travras B. seems to have no better support 
 than 40 and 239. Field and the Syro-Hexaplaric text disagree. 
 It is necessary to insert this in B. The Syro-Hexaplaric omission 
 of @cov is not explained by a note, but that this word was in the 
 original Septuagint is attested by the Vulgate. 
 
 2 2 The last clause is asterisked in the Syro-Hexapla. In the 
 preceding clause OvpSv is added with opyrfv (^Kjnn), and in the 
 clause asterisked o/oyJ/s seems to have been read for Ovpov. There 
 seems to have been some confusion between these clauses the 
 initial words of which are the same. At least "aberant igitur 
 haec a ' Septuaginta ' " does not at once follow, especially as the 
 Old Latin preserved in the Speculum omits the second of these 
 clauses and retains the third. The same omission is suggested by 
 a corrector of Cod. Sinaiticus ( c - b ). These clauses are peculiarly 
 liable to omission by homoioteleuton, as 233, Cod. Toletanus and 
 several Hebrew manuscripts demonstrate. In view of this fact, 
 and more especially because of the evident confusion, it seems 
 unnecessary to delete either one clause or the other. 
 
 2 7 The Syro-Hexapla misrepresents Origen in 'suggesting that 
 his fifth column read airo TT/OOO-WTTOU wuiv -f- 'lov&x X . The obelus 
 must be placed before the first word. These words were perhaps 
 incorporated into the text by someone who did not understand 
 the absolute use of /caraAveiv in the sense of to lodge. 
 
 3 5 ' 6 According to the Syro-Hexaplaric notes and text Origen's 
 fifth column read: 
 
 Kpifjua. avrov Swcret * eis <<*>? /cat OVK a.7TKpvf3rj /cat OVK cyvw (<rav) dSt/ctav 
 ev aTTonrrjcru X /cat OVK ets vt/cos dSt/ctav ev 8uL<f>06pa -r- /caT(T7ra<7a VTrepr;- 
 <dVovs ^avto-^o-av X . The signs are again misplaced, for the 
 last three words are certainly not a Septuagint addition. It is 
 known that Origen sometimes gave .two readimgs where the 
 Septuagint differs widely from the Hebrew, and that he then 
 indicated the Hebrew current in his time by an asterisk and the 
 Septuagint by an obelus. Evidently someone who was ignorant 
 
32 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 of this special method of indicating a doublette has arbitrarily 
 brought about conformity with the general practice. One of the 
 metobeli must be deleted, and the other must be substituted for 
 the obelus. An obelus must be placed before the first ev. The 
 Septuagint reading thus obtained makes fairly good sense, but it 
 cannot be regarded as an attempted translation of the Hebrew 
 that has come down to us. There are indications in the collation 
 of H. P. that vet/cos must be read for vt/<os and Sia<d/oafor Sia<0opa. 
 The Syriac for eV aTramJo-ei is Ik^sks. Field seems to have read 
 this as ]&o A^ and the meaning may be in doubt. The Origenic 
 reading thus becomes a triple gloss, "in doubt," "and not in 
 dispute dSi/a'av," "in disagreement". The trouble seems to have 
 been due to the words ntzto SlK, the first of which was so translated 
 that the second had no apparent government. Comments occa- 
 sioned by this supplanted the text, while a slight change in one 
 case gave a good sense, and in another a possible translation of 
 the Hebrew word (n&2i = ev 8ta<f>06pa) . The original Septuagint 
 for n^ is thus unknown, but ev aTratTT/o-et /cat OVK eis vet/cos dStKiav h 
 8ia<f>06pa must be deleted. 
 
 3 8 D;N is represented in the Syro-Hexapla, but according to Field 
 it was not represented in Origen's fifth column. It is absent from 
 the Old Latin. As 0v/x,os and 0/0717 translate ^x, pin, DJN, rn3p and 
 non indifferently, it was impossible to translate literally where 
 three of these words occur together without repeating one or the 
 other of them. One Greek word thus sometimes represents two 
 Hebrew words (cf. Is. 13 13 , Jer. 4 8 , Zeph. 2 a ), and this may well 
 be the case here. 
 
 3 10 The clause 7rpocr8e'o/>uu iv Steo-Trap/xeVoi? /xov is to be deleted 
 because it is absent from the Hexaplaric text and the Old Latin 
 of the Speculum. 
 
 3 12 The reading vTroAij^o/xat is an early inner-Greek corruption 
 for i}7ro\i\l/ofjicu. 
 
 The text of the Cambridge Manual Septuagint, which is based 
 on a facsimile edition, is to be preferred to that of H. P., which 
 represents a copy of B. made by the Dutch Septuagint editor, 
 L. Bos. Where the Manual contains T instead of B. (3 9b -3 20 ), 
 H. P. is to be preferred, and so xxu ^o-o/xat (3 19 ) and on (with 
 , 3 20 ) are to be inserted. oAe'0/>evo- (2 11 ) should be eoAo- 
 
The Septuagint. 33 
 
 0/oevo-e (cf. 3 7 ). iraiSiav (3 a ) should be TraiScutv (cf. 3 7 ). aXwvos (2 9 ) 
 must be corrected to dA.os (Putamus dA.os inter pretatos, id est^ sails ; 
 sed ab imperitis, qui 0i/x,o>vtav, Aoc es, acervum, frumenti vel 
 frugum, putaverunt, pro oAos additis duabus litteris, o> et v, quasi 
 ad consequential^, frugum, aXwvos, Aoc es, areae positum Jerome) . 
 As there seem to be no quotations of Zephaniah in the early 
 Greek Church Fathers, the New Testament Apocrypha, the New 
 Testament, Josephus, Philo or the Old Testament Apocrypha, no 
 earlier text than that now established can be obtained. 
 
 IX. The readings of the Septuagint which illustrate the 
 general character of the translation without proving differences 
 of text can now be presented. From these it will be seen that 
 the Septuagint has no general characteristics which it does not 
 share with the Peshitta or the Vulgate, or with both. 1 
 
 1 s K\efyu cKAtTreTo) ^ fpx *]DK (Est. 9" and * 73 19 seem to indi- 
 cate that forms of ]io were read here; cf., however, DtK *]DK (I 8 ), 
 where the verb was undoubtedly regarded as in the 3d person. 
 The absence of a translation for SD makes it entirely uncertain 
 what the Septuagintist read in his text). 1 s ircrara e|iy (collec- 
 tive) ; dvo/xovs D1K (this is a change for theological reasons rather 
 than an inner-Greek corruption from dv0/>o>7rous [cf. I 17 , avOp<i>- 
 TTOVS DIK]. It is unnecessary to suppose that the Septuagintist 
 had either D'yeh D1K [G. A. Smith] or [Gratz] D'KBn in his text). 
 I 4 ovofuiTa DE? (collective) ; KM additional. I 5 Sw/xara nUJ (cf. * 
 129"). I 6 aTTo nnD; KOL TOVS p) ^rowras lK?p3 X 1 ? ItfKl (the 
 Greek and Hebrew differ in regard to the verb-form to be used 
 with the negative) ; dn-cxo/Aecous TOV Kvpiov int^"n (the participial 
 form is again retained; for the sake of clearness the suffix is 
 translated by its logical antecedent, cf. Jer. 8 3 ). I 7 vAa/?er0 
 DH (cf. Zech. 2 17 ); Ova-uiv avrov rUT (cf. 2 14 , avr^s). I 8 Kal lora* 
 ..... KOL e/cSt/cTjo-w s mp)l .... mm (the Septuagintist does not 
 seem to have understood the Hebrew tense consecution) ; fv8vtw.ro. 
 BhaSD (collective). I 9 TrpoVvXa jnso (cf. I 12 ) ; eov additional be- 
 tween "JIK and its suffix (these words were thought to refer to 
 the temple, and by this addition the reference is brought out 
 
 1 Because the translator of Zephaniah seems to have known no law but caprice in his 
 translations of the article, these have not been referred to ; for the same reason there are 
 but few references to tenses. 
 
