Filon. On The Philonean Text of The Septuagint

On the Philonean Text of the Septuagint
Author(s): F. C. Conybeare
Source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Jan., 1893), pp. 246-280
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449864
Accessed: 01-05-2018 03:24 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to The Jewish Quarterly Review
This content downloaded from 149.105.1.53 on Tue, 01 May 2018 03:24:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
246 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
ON THE PHILONEAN TEXT OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
IT is known from the history of Eusebius that Philo

six Books of Qucestiones et Responsiones in Genesin,
have only come down to us in an Armenian Version
cuted about the year 400 A.D. In these Qucestiones th
of the Septuagint was taken and expounded verse by
so that no other work of this writer supplies us w
long a series of texts taken methodically one after an
Philo must, in fact, have written his commentary w
text of the TLXX. lying open before him. The evide
these Qucestiones, as bearing on the Philonean text
LXX., has never yet been arrayed. In the following
the old Armenian of each Quaestio is translated back
Greek, a task of no great difficulty and fraught wit
uncertainty on account of the extreme literalness of
version. The writer constantly has in view the
Oxford edition of the LXX. by Robert Holmes. W
the Philonean citation reflects the reading of par
MSS. collated for that edition, the fact is duly noted
the Responsio of Philo is only quoted if it affords add
evidence as to the way in which Philo read any passag
references to the Quaestiones are based upon an insp
of the Armenian text itself, and are not taken from
Latin translation of Paschal Aucher, which, howev
very excellent and scholarly. The citations in this
begin with Genesis iv. 1. The works of Philo preserv
Greek are sparingly referred to, partly because the ci
they contain have already been duly noted, and
because no further consultation of them is needed, u
new and critical text appears. No fresh evidence, how
supplied by such a text will in any way abrogate c
sions based on the Armenian Text of the Qucestiones.
On the Plhilonean Text of the Septuagint. 247
PHILONIS DE QULESTIONIBUS QU.E IN GENESI SUNT.

SERMO I.
Qu. 58.-Genesis, ch. iv. 1: El op6Cw e'X)0X e'r 'roV Kav

ICTlOad/JL7)v av0po7rrov a TO 060eov;
Qu. 59.-Ch. iv. 2: Jid Ti TOV veoTrepov "A8eX 7rpopovep
TO pqyov avaypad(f)t XleywV erVTO 'rrotpfv TrpoSaTV, Ka'v
SC x7V eprya61e?vo T7v yijv ;
The rough breathing'Ai3eX for VAf,eX is found also in the
Arm. Vulgate, which, however, implies / for e: "A,84 X
instead of rSA3eX. In the old Arm. version of Philo's Liber
de Nominibus Hebraicis (as given in the Codex CXXXT. 9. 28
of the Library of the University of Pavia) "A/,eX is given.
Qu. 60.-Ch. iv.: Atai rI Kai'v Ikue& f1epa' TWV otrapg&v
7rpwTOoyevvr7luaTa aveXwv Yvey7Ke. "43eX &e aro a Tv TrpCoro-
TOK/CV O a a7ro TcOv 7TeaTCv o0v ?)eB 2/1epai;
Tischendorf reads Pef' rl7/epa 71fveKyice KRiv a7rO Tcov /cap7rWv'
T7 ty7c? OvTaiav TrO ICUvpLo. In L. D. SS. Ab. et. C. i. 171, the
citation is given thus: cal êyveTo T eO' I], epav, rlvE/ce Kdiv
a7ro Trov /ap7rov T7' 7 yi SCOpov To Kvp'p, but the following
commentary is added: Avo ey/cXcjtara r70oV \Xavrov' Ov /ev
TO /LeO' 7L)Epa%, aXX ' eovc evvOb eaptar?oab T7' 06e, eTepov &e
TO U7rO T'rv cap7rwoV, aXXa p,7 a7ro TW iV Trpco'TWv Kap7rMit, ov
aOVVyTOV oVvo/a 7rpCoToyewyvv?/aTa.
The Armenian solutio of quaest. 60 would run thus in the
original Greek: TOV oVXav'Tov Icai TOV eb6XoeOov T7lV Stafopav
laTTOpEL,V pO av aTwo SovYoT T1VY TrpTo^7JeYvvfl.LaTo)
TOW' Kap7TOov Ical TOY Oedv da?e/36 TeV 8EVTepelvY 4w raavrTOp'
TO uE09' yjltepaq 7ap, a'kX' oUKc e'OvT, TO Te rO T CO v CCap7rv \XX'
oc a7ro Trov TpcoTWYv /ap7rCiv, TOavTr7v aetpetav S7\Xoi' TOV UE
ETEpov Ta 'IrpwcoTOTOa Cal 7rpeoT3vTepa caOtepovVToT aveu
/FeXXj0eoW ia\ 7traYTov ca 70TV /caTraCpovelv TOV Oeov (or
perhaps TOYv 0ov).
The Armenian quaestio therefore really suggests no
departure from Tischendorf's text, although the citation in
the Greek in Philo i. 171, does imply &opov for Ovoiav.
A;dpov probably stood in Philo's LXX., for Ambrose has
munus. The Armenian Vulgate also has S&pov. It is pro-