34 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 more clearly). 1" e^p^e'vot ^DJ (cf. II Sam. 24 12 ) ; cv rrj 
 run (cf. 3 16 ). I 12 Xv X vov rnu (cf. I 9 ). I 13 ev avrats additional. 
 I 14 Initial on and Kat additional (interpretative). I 18 Kat o-TrovS^v 
 nSn3J }K (^r^rai, Jer. 15 8 ). 2 2 opyrjv *]K pin (cf. Is. 13 13 and 
 Jer. 4 8 , passages in which 0v/xos translate f]X pin . In 3 8 Dyr seems 
 to have been omitted in translation because the Septuagintist's 
 supply of synonyms was exhausted). 2 3 rairtwoi ^y (= Si, 3 1S ) ; 
 OTTWS^^SIK. 2 4 Kat additional; eKpt^T/o-erat niBnr (the construc- 
 tion is changed to avoid the resumptive suffix). 2 5 dXXo<vX(Dv 
 (this is the usual translation except in the Hexateuch). 2 5 
 v/xas sprnatfn (the object in the Septuagint is not Canaan, 
 but the Philistines); CK KaroiKtas 3tfr pKD (cf. 3 6 ). 2 8 7rpo/3aY(ov 
 pv (collective). 2 7 rots KaraXoiTrois rviKtf (concrete for abstract, 
 cf. 3 13 ); eTrco-KCTTTat ips 1 (=KStK>7(ra>, I 8 - 9 ; the change of tense 
 is interpretative). 2 8 ovetSto-^ovs r\3in (cf. 1 1S ) ; e/xeyaXwovro 
 iVun (= e/xeyaA.w0*7<rav, 2 10 ) ; opia fiou oSuj (the reading of 
 the Septuagint is intrinsically improbable, for the phrase 
 my border in the sense of territory occurs nowhere else 
 with Jehovah as speaker ; cf. I Chr. 4 10 ). 2 9 Kat (2) ad- 
 ditional ; Kvptos Ttov 6\W/A<ov ni&OY mrr (= TravroKpaTw/o, 2 10 ) ; 
 KaToAowroi nniy and in s . 2 10 toy omitted (this omission was inten- 
 tional to strengthen the idea, cf. Jer. 48 aM2 ). 2 11 c7ri</>avvjo-cTat 
 N1U (cf. Joel 2 31 , Hab. I 7 ) ; TWV eOv&v additional (this addition cor- 
 responds to the change from gods to kings in the Peshitta). 2 14 
 KCU' (4) and avnjs (4) additional; OrjpLa TI/S y^s 'U irrn (the 
 Septuagint has the phrase as it occurs in Gen. I 24 , cf . * 79 2 ) ; 
 Orjpia <j><j)vir)<Tei 111^ Sp (?) ; Kat ^a/xatXcovres Kat e^tvot 13p DJl HNp DJi 
 
 (collectives). 2 15 cXTrt's nan (cf. EC. 9 4 ) ; vo/4 0>;ptW n^nS pin. 
 3 2 Kat additional. 3 3 ev Dips (cf. 3 1M7 ). 3 3 w? (2) additional. 
 3* Kat additional. 3 6 e^ep^/xwo-o) ^nninn (cf. 2 7 ). 3 6b and 2 13 are 
 good illustrations of free and literal translation. 3 7 Kat additional ; 
 ^o\oOpvO'rfT ni:r (the re. was added under the influence of the 
 preceding verbs) ; TrdVra oo-a SD . 3 8 VTro/xavov /xov ^ 13H ; dvaa-- 
 /x.ov ''Dip ; ets (rvvaycoya? e0i/cov rov cts Se^acr^at ^SacrtXet? rov tK^eat 
 ^p 1 ? D'U ^DX 1 ? (^ao-tXets is a contraction for jSooiXe&t?) ; 
 minus S D^T (cf. 2 2 ). 3 9 yXwoxrav HSt^; Travra? D^D (cf. I 7 , 2 8 ) ; 
 vyov DDiy (change of figure). 3 10 CK Treparwv TTOTO/AWV 'At0tO7rtas 
 1^13 nn: 1 ? 13^D (cf. 2 15 ). 3 13 Kat additional, mxtf is taken as the 
 
Interdependence of the Versions. 35 
 
 subject of the preceding, not of the following, verb ; K<U OVK lorrai 
 6 eK<o/3a>v avrovs Tina JW (the part, in this phrase never has an 
 object, cf. Is. 17 a , etc.; cf. also 2 6 , 3", I 7 , 2"). 3 14 Bvyarep 'leppv- 
 Stm?' (perhaps the change is due to the following w 
 cf. Gen. 36 81 B.) ; 0X775 rr}? KapSuxs <rou n 1 ? Sm. 3 16 Xc- 
 <re K x/3os l\^P^ v " ov ^P'** 3 (interpretative expansion ; 
 it is unnecessary with Stekhoven to suppose that JH3 was read) ; 
 h /xeVw o-ov }31p3 (cf. 3 3 ' 17 ). 3 16 v T<? Kcupo> OVD (cf. I 13 ). 3 17 
 ev o-ot }:np:j (cf. 3 3 , 3 16 ); object pronoun additional (2). 3 19 Xe'y 
 Kvptos additional. 3 19 oi/o/xacrrovs Dfc? (3 20 idem). 
 additional ; eW>7riov V 
 
 OHAPTEK IV. 
 
 THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF THE VERSIONS. 
 
 I. The Peshitta is of Post-Christian origin, and in New 
 Testament times the Septuagint was already so well established 
 that it was quoted as authoritative. The wide popularity that 
 the Septuagint enjoyed would tend to cause many of its phrases, 
 expressions and interpretations to pass into current use, and 
 some of these may have been unconsciously adopted by the 
 makers of the new version. As they were not entirely familiar 
 with Hebrew, it is natural that they should consult the existing 
 version when in doubt. The two translations continued to exist 
 side by side as ecclesiastically recognized versions, and correction 
 of the one by the other is therefore not impossible, especially 
 since many Greek ecclesiastics were resident in Syria for a longer 
 or shorter time. That the Peshitta and Syro-Hexapla may 
 have influenced each other mutually is shown by the case of Bar- 
 Hebraeus, who is known to have used them both. The probability 
 of interdependence, either initial or subsequent, thus established 
 is so strong that the Septuagint and the Peshitta cannot be 
 regarded as independent witnesses when they agree together 
 against the Hebrew. 1 In Zephaniah the influence of the Septua- 
 
 1 This principle is of course invalid when the two versions follow a common tradition 
 that can be located in the Aramaic Targum. The Targum of Zephaniah is, however, so 
 paraphrastic that it gives little aid to Textual Criticism. That which it offers can here be 
 conveniently collected:! 6 DD^D is interpreted as idols. I 9 "1J1 J^IH is explained as 
 those who walk in the laws of the Philistines. 2* The imperatives are rendered by 
 words having the root idea of assemble. 2 14 The Targum adds K3iy to ^Ip . 3 1 PHIID 
 nJOID . 3 DD^ is represented by ^fQ 3" The obscure clause of this 1 verse is inter- 
 preted by the captivity of my people ivhich was taken captive. 
 
36 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 gint on the Peshitta (or vice versa, cf. 3 10 ) can be discerned in 
 several places. 
 