bable that Sclpov was at some later date than Philo's sub-
stituted for Ovo'aav, owing to the words which follow in
ver. 5, e7rl o Kdtv Kal ea ral TaF vaolaL avTov. But this also
is doubtful, for in Philo i. 180, we read: Ta pl'?V j TOVK Kdiv
leO' a]pepacs b'povTOS Tr77v Ovalav eyKcX'fiuara rotavTa qv.
Qu. 61.-Ch. iv. 4, 5: alt a Tr 7TrpC TOv KEi'v apX'v v rroorad-
/e.lvo v ,bevrepO) rT'7ro /hELv/77rat' cf'l tyap e7re8ev o Oeob
oitc }pea&O7 ;
The omission of avirov twice, after 8;povt and after Ovolai',
seems due to title only. If a very simple corruption can be
supposed in the Armenian, ov 7rpo-reaXev would stand, but
see upon Qu. 63.
Qu. 62.-Ch. iv. 4, 5: Tiva a&optiaov eXse S&pov aOV ro
Oucaiv ;
Qu. 63.-Ch. iv. 5: lI6oev iSrj KdL v OT otVc 7pefaKev aaVT'
T' Sw&pov; The solutio also bears on the text of the LXX.,
and would run thus in Greek: Mrjro're &SaX6eT r?rv rroplav
T a 7lia 4 elp7)rAev7, OTe EVj7rr'ev aVtrov cal Orve7reae e
?rpo,o.rr a-r)fJelov apa /Xa/fe (?) T,v Xv7rnyv , 1.7 a ape',,covTa
The recurrence of i7peoacev and ape''Kovra inclines us to

think that 2rpe'a', in Qu. 61, is after all not a corruption.
In any case )pe4o-O' may be a paraphrase of 7rpo6ea-ev, and
in the absence of confirmation from other sources we
cannot suppose that j7pea-Oe stood in Philo's LXX.
As to the reading EXv7rrq-e for eXvwri'O7, Holmes notes
that eX6r'nTev T,v K. is read in x. 15,16, 18,19, 20, 25, 31, 38,
55, 57, 59, 61, 64, 71, 73, 75, 76, 79, 82, 83, 106, 107, 108,
128, Compl., Aid., Alex., Cat., Nic. Bas. Sil. p. 23. Cyr. al.
Glaph. p. 13. Chrys. iv. 158, et sic margo, 135. It is certain
therefore that eXn7r-ae 7To stood in Philo's TXX.; also that
he read T '7rpooarr9p, and not Tob rpo'arrov, which in many
MSS. goes with e'tVrfae.
Qu. 64.-Ch. iv. 7: TI e'onr, oVK eav op0C, p r'poo-ev7eyc
eav 8e 06p0mi, Ar' Stes;
On the PlPilonean Text of the Septuagint. 249
Qu. 65.-Ch. iv. 7: Ti co.T rJ/.apTre%, O'vXa'ov;