 I 7 0^0 evAa/?eto-0 (Syro-Hexapla, a^-*?). I 11 
 Hwoi dpyv/oio) (Syro-Hexapla ^Nn4Sn). I 12 ^0019040^, ^ft . K ara- 
 <j>povovvra<i CTTI TO, ^vXay/Aara avTtov (Syro-Hexapla, U'4J). I 13 v oous 
 additional eV avrats additional (?) . 1 14 P--^c U .00 i-j^o VLKp ^ Ka i 
 <rK\rjpa (reraKTat) Awa-n/ (Syro-Hexapla, P-^^ paa^io] ]. *-oo 
 r^s o-a/oKas avrw. 2 1 1?> P? l^> ojJflj^o a-*lsA.l__ <r 
 TO 0vos TO aTratScvTOV (Syro-Hexapla, 1|-^1 cjj0]A.]o 
 5 P? V^a^). 2 2 ^0001^ U,^ Trpo Tot) yeveV0ai v/xas (Syro-Hexapla, 
 The Peshitta and the Septuagint both omit or in trans- 
 lation. 2 s P-? 0,^1^0 Kpfa epyde<r6e. 2 6 Ur^ Kprfrrj. 2 7 l^a- 
 additional T^S Oa\do-<nj<s additional. SA - X ^1 eTri^anyo-eTat (cf. the 
 Syriac translation of &nij in Joel 2 11>S1 and Hab. I 7 ) ; t-^aJ eoAo- 
 Opevo-t. 2 14 ^oiJJ UQ-^* Qypia. ^vyja-u. 3 1 l^^r- eTri^avrjs (Syro- 
 Hexapla, 1^^-t- 1 ) ; l^Q-r 3 aTroXfXvTpupivri (Syro-Hexapla, l^-t-s). 
 3 s t-1 (2) additional <is (2) additional (?). 3 7 <*^?<t> pdcrOe (?) ; 
 
 . 3 8 
 
 Kat 
 
 rvpiov. 3 9 r* ir-^^ VTTO Cvyov Iva. 3 10 The Septuagint and the 
 Peshitta both omit s vi} ra nnj;. 3 18 ^.oov^ additional avTovs addi- 
 tional. 3 17 ^^r* /catvicio-e NO-^J ^] <J, S l v ^eaa. 3 19 
 
 The use that the Peshitta translator made of the Septuagint is 
 on the whole a very intelligent one, although agreement in error 
 can be found in the above list (l ia , 3 1 ). In I 14 he preferred to omit 
 DSP rather than accept TeVaKTeu. In 2 3 he refused to accept a7roKpiW0c 
 avTa, but he adopted the Septuagint interpretation of the first clauses 
 of the verse ; dependence on the Septuagint was responsible for the 
 omission of the second wpl. Perhaps the translation of p^na 
 (2 14 ) by the colorless -^f> is due to the Septuagint Siopvy/Aao-iv. 
 The Peshitta has hardly any demonstrable departures from the 
 Massoretic tradition which it has not derived from the Septuagint. 
 That the Peshitta has influenced the Septuagint in some of the 
 instances cited, while not impossible, is still extremely doubtful. 
 There is, however, to be found in many Greek manuscripts a very 
 early translation of the obscure phrase in 3 10 (7rpoo-8e'o/xcu ev &e- 
 o-TrapjuteVots /AOV) ; perhaps this belonged to the original Septua- 
 gint, but was omitted under Syriac influence. In at least some 
 
Interdependence of the Versions. 37 
 
 of the readings cited the Peshitta seems to have influenced the 
 Syriac translation from the Septuagint (cf. 2 1 , 3 1 ). 
 
 II. Jerome lamented the fact that in his day the world ' was 
 divided between three opposing texts of the Septuagint.' 1 It was 
 his purpose in his translation to get behind the Septuagint back 
 to the "Hebrew verity"; and though he frequently reminds his 
 reader that his work is not condemnatory of the ancients, 2 he is 
 not slow to point out wherein and how they erred. As the pur- 
 pose of Origen was similar to his own, he was naturally a great 
 admirer of the Hexapla. His use of it can readily be illustrated 
 by a few quotations : 
 
 2 7 Quod autem legitur in ' Septuagintam ' a facie filiorum Juda, 
 obelo praenotavimus, nee in Hebraeo enim, nee apud ullam fertur 
 interpretatum. 3 9 Ubi nos interpretati sumus reddam populis 
 labium electum, pro electo 4 Septuagintes ' dixerunt in generationem 
 ejus, ut subaudiatur, terrae. Et hinc error exortus est, quod 
 verbum Hebraicum BARURA, quod Aq. et Theo. electum, Sym. 
 Mundum interpretatus est, 'Septuagintes' legerunt BADURA. 8 
 
 3 18 Miror autem Aq. et ' Septuaginta ' in eo loco ubi 
 
 diximus: congregabo quia ex te erant, pro erant interpretati 
 voluisse vae, sive ot, quod semper Aq. non pro plangendo, sed pro 
 vocando et inclamando ponit. 
 
 There are only a few passages in the Vulgate which seem to 
 indicate direct dependence on the Septuagint. Nomina and 
 6v6fjuara (I 4 ), silete and evXafttLo-Oe (1 7 )> transeuntem and Tropcvo/xevov 
 (2 2 ), et attenuabit and /cat eoA.o0/oaxrei (2 11 ), the additions of quasi 
 and d>s (3 3 ), expecta and vTro'/xeii/ov (3 8 ), and the addition of the 
 same suffix (3 9 ) may all be accidental. Columba (3 1 ) may not be 
 due to the Septuagint ircpto-Tcpa, for in Jer. 25 38 Jerome makes the 
 same mistake. Corvus (2 14 ) is, however, an intentional agree- 
 ment with the Septuagint against the Hebrew of his day (Quod 
 
 1 Totus orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat. Preface to Chronicles. 
 
 2 Obsecro te lector ne laborem meum reprehensionem existimes antiquorum. 
 
 9 In Zephaniah none of the minor Greek Versions are extant in manuscript, and only 
 fragments contained in quotations such as these have been recovered. The longest of 
 these fragments is one from Symmachus, preserved by Theodore of Mopsuestia : (3 10 ) 
 TrtpaOev irorafjiuv ''AiBioirtas iKer&jovrd /we TKVO. T&V 8ie<TKOpTrur/j.tv(i>v vir' 1 tfwv tvty- 
 K<a<ri Swpov tfjiot. They are of no textual value, for they have for the most part been 
 preserved in citation only because they agree with the Massoretic Text against the Sep- 
 tuagint. 
 
38 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 nos et * Septuaginta ' similiter transtulimus corvus in 
 
 Hebraeo ponitur HAREB. The Vulgate and the Septuagint 
 agree further in the peculiar addition of TiSK between <I JIK and 
 its suffix (I 9 ) ; in the interpretation of *pDJ (2 1 ), 101:1 (2 s ) and 
 nSjUJ (3 1 ) ; and in the subordination of the independent clause 
 of 3 ao . All these agreements can hardly be accidental, 'especially 
 since it is known that Jerome was thoroughly familiar with the 
 Septuagint. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE DEPARTURES OF THE VERSIONS FROM THE MASSORETIC 
 TRADITION AND THEIR POSITIVE VARIANTS FROM THE CONSO- 
 NANTAL TEXT. 
 