Putting these two titles together, we see that in Philo's
LXX., oilc eav--riap're was in any case not read as a
question, and also that \73 was added before 7rpoo-eveyfc7l.
In Philo D.A. i. 320, the citation appears thus: ov/c &av
op8i& rporeveyicprfg, Op86c t 8 a BS eX.rj, but I suspect that the
text has been conformed by the copyists. The reading of
the Armenian title gives the same sense as the later reading,
only better expressed. In Holmes' codd. 129, et sup. lin.
56, puo is added before ,rpooeve'y7cIq and may be an echo of
the older reading /,u. The sentence is read positively and
not interrogatively in Holmes codd. 31, 64, 106. Epiph. i.
493. Bas. ii. 328, 661. Latini poene omnes.
The words 7/LapT?e, avyXaoaov are made the matter of a
new qusestio, and separated from what precedes. In Philo
D. Sob. 1400, they are cited in same way: XeTyTat eap nrpob
7TOY favXov " C) oVroS, 7f%papTre, ruavxaaov. We must conclude
then that Philo read his LXX. as follows: oV/c ev 'pO&, Pr\
TrpooaEvE7IKqp, OpS SE p,L Stl\y, &X 7, /apTre$E, (v'xa'ov.
Qu. 66.-Ch. iv. 7: Alt Ti rv aXov E7YXELPFi'v Tir 7rovjvpC
SO/CElf, X7yov' pod a1Oe f dq 7roaTpo)7 avTov;
In the solutio are given also the words av ap:ec' avrov.
Qu. 67.-Ch. iv. 8: AtmL Ti ev TrW 7re&S TOv dSeXfov
7rOgcTetrvet.
Qu. 68.-Ch. iv. 9: AJL Ti o 7raVTa elS&o epcoTa Trv a8eX-

4oicTr6vov TroV ea'vT "A3eX 6 'ASeXo0 a-ov;
Here the form'SA/eX is again used.
Qu. 69.-Ch. iv. 9: Ata r'i iarepaveti cvf'ptr' ' wrocpiv' r
ak 03z Ov ryvwacrw, ) r] \fvXa\ av aS eXt,/L) ^ aotLi Et. ey;
The dative, Tc3 aSeXqb& is given in one MS. of Holmes,
59. In Philo Q. D. P. I. i. 202, rov aSeXfo3 is read; but I
suspect that the copyists have conformed the reading, for
in the solutio the dative is again implied: /ca 7rivt AauXXov
e&e q To da8eXbd,\ fv6XaKca Kal u7repaoaqrto-larv riveayOa; The
Armenian Vulgate has TOv ad8;eXov.
Qu. 70.-Ch. iv. 10: Ti T* - fwvy\ a'aroT adSeXfov 'oo
/3o 7-p& pe P0 , . ;
250 The Jelwish Quarterly Review.
Here Tro is omitted before aSeXooOv and 7lri before fy7/.

I am not sure that the former omission stood in the Greek
original of the Quaestio. In Philo Q. D. P. I. i. 205, 206,
the verse is twice cited, both times giving Tov, but in one
case omitting 'ri before 7'y. Therefore the omission of
'ri in the Armenian title may be more than a mere slip in
rendering.
Qu. 71.-- h. iv. 11: zla tcar aTpa'o T 7lverata 7rl 'ri
r77; In spite of this title, I think that Philo read in his
LXX. here ct7r, and not 7ri, for the following reasons:
1. The Armenian solutio loses its point unless ar-o be
read. I give it in Aucher's Latin: "Extrema mundi pars
terra est; ista ergo maledicente aestimandum quod com-
petentes maledictiones caetera quoque elementa ei obiiciant
.... Namque si inanimata terrenaque natura, iuga de-
trectans militat adversus iniuriam, cur non potiore iure
mnundiores naturae ?" S. Ambrose also reproduces Philo's
commentary thus: "Huiusmodi peccator a terra maledictus
est, quae est infima et postrema pars mundi. ..... Non
est ergo dubium quod eum et superiora damnaverint, quem
inferiora damnarunt."
2. Although in Philo Q. D. P. I. i. 210, the citation is given