 I. Vowels and accents were introduced into the Hebrew 
 text not earlier than the sixth century A. D. The so-called 
 Sopherim in the first Christian centuries fixed the form of writing 
 as regards the matres lectionis. There is good reason to believe 
 that there was neither word or sentence division in the earliest 
 manuscripts. It is therefore possible to consider the consonantal 
 text entirely apart from the form which tradition has given it by 
 the word and verse division that now obtains, and from the inter- 
 pretation that the vocalization gives it; for these are as it were 
 superimposed upon the original text. The translators in some 
 cases adopted a possible reading or interpretation which disagrees 
 with the Massoretic tradition. J 
 
 (a). 1 s Congregans (2) t|OK (* efoKj cf. I 2 ). I 5 Melchom 
 D^Sp (*o3Sp is read in the Massoretic text only in I Kgs. 11 B ' 8 
 and II Kgs. 23 13 ; it has been proposed to read it also in I Kgs. 
 II 7 , II Sam. 12 30 , I Chr. 20 2 , Am. I 15 and Jer. 49 1 ' 3 . Jehovah is 
 often called a king [cf. 3 1B ; Harper, Amos and Hosea, p. 141; 
 and Brown, Driver and Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon, Art. ^D, 3], 
 The name Milchom occurs or is proposed as a reading only in 
 
 1 In this and the following lists the readings that must be rejected as evidently wrong 
 have been indicated by a star. Some that have only the negative merit of being not 
 impossible have been left undistinguished, and those that commend themselves some- 
 what more strongly have been marked with a dagger. 
 
Departures from Massoretic Tradition. 39 
 
 passages in which Ammon is mentioned in the immediate context. 
 In this passage there is no reference to Ammon, and therefore it 
 is necessary to accept the Massoretic punctuation and to look for 
 the exact meaning of the words in the use of different preposi- 
 tions with the same verb). l u conticuit nmj (* n? ?"^ T ). I 14 The 
 Vulgate takes in as a predicate adjective with Dr. 2 & perditorum 
 DWD fD'in?, cf. I Kgs. 7 12 Pro CHORETIM, quod dicitur, 
 perditorum, nomen Cretae Insulae (' Septuagintes ') putaverunt 
 Jerome). 2 14 attenuabo mix (*H^, cf. 2"). 3 8 in futurum 
 ~W^ (t Ubi nos transtulimus, in die resurrectionis meae in 
 futurum, et omnes interpretati sunt, in testimonium, Hebraeus, 
 qui me in Scripturis instituit, asserebat LAED in praesenti loco 
 magis ek eri, id est, in futurum debere intelligi Jerome; cf. Is. 
 30 8 , Am. I 11 , Is. 9 8 and Gen. 49" in the Vulgate). 3 18 Nugas 
 ;u (*nugas .... a nobis ita ut in Hebraeo erat positum, ut nosse 
 possimus linguam Hebraeicam omnium linguarum esse matricem. 
 This has been characterized as an interesting bit of crude com- 
 parative linguistics. Amara = in (I 14 ) would have served 
 Jerome's purpose much better. The Septuagint offers a parallel 
 in x<w>s=\J, (Mic. I 4 ). 3 18 ut non ultra habeas Sy fiKtyn (* L ?j; n&u?n, 
 cf. Lev. 19 7 ). 3 20 in tempore quo congregabo ^3p AP3 (f AP?). 
 See further under (c) 2 2 , 3 1 ' 1 , 3 20 . 
 
 (5) ! 6 >onn\sn D5Sn (cf. Vulgate, supra). I 11 ojo^nnij (*naru). 
 2 14 V^H* 3in (^l 1 ?)- 3 n Kinn DVD is connected with what precedes 
 and not with what follows. See further under (c) I 11 , 2 a , 3 1 , 3 8 , 3 19 . 
 
 (c) I 1 TOV TOV xovo-i 'Bho p (the Septuagintist has interpreted 
 'J^O 1 3 patronymically as the following mov seems to show). I 11 
 rv)v KaraKCKo/x/oieVr/v ^roDH (* i^nDQn) ; kfjioiuOrj npnj (there are two 
 similar roots of which one means * to be like', the other, to destroy). 
 I 12 <v\ay/wrra (cf. Peshitta) avrwv Drnni?( * DnnD, cf. Ex. 12 42 ). 
 I 14 reraKrat D (*Dt?) ; ^13 J was read as an adjective with the fol- 
 lowing DV and not as a noun. I 17 KCU expect }3i?i (* ^3^,1). 2 a 
 TTopevd/xevov (cf. Peshitta and Vulgate) "O;? (j- 13 j;). 2* aTro/c/oiVeo-- 
 ^c avra nij^ (* ^nwjj). 2 14 Stopvy/xacm/ j^n (this meaning of the 
 word is to be found nowhere else in the Septuagint). 3 1 aTroXeXv- 
 Tpa>/u,eV>7 (cf. Vulgate and Peshitta) nS&u: (there are two roots 
 SKJ, of which one means * to redeem ; the other, to pollute) ff 
 (cf. Vulgate). mrn (this form may be a * noun subject 
 
40 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 of nyntf, 3 2 ; or a participle from nr, to oppress). 3 3 'Apa/?ias 
 anj; (* 3lj, cf. Jer. 25"; in Hab. I 8 the Septuagint bas the same 
 reading, and in Jer. 5 6 ecus TWV ofciW represents rn3ij? = rr:i iy). 3 
 (cf. Peshitta) ItfS (i#7; cf. Yulgate, supra). 3 12 nnKtf 
 is taken as the subject of the preceding verb by the Septu- 
 agint. 3 16 epct Kvpos "iraK?. (* lOK" 1 was read and KV/HOS was inter- 
 pretatively added, cf. 3 19 ). 3 19 ev o-ot eve/cei/ o-ou ipyo ho fitf (* }fiK 
 W?S) ; T^V KTTTTLe^vr}v (cf. Peshitta) j^n (cf. Mic. 4 8 ' 7 , Gen. 
 32 33 ; there are two roots yStf of which the y is represented in Arabic 
 by Dad and Ta respectively; the one may mean, to oppress-, the 
 other, to limp. The former is found in the Old Testament only 
 in the noun ySv, rib ; but the Septuagint suggests very plausibly 
 that the word here and in Mic. 4 6 - 7 be taken from the root that 
 has the meaning of to oppress. Barth [ Wurzeluntersuchungen . . . , 
 
 uu 
 
 pp. 39, 40] suggests the Arabic J^ as the cognate of the word 
 here used). 3 19 h rw Kai/ow orav eto-Sc'lo/xat '^p '"W? (f AP?, of. 
 Vulgate). 
 
 (d) These readings, so far as they are not at once condemned 
 by internal evidence, are suggestive for the interpretation of the 
 text. Whether they are wrong or right, they shed additional 
 light on the translations and translators. They also indicate the 
 gradual crystallization of the tradition that grew up around the 
 text, for departures from it decrease in the versions in the order 
 of their rise. 
 
 II. The readings of the versions so far considered either 
 agree with the current consonantal text, or else data are lacking 
 to show that the text of which they are severally the translation 
 varied from it. It is still necessary to consider the equivalents 
 in regard to which there is positive evidence of disagreement. 
 Many variants are by the context or by parallel passages shown 
 to be due to the intentional or unintentional faithlessness of the 
 translators to their copies, or to the defective character of the 
 exemplars which they used. Those that are not thus condemned 
 will represent each version's actual contribution to the textual 
 criticism of Zephaniah. 
 
 (1) Most of the variants are reducible to the addition, omis- 
 sion, transposition, or change of single letter?. 
 