in the same way as in the Armenian title, viz.: Kal vvv
VeTrcaTapaTrol av e7ri r ryjS 7, yet the commentary which
follows, tcardpaTrov Se )rt0tv ro' voiv, ouic acrr' a\Xov tvoS 7
a7ro T'r fiy7 gaea4Oai. Tiv eyap XaXe7ro)TaTTov avtroV rvzbfopcov
TO 7rep x ecaorov ?7/lJv 7eSc atTtov eVpiaecETat Kx. T. X.
implies atro rather than v7rI, as Mangey remarked.
We must suppose that, both in the Armenian quaestio and
in the Greek text of Philo i. 210 copyists have changed a'rO
into Erl. In the case of the quaestio in Genesin, the doubt
remains whether the Greek text had been vitiated as early
as 400 A.D., or whether it was the Armenian which was
changed at a later date. The latter is most probable, for
the Armenian Vulgate has T'rr Tri? 7ry, although icaTapaTo9
is rendered by a different word. The Armenian title
implies carTaparos rather than e7rtcaTraparo0, and as the
On the Philonean Text of the Septuagint. 251
Greek Philo i. 210 (above cited) has icaTapaTro in the Com.

mentary, this was probably the reading of Philo's LXX.
Qu. 72.-Ch. iv. 12: Ti eTt, aevoV Kal rpe/ov a' g e7tl
Qu. 73.-Ch. iv. 13: Ti e'ar, pe&ioyv v alria acde07vai' , ;

In Latin: Maior ista causa dimitti me.
In Philo Q. D. P. I. i. 218 is read: Ipeiy'v af aTria /MOV Trov
ddpeR?vat. In i. 430 it is again cited, adding P/e after
ad?eOivat, where also the subjoined commentary implies
that Philo read /e in his LXX. At i. 218 also Philo com-
ments thus: 7ro'r vt T XPraeao Ka /c7rpartya Tros vrMo OEov
xcaraXe0Oev7rac yvplopfo,uev, implying that there also he read
P,e after acjfe2Ovat, and removes the contradiction which
there seemed to be between the verse as cited in i. 218 and
in the Armenian quaestio. I believe that Philo omitted
rov0 before aqeOyvat, otherwise his commentary, both in the
Armenian solutio and in the passage i. 218, loses its point.
The drift of that commentary is that to be abandoned by
God is the worst of fates. Cp. i. 218, 1. 45: rvvOWXco rap
etsevat Xp'7 OT 0 7 0rpo? TOV KcpelTTovo0 cal o)aeXo)rVTO af)6e0e9,
Ev atriatL Kal èycXX7jlacat /teiC0ro rt iveTrat . ... AO ,io0
SocoDvOav oel ,i1 e6Xel?w Suvac'IcaapTot, evfacaOa av acoXao-Grvat
/iaX\Xov 7 4cf)e0Rvat. The Armenian solutio is the same in
tenour: "Profecto nulla est aerumna maior, quam quum
derelinquat et despiciat Deus ..... despici vero a magno
rege, et decidere ut abiectus ex regimine principatus,
inenarrabilis miseria est" (Aucher's version).
Philo then seems to have taken the verse in this sense:
"Thy sentence, that I should be abandoned, is too great."
Whereas Tischendorf's text can only mean: " My fault is
too great for me to be let off and acquitted." But how did
Philo get this sense out of abTla, which = accusation, not
sentence ? Altogether the passage is a perplexing one. In
the Armenian MS. of the Quaestiones a later hand gives in
the margin the common reading, tpelfowv ? aTria 7ov d feiorva`
/e. The Armenian Vulgate has p,teiov X lp/uia ,uov rou
d?eOiaval Ae, and an old Armenian commentator on Philo
so reads in this particular quaestio. Is it possible that