Variants from Consonantal Text. 41 
 
 (a) I 14 tribulabitur rm (I 1 *, I 17 and especially Am. 3 11 show 
 that *[n]iY was read; the rendering by the future is interpretative, 
 cf. Am. 3", idem). 2 14 robur e/wa my (*n ; Ty, cf. Pr. 21", Jer. 
 5 1 68 ; this change may be due to the punctuation of the preceding 
 nnK which Jerome adopted). 3 1 provocatrix HfcOlD ( Quod signi- 
 
 ficantius Hebraeice dicitur *MARA, id est, TrapairiKpaivov<ra 
 Jerome). 3 10 filii r3 ('J3; this may, however, be an inner-Latin 
 corruption from t /jfo'a). See further under (c) 2 14 . 
 
 (b) ).f\.. -ppjn (* n^pSn). I 10 )r>$ D>:n (OTV, this word is 
 always so rendered in the Peshitta, when it occurs in connection 
 with lytf). See further under (c) 2 a - 2 , 3 1 , 3 7 - 7 , 3 17 . 
 
 (c) I 8 OLKOV "J3 (confusion between JVD and "ft is frequent; O'KOS 
 = ', Jer. 16 16 , Ez. 2', I Chr. 2 10 ; vloi=no, Gen. 45", Ex. 16", 
 Jos. 17 17 , 18 16 , Hos. I 7 ). I 9 e/M<av(us jiSin (it has been suggested 
 that ^n or rhl was read ; there may, however, be a corruption in 
 Greek here. Perhaps a participial form of e/u./ftuvo), i. e., e/A/?avras, 
 stood in the original Septuagint; cf. I Sam. 5 6 , Greek). I 10 cbro- 
 KO/TOWTCDV D'jnn (* D'jnn ; cf. II Chr. 33 14 ). I 14 o-KA^pd m* (the Sep- 
 tuagintist has translated a derivative of "ny, to be hard). 2 a irpb 
 TOV yivsvOai v/xa? (cf. Peshitta, Pr^^zK 1 ? Qiwa) pn trh D"D3 (per- 
 haps the Septuagintist readiprnn K^ D*iD3 and made use of the color- 
 less yeve'o-00,1 to translate the verb because he misread po) ; av0os 
 ^D (*p) ; the omission of or from the Septuagint (cf . Peshitta) 
 may be due to a reading DOT'iDy. 2 5 irdpoiKoi "U (Pro GOI, id est, 
 gente, l Septuagintes ' legerunt * GAR, hoc est, advenam 
 Jerome). 2 14 KopaKs (cf. Vulgate) :nn (t^ij?) ; TO Avao-riy/xa avr^s 
 my (*nvy, cf. Jer. 15 8 , Hos. II 9 , * 73 20 ; my, to rowse, is ren- 
 dered by firavLa-rrjfjiL in Job 17 8 ). 3 1 (TTi^av^ (cf. Peshitta and Syro- 
 Hexapla) HKIID (* ^, cf. 2 11 ). 3 8 4ir W ^vow D' (f D ' w ). 
 3 7 ^ 6<t>0a\fji>v a.vTrjs (cf . Peshitta) miyD (f n^ryo) ; eToi/xaov (cf. 
 
 Peshitta) opOpicrov tyOaprai ira(ra ^ eTri^vXXts avrwv IDOtfn |3K 
 omVSy ^73 in^ni^n (cf . the Vulgate rendering of the two verbs ; 
 * orviSSy SD in^nt^n opt^n pn) 3 9 ets ycveav avr^s mna (* nTna)^ 
 3 12 evXaprjOTjo-ovTat, ion(* 1DH, cf. I 7 and Ne. 8"; 0. = ! is due to 
 this reading). 3 17 firdu vw (* rnsr; KCUVW? (cf. Peshitta) nn' 
 (f E^Hn"). 3 18 TOVS o-wrerpt/x/xevovs ^JOD ( D"pp ; with erov in the 
 Greek text, ^3n, cf . Ex. 5 16 ) ; 3 18 ovac rn (f 'in, cf. 2 5 ) ; rts 
 nfe/D (f KET" % n). 
 
42 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 (2). There are a few readings which suggest a somewhat 
 greater difference of text than those just considered do. 
 
 1* ovojjLara iKtf (oty, perhaps this is due to the DK? in the context, 
 or to either Hos. 2 19 or Zech. 13 a ). 3 18 d>s ev ^e/oa (cf. Peshitta) 
 
 Qvja-ovrai DHtf 3 (* B'0^?rj ; for the sake of variety this was rendered 
 by a passive, since DT\DJy occurs in the immediate context). 3 20 
 
 (3). The words in the versions for which there is no equiv- 
 alent in the Hebrew are, as has already been indicated, evident 
 expansions of an interpretative character. Where the Hebrew 
 text is fuller than that reflected by a version, explanation is not 
 so easy. The only word not represented in the Vulgate is mD 
 (2 6 ). Except where it is dependent on the Septuagint (I 14 , 2 a , 2% 
 3 10 ?), the Peshitta text is as full as the Hebrew text with but a 
 single insignificant exception (2 12 , a suffix and a demonstrative pro- 
 noun omitted). There are only a few places in which the Septu- 
 agint has no equivalent for words to be found in the Hebrew text. 
 Decision as to whether these words convict the Septuagintist of 
 omission or illustrate the "growth of the Massoretic Text" must 
 from the nature of the case be largely subjective. From the 
 time of Luther scholars have remarked a tendency on the part of 
 the translators of the Septuagint to omit what they did not under- 
 stand. The translator of Zephaniah must be charged with omis- 
 sion on this score. 
 
 1* Dp D'lDDn . Chemarim occurs in only two other places in the 
 Old Testament. In one of these the Septuagint transliterates it 
 (II Kgs. 23 5 ), and in the other its translation is the result of a 
 transparently inappropriate etymology (maji KM Ka0o>s Tra.pf.TrL- 
 Kpavav avrdv, Hos. 10 6 ). It is thus entirely probable that this (and 
 the following) word was omitted because it was not understood. 
 
 I 6 . The only argument that can be advanced in regard to 
 D'lnntfon (2) is stylistic. It seems to make the construction 
 rather awkward. Cod. Q omits D'jntfjn (2) ; this may be the 
 Hesychian reading, for Cod. Q is an Egyptian manuscript. This 
 disagreement in the Septuagint makes it difficult to determine 
 which word, if either, is additional in the current Hebrew. 
 
 2 s . A desire to make the construction uniform may account 
 for the omission of lute and the suffix of infltfn. The mis- 
 
Variants from Consonantal Text. 43 
 
 reading of nup, by which the Peshitta was led astray, seems to 
 have caused the omission of the third uppu. This verse is a good 
 illustration of how the Septuagint influenced the Peshitta. 
 
 3 10 . '13 nanny. The meaning of these words is not clear, and 
 it is therefore more probable that they were omitted by the 
 Septuagintist than that they were interpolated into the Hebrew 
 subsequent to the time of translation. If 7rpoo-8e'o/xai lv Sieo-Tra/o/Ac- 
 vots fiov, as has already been suggested, was in the original Septu- 
 agint, it was later omitted under Syriac influence. 
 may be a corruption for Tr/aoo-ei^o/xai (cf. Ju. 13 8 ). ev 
 fjiov seems to represent 'Jfisp? (cf. II Chr. 18 18 ), which agrees 
 closely with the reading that the Yulgate seems to suggest (filii 
 dispersorum meorum "^ \^). 
 
 (4). In the three passages that remain to be considered the 
 Hebrew is difficult, and help from the versions would be very 
 welcome. 
 
 I 3 , et ruinae impiorum erunt V*4-*'V^ |A1 ]A^oculo Ka l do-^cv- 
 ricrova-Lv ol cure/Jets D'yenn n m^EODrn. The versions all agree 
 as to D"ych (cf. Peshitta, Num. 16 ao ), but each one gives it a dif- 
 ferent grammatical government. They also agree in regard to 
 the root htiD (cf. Septuagint, Ez. 21 20 ), though not in regard to the 
 form of it here to be read. The n, which is difficult, is not 
 represented in the Septuagint or Yulgate, and the Peshitta seems 
 to have read it as the first person imperfect of nnx. Jerome 
 wrote among other things in regard to these words, pro quo Sym. 
 interpretatus est, et scandala cum impiis, ut subaudiatur, con- 
 gregabuntur, sive deficient' Quinta autem ed., et infirmitas cum 
 impiis deficiet. It would seem from this quotation that Jerome 
 knew of the r\K in the text, and that the Vulgate translation 
 is supposed to do justice to it. Though it is quite certain that 
 this troublesome word is not represented in the Septuagint, it is 
 impossible to determine what the Greek does represent. Perhaps 
 the first word was read as a perfect with vau conversive; on this 
 supposition the Hebrew has sometimes been corrected. The 
 witness of the versions is contradictory and entirely inconclu- 
 sive. 
 
 2 6 . Eteritfuniculus maris requies pastorum, et caulae pecorum 
 
44 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 7rot/mW KCU /jiavSpa Trpo/Jarw |l3f niTUl D'JH HID nu O'H 
 Whether n^n or nrrn was read by the translators, it is impossible 
 to determine. The Vulgate has omitted mo and read nnj for 
 nu (requies is the constant translation of nnj). The Peshitta has 
 interpreted the verse freely in accordance with its reading of mD 
 (Crete) adopted from the Septuagint. DTI Snn is not represented 
 in the Septuagint; the order of nu and mj is reversed; mj is 
 read as a proper name; irot/mW translates D^n (cf. 2 14 iroipvui=; 
 D'Yiy; at vofuu TO>V woi/xva>v=D'jnn 111 JO, Am. l a , seems to indicate 
 that 7rot/AV6o>v must be corrected to Troi/xeVwv) . Perhaps the addi- 
 tion of TT}S 0a\d<ro"r)s (2 7 ) is compensatory for the omission of 
 DTI S^n (cf. Peshitta). The difficulty of the translators seems to 
 have focussed in mj, which is a hapax legomenon. This word 
 is by many regarded as a gloss on nu ; to others both it and DTI ^n 
 seem superfluous. The impossibility of correcting the Hebrew 
 by the versions is patent, but Slin nrrn is inexplicable (the noun 
 is always masculine except in this verse, cf. 2 7 ). The wide 
 divergence of the versions from the current Hebrew and from 
 each other becomes clear when the various texts are placed side 
 by side in translation : 
 
 (a) Revised Version And the sea-coast shall be pastures, with 
 cottages (caves; others, wells) for shepherds and folds for flocks. 
 
 (b) Vulgate And the sea-coast shall be a place of rest (cf. 
 Verg. A. Ill, 393) for shepherds, and a fold for sheep: 
 
 (c) Peshitta And the sea-coast shall be a dwelling place, and 
 Crete a pasture for flocks of sheep : 
 
 (d) Septuagint And Crete shall be a pasture for flocks, and a 
 fold for cattle. 
 
 2 8 . siccitas spinarum et acervi salis r^l , *oi-^J & S n tiZ|? 
 .^quMn \Sr Aa/Aao-Kos cKAeAei/AjueV?; a>? ^t/xwna dAds fl^D mDDl SlIH pK^DD. 
 Jerome read p.Eto, and acerviis dependent on Olivia (Siccitas, quod 
 Hebraeice MAMASAC; . . . MEM si mutetur et DALETH 
 accipiatur, easdem litteras habet quas et Damascus ; . . . 0i//,<uviav, 
 id est, acervum). The Peshitta seems to have read m^D (Job 
 30 4 ), mallow. Snn (Syriac, IV*; cf. Prov. 24 31 , Lee, li-^~) was 
 in contrast with mSn, which grows wild, interpreted as cultivated 
 grasses. n"OD was read as a passive form of n"O and translated 
 as always by r^. A parallelism was produced by giving the 
 
Conclusion. 45 
 
 remaining word a corresponding meaning. The relative and suf- 
 fixes, as well as the conjunction and copula, of the next verse are 
 interpretative additions. The Syriac is thus to be rendered: 
 because their crop has been destroyed, and their wild grass has 
 perished. The origin of Aa/xao-Kos is explained by Jerome. e/cAc- 
 Xufjt,fj,tvri shows that Sin was read for Sin. 0i/Awvwx. shows that 
 n"OD was derived from jvo in a sense preserved in the Aramaic 
 ('"O, UH>) and the Assyrian (karu). oXos must, as has already been 
 indicated, be read for dAon/os. While witnessing to the orginality 
 of the current Hebrew, the versions give absolutely no help in its 
 interpretation. 
 
 OHAPTEE VI. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Everything in the versions that seemed to have a bearing on 
 the criticism of the text has now been presented with as much 
 fulness as it seemed to warrant. The nature of the material con- 
 sidered makes differences of opinion in regard to its proper dis- 
 tribution inevitable, but the necessity for some such scheme of 
 classification as has been adopted will hardly be denied. The 
 departures of the Vulgate from the Massoretic tradition which 
 have been noted have no special merit, and of the readings in 
 which it bears positive witness to a difference between its 
 "Urtext" and the present Hebrew not one is worthy of con- 
 sideration. In every case its witness to the text on which it is 
 based (cf. I 14 - 2"), or the witness of that text itself (cf. S'^is 
 unreliable. The Peshitta, when it is independent of the Septua- 
 gint, disagrees with the Massoretic tradition very infrequently, 
 and the few variants that it offers are no more worthy of accept- 
 ance than are those of the Vulgate. So far as it can be con- 
 trolled, the testimony of these two versions is in favor of the 
 accurate transmission of the Hebrew from the time of their 
 origin. This conclusion would perhaps need some revision, if 
 the numerous non sequiturs due to the process of translation 
 could be eliminated. To possess the manuscript or manuscripts 
 used by the translators would therefore be of considerable advan- 
 tage to Textual Criticism. 
 
46 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 If the recovery of the sources of the Vulgate and the Peshitta 
 is a thing to be desired, the possession of the source of the Septu- 
 agint is positively a sine qua non for the full understanding of the 
 history of the Hebrew text of Zephaniah, for this translation is 
 but a sorry equivalent for its original. It was not made by one 
 who had a "genius for translation", for his general inaccuracy 
 seems to have been even greater than his lack of knowledge, 
 unless indeed he attempted to cover his ignorance by manipulat- 
 ing his text. Many of his translations call vividly to mind the 
 hit or miss achievements of a school-boy whose pensum stands 
 between him and the play-ground. Luther accused the Septua- 
 gintists, as a body, of "disdaining to speak the letters, words 
 and style". To show the justice of this criticism as far as 
 Zephaniah is concerned, one need only to remove the numerous 
 faulty or wrong translations and interpretations from the Greek 
 text; for hardly a verse will then remain intact. A comparison 
 of the possible with the impossible variants in the consonantal 
 text that it definitely supports shows that the attitude which 
 must be maintained toward the Septuagint of Zephaniah is one of 
 general distrust. It rarely agrees with the Massoretic text, 
 where that text is difficult ; but the alternates which it suggests 
 are generally even less acceptable. 1 It cannot be appealed to as 
 an infallible authority on hapax legomena, nor can the Hebrew 
 lexicon be enriched by the meanings of rare words that it sup- 
 ports. Since the testimony of the Septuagint as to its source is so 
 unreliable, its value for Textual Criticism is much less than it 
 might be in view of the comparative nearness of its " Urtext " to 
 the autograph. It is especially unfortunate in this case that the 
 Septuagint does not speak with a more certain voice either in 
 condemnation or confirmation because of the difficulties which 
 the Hebrew presents. 2 The only general conclusion warranted 
 by the facts is that the Septuagint offers no conclusive evidence 
 that the " Lagardian archetype" was not the text on which it 
 
 for B^IT (3 17 ) has gained wide acceptance, and yet against this possibly 
 correct reading three positively wrong readings of T or "| must be balanced in this book. 
 (i,2,3). 
 