Philo read in his LXX.: leieov ? trlEj,la acde0irvai 'e, or that
v,p.ia stood against alTia in the margin ? The words quoted
above from i. 218, ev atliatc Kcal ey7ckXjpao- i teyl eiaTro imply
that Philo read ari'a; while yet r/utta also seems to be
implied by the following comment, also from i. 218: rw&zia
uev ra7rovaia q iv Xi v, tfvJ j e a7rova-ta Xoty&-1LtoV, Xoyfa/jobb
e evSelta apeT-rj -Trevce 7rapaTroX\e6at. E Se& e'aaTov
ev eirrov r77ula TOtF at7roXeOelaL 7 vtveraT 7rap' av'r)v, 7rodaY 7
TrvI XpcrectOat KaioTrpayya TOv V7TO ' eov IcaraXetLf0evTa
fyvopigoze?v ov a7rocrTpaelf .. . eioptrev K.T.X. Ambrose
paraphrases the solutio of Qu. 73 in the same sense:
" Nihil enim gravius quam errantem a Deo deseri." Such
a sense would hardly suit the ordinary reading, Tro
aecbrlvah ?e, unless qdula be read for 4' atria, and the whole
clause be read as a question: lzetowv fql,'a TOv abeOfrvac L e;
- "Is there a greater penalty than to be cast off?"
Qu. 74.-Ch. iv. 14: Ti earr, 7ra? o eUplCKov /AE a7rocTevc
le. e7reLey ovec 77v aiXos? avpw7roq 7 TrX?rv TOVS eyoveZt av?ro ;
Qu. 75.-Ch. iv. 15: Adl Ti 7ra? 6o adroKeivaq Kdiv c'Ta
EK&Scov/tbeva 'rapaXvoet;
Qu. 76.-Ch. iv. 15: Azlt Tri aorsiov TireTat T) aX8e'fo-
IrTO6v TOV Io aveXe6v avroy rrdvra Tov eipiaKovTra, e7ret (ye
'Set e evav'rta 7rotetv, ey7xfpi'cLv el t c7rt'oXeav ;
Here avrov is omitted after e,pialcovra. So also in Philo
i. 224 and i. 555. It may be inferred that avrTov was absent
from Philo's LXX.
Qu. 77.-Ch. iv. 23: 4ta Tr AafLeX iUera -vTrT fyyeveaq
eavrov xaTayctvcfoceK rov 7Trpoyovov avrov 7repf rov Kdiv da8eX-
fo0oxroviav. e&7re 7yp 7ac tral eavrov evvat'v, 'A8 a icai
;eXX,i . avSpa t\7recT-eLva efS; pavâ tcal veavit-icov etol els
/tc'Xw7ra. OTt 7rrrdTaKcL KeSiLjITa c EX Kdiv, e'c 8e A4eX 98-
SOjL7cKOVTaKLTf 'rrTa;
In Philo i. 201, the citation again occurs, and is made
conformably to the text of Tischendorf: ed rpatâ e'o\
Kcal veav. eN ,Iz\X. 'lo, and punctuates before 'Aa\a ca\
teXXca instead of after.
Holmes notes: 'ABa /cal e`XXa in casu dativo 20, 56.

Cyr. al. Glaph. p. 22. Arm. ed. post ZeXXa. plene distin-
guunt 31, 37, 61. Compl. Alex.
The spelling 'ASda is retained in Armenian Vulgate,
also in Armenian version of Philo's Interpretatio Nom
Hebr.
Qu. 78.-Ch. iv. 25: Aid i ' Sih 7yevv?orjaa Y T ZjO O rT&-
477,ieL' E Eaverv07Tfe ot O6 0 ebO a-7repfla eTepov vr,T& AIleX.
OV a7reTICTGV Kdia ;
Qu. 79.-Ch. iv. 26: AtJa 'r o vit 'ov\ X'S 6 'Ev& AjX,trw-ev
7rtKcaXeia'Oa& TO 'vofa Kvplov Tov Oeov ;
Qu. 80.-Ch. v. 1: Ala Ti puera TrO eX7rrIeiv blr&' av7rr
/3LgXoo rEeveaewd avO8pcorwv ; [Here 1 is omitted before
/3lSXov as also in Philo i. 218. It is therefore probable that
was omitted in Philo's LXX.]
Qu. 81.-Ch. v. 3: Azd 7r ev Tr 7eveaXotyLa Trov [A&4 oV/c&E
,p64vvpra Trov Kaiv, \hX\a Tov 2'00, ov rlot Kara Tiv ieav
.... ' , , ,~' ov .. a 0 , K, ' t '
avrov cKa T77v elcova tyvecOat, daa ov Tas a w7r
apXeTal 7yeveaXo,yelv ;