 2 The difficulties in the Hebrew and in the interpretation of Zephaniah are briefly pre- 
 sented in Appendix I. 
 
Difficulties in the Hebrew Text. 47 
 
 also was based. As far as the possibility of showing the con- 
 trary by external evidence goes, the present Hebrew text may 
 well be that of the autograph of Zephaniah, 1 for the few parallels 
 in thought and diction with other parts of the Old Testament to 
 be found in the book are of no critical value (I 6 Jer. 8 2 ; 1" 
 Jer. 48 11 ; I 13 Am. 5 n ; I 18 Ez. 7 lfl ; 2 8 Is. 16', Jer. 48 ae - 48 ; 2 14 - 1& 
 Is. 13, 21 - 22 , 34 11 , 47 8 - 10 ; 3 4 Ez. 22 28 ; 3 10 Is. I 18 ), and the versions 
 offer not a single reading which absolutely demands acceptance. 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 THE " DIFFICULTIES" IN THE HEBREW TEXT OF ZEPHANIAH. 
 
 The words and phrases included in this list have occasioned a 
 great deal of discussion. It may be safely affirmed that in regard 
 to them nothing is certain. 
 
 l a 'JDK ^DK. The infinitive absolute is from a different root than 
 the finite verb. (sjDKK, Wellhausen; *]?', Nowack; cf. * 104", 
 Mi. 4 B ). 
 
 I 9 rK. The word stands between two nouns (r\K 'n^Eon, Oort). 
 
 I 5 D\j?3tfan D'mntfon. The juxtaposition of these two participles 
 is awkward. (Some would omit the former, while others prefer 
 to delete the latter). Ehrlich (Mikrd Ki Pheschuto, III, p. 456) 
 suggests that the use of different formulas of swearing is indi- 
 cated by "a j?3Bfo and "h yzwi ; the former referring to the s n form, 
 the latter to the ^K form. 
 
 I 9 |r2D hy jSin. The Targum seems to connect the words with 
 the custom of the Philistine worshippers of Dagon, I Sam. I 6 ; cf. 
 Trumbull, The Threshold Covenant, 2d ed., p. 117. Ehrlich (p. 
 457) translates: die in denVorzimmern herumscharwenzelen. He 
 thinks that sycophants are referred to, and that they are com- 
 pared to dogs leaping up and down at the threshold of their 
 master. 
 
 I 14 nnn. This word must be read as a participle (IHDD, Well- 
 hausen). 
 
 1 The protests of Conjectural Criticism and Higher Criticism do not properly fall 
 within the limits of the present inquiry, but a few remarks which seem not entirely 
 uncalled for have been added in Appendix II. 
 
48 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 I 14 "11:2:1 rm in rnrr or Sp. The grammatical relation of these 
 words to each other and to what precedes is obscure. (The con- 
 jecture of Gratz is rather heroic, 113:0 niir nirr ^p). 
 
 1 17 DnS. The exact meaning of this word is unknown (cf. Job 
 20"). 
 
 1 18 nSmj. nSrVj is the ordinary form. 
 
 2 1 iKhpi itfuhpnn. The meaning of the words is unknown. 
 
 pDJ is also uncertain (the Aramaic *|DD means turn pale). 
 
 2 a D1D3 with an infinitive occurs only here (in Is. 17 14 and 28* 
 it is used with a noun), and the pleonastic use of S with this con- 
 junction is found nowhere else in the Old Testament. 
 
 2 8 The word ^n seems to be feminine in this verse ; in the next 
 verse it is masculine, rnj is found only in this verse; the usual 
 form is m*O. niD is a hapax legomenon of doubtful meaning 
 (Ehrlich, nyi?). 
 
 2 7 It is not clear to whom the suffix of orr 1 ?;? refers (D^n hy, 
 Wellhausen). 
 
 2 9 p$DD and niDD are hapax legomena, and the meanings usually 
 given to the words are conjectural. 
 
 2 11 The tense of nil is difficult and its meaning is obscure. 
 
 2 14 nip nrw o ^DU nn p^na intf* Sp? Ehrlich suggests that the 
 3 of 3in is due to dittography, and he translates the first five 
 words: es pfeift lustig zum Fenster hinein, zum Loch an den 
 Pfosten. 
 
 3 1 In HK1D the is hard to explain. 
 
 3 8 1D1J is by many regarded as a hapax legomenon (cf . Septua- 
 gint), others take the word as a denominative from DiJ (cf. Nu. 
 24 8 , Ez. 23 24 ). 
 
 3 4 ni1J3 is a hapax legomenon as to form. 
 
 3* 11V3 is a hapax legomenon. 
 
 3 7 "U1 Sj seems to hang in the air. (It has been proposed to 
 read n^jJD with the Septuagint, to change rn:r to ino% and to 
 take hy s nip) in the sense of command, Lagarde.) 
 
 3 10 'injj is a hapax legomenon. 'ysna ? 
 
 3 17 "3 a^irv. A direct object for the verb seems necessary 
 OTO, cf. * 21 7 ). 
 
 3 18 There are two roots to which uu may be referred; of these 
 one means to be grieved, the other, to be removed. The two 
 
Criticism of the Text. 49 
 
 translations offered by the Revised Version illustrate the extreme 
 obscurity of this verse. 
 
 3 19 nx-niyy is unusual (Gratz suggests that n^D be added, cf. 
 
 The grammatical governments of unwi is not clear (Noldeke 
 proposed to delete the final D of D'nDfr and to take Dntfa as its 
 object. 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 THE CONJECTURAL TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND HIGHER CRITICISM 
 OF THE TEXT OF ZEPHANIAH. 
 
 I. No one can say what may or may not happen to a text 
 transmitted in manuscript, and therefore not even the wildest 
 conjecture can be dismissed as impossible; but it is equally true, 
 even though the contrary seems to be implied in the confident 
 assertions of some, that the fact that Zephaniah may have expressed 
 a thought in a certain form or written a sentence in a certain 
 way does not actually prove that he did so write or express it. 
 The relative plausibility of the readings which it has been pro- 
 posed to substitute for those in the current Hebrew can be more 
 or less accurately gauged. In Appendix I the conjectures that 
 have something positive to recommend them have already been 
 noted. A free reconstruction of the text obtained by raising 
 poetical measure 1 or the demands of a fantastic theory 3 into a 
 canon of Textual Criticism has hardly more validity than have 
 the results of an entirely arbitrary change, transposition and 
 recombination of letters. 3 The changes which show only what 
 
 1 Much study has been devoted to Hebrew poetry in the last two decades. Miiller 
 (Die Propheten in Hirer ursprunglichen Form; Strophenbau und Responsion), 
 Konig (Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik) and Sievers (Studien zur Hebraischen Metrik) 
 have contributed largely to the recent popularity of this subject. The latest attempt to 
 recast Zephaniah in poetical form was contributed by Fagnani to the Harper Memo- 
 rial Volumes (1908). 
 
 a Cheyne (Critica JBiblia, in loc.) has changed 2* to read: D'BO HIIT 1 ? 
 DTJp I 1 ? Uni. He has the following note in support of one of his changes: 
 is required as a parallel to lS though represented only by } in IBhpl. 
 
 ' Bachmann(^wr Textkritik des Propheten Zephanja, S.K ; 1894) has emended 
 to read : m^D .... HD33 vh 'UH- 
 
50 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 the critic thinks Zephaniah ought to have said can with safety be 
 dismissed from serious consideration. 1 
 
 II. This free Conjectual Criticism of the text gives much 
 support to and gains much help from the Higher Criticism, which 
 dissects an ancient document according to subjective standards 
 of style and thought-cogency. The integrity of Zephaniah 
 has often been denied. The following summary condensed from 
 the article Zephaniah by J. A. Selbie in Hastings' Dictionary of 
 the J3ible needs very little comment. 2 Keunen was inclined to 
 regard 3 1 *- 90 as post-exilic on account of differences both in tone 
 and situation from the rest of the prophecy. Stade denied to 
 Zephaniah 2 1 - 8 - 11 and the whole of chapter 3. Wellhausen (com- 
 pare Nowack) suspected 2 2 - 3 , rejected 2 8 " 11 and treated chapter 3 
 as a later supplement added in two stages (1-7 and 8-20). Budde 
 (followed by Cornill, Einleitung, 3d edition) admitted 2 1 ' 1 , 
 3 1 " 6 ' 7 ' 8 ' 6 ' 11 " 18 as in harmony with Zephaniah's situation; he rejected 
 2 4 " 16 mainly because Israel appears as the victim, not as the per- 
 petrator of wrong ; he excluded 3 9 ' 10 as breaking the connection 
 between 3" and 3" ; he declared 3 14 " ao to be a later lyrical epilogue. 
 Schwally allowed to Zephaniah chapter 1, 2 13 ' 16 and perhaps 2 1 ' 4 , 
 holding 2 6 " 1 * to be exilic and chapter 3 post-exilic, though 3'" T 
 may be Zephaniah's. G. A. Smith denied to Zephaniah 2 8 " 11 , 
 3 9 ' 10 and 3 14 " 30 . Driver remarked that 2 11 seemed to be somewhat 
 out of place and that 3 14 " 20 is somewhat doubtful, though the 
 ' question remains whether it is sufficiently clear that the imagina- 
 tive picture was beyond the power of Zephaniah to construct.' 
 Davidson defended the genuineness of chapter 2 as a whole, but 
 considered it quite possible that it had been expanded in various 
 places; he allowed that 3 10 should possibly be omitted, but other- 
 wise 3 1 " 13 appeared to him to be genuine, although they might 
 suggest that the passage was later than chapter 1 ; in 3 14 " 20 he 
 recognized quite a different situation from the rest of the book. 
 Konig would apparently accept the whole of the book except the 
 title which refers the prophecy to the days of Josiah. 
 
 This paragraph is an unintended, though on that account no 
 less positive, refutation of the method by which such conflicting 
 
 1 D^TJ? for Dmy and v^OY for niBP (2' 4) are of this kind. 
 
 2 The article Zephaniah in the Encyclopaedia Bibllca contains a similar summary by 
 Driver. 
 
Criticism of the Text. 51 
 
 results are achieved. One can hardly repress the thought that a 
 great deal of these " assured results" is due to the endeavor of 
 each latest critic to justify his rediscussion of the subject by 
 presenting something different from that which his predecessors 
 have said. It would seem from this paragraph that the book in 
 its present form is but a sorry piece of patchwork ; and yet the 
 writer of the article Zephaniah in Smithes Dictionary of the Bible 
 expressed the opinion that "the chief characteristics of this book 
 are the unity and harmony of the composition, the grace, energy 
 and dignity of its style, and the rapid and effective alternations 
 of threats and promises." The critics themselves being wit- 
 nesses, there is not a single verse which Zephaniah could not 
 have written, and therefore one who is not anxious to father any- 
 thing new can defend the integrity of the book by choosing his 
 "authorities" with discrimination. The writer is free to con- 
 fess that he is interested in the whole text, which may be Zepha- 
 niah's Zephaniah, rather than in that part of it which in the 
 opinion of each critic a Zephaniah, who was on the plane of 
 religious evolution which he thinks his age had attained, who 
 possessed the mentality with which he is pleased to endow him, and 
 who wrote as he himself would have written under similar cir- 
 cumstances, could or ought to have produced. The arguments 
 and counter-arguments advanced for and against the genuineness 
 of the many verses discussed are all singularly pointless and are 
 invalid to overthrow the presumption established in favor of the 
 integrity of the book by the mere fact that some one gave it its 
 present form ; for to that man's mind the book was a unit and 
 the ease with which critics brush aside the arguments of critics 
 demonstrates that an unbiased Higher Criticism can not show 
 that the man in question was not the Zephaniah to whom the 
 book has so long been attributed. Arguments based on the style 
 of a writer known only through his works are notably precarious, 
 even though he has left extensive literary remains. The psycho- 
 logical law of the Association of Ideas utterly condemns all 
 argumentation based on thought development alone, for it shows 
 that no combination or contrast of ideas even abrupt change from 
 threat to promise is impossible. Zephaniah has left at most 
 fifty-three verses ; it is surely absurd to build up one's conception 
 
52 The Text of Zephaniah. 
 
 of the man out of the first eighteen that are assumed to be his, 
 and to use the conception of his style and capacities thus gained 
 as a standard to determine which of the remaining verses he 
 could and which he could not have written. Judged by present 
 standards, strong arguments can be advanced to show that 3'' 5b 
 originally stood between the two halves of I 13 : 
 
 (a). In the present text it is difficult to determine where the 
 arraignment of Nineveh ends and that of Jerusalem begins. The 
 Peshitta has actually referred 3 1 to Nineveh, and the present 
 chapter division of the Septuagint shows that 2 15 was referred to 
 Jerusalem by its author. 
 
 (b). The nexus between the second and third clauses of 3 6 does 
 not seem to be very close, but 3 Bc in that it would emphasize the 
 absolute hopelessness of Nineveh's condition would be an admir- 
 able conclusion to 2 15 . 
 
 (c). 3 1 continues in the style of I 11 and 3 2 " 5b contain the full 
 charge on which the punishment threatened in I 12b is based. 
 
 The ipsi dixerunt of the critics have no greater objective 
 validity than those for this transposition have. A detailed dis- 
 cussion of all the points involved in this seemingly endless dis- 
 cussion would lead far into the theory of Israel's religious 
 development, whose exigencies seem to demand such excisions 
 (2 3 - 11 , 3 8 " 11 ) as are not based on purely subjective considerations, 
 and therefore the reader who seeks for arguments of this kind to 
 support his belief in the integrity of the book must be left to 
 find them in the works of such champions as each verse or verse- 
 group has found. 1 
 
 i The present tendency to find wholesale interpolations in the Prophets has been dis- 
 cussed by Vos (The Eighth Century Prophets, Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 
 1898). 
 
x VITA. 
 
 The writer was born in Meedhuizen, Province of Groningen, Holland, Janu- 
 ary 25, 1883. He received his primary education in the Public Schools of 
 Chicago, 111., and was graduated from Hope College, Holland, Mich., with 
 the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1903. He attended the sessions of the 
 Princeton Theological Seminary during the years 1903-1907, receiving the 
 Degree of Bachelor of Divinity in 1907. He was the Newberry Scholar of the 
 Board of Education of the Presbyterian Church from 1904 to 1907. From 
 1907 to 1909 he was a student in Columbia University, one year as a Fellow 
 in Semitic languages. While in Columbia University he attended Old Testa- 
 ment lectures in Union Theological Seminary, New York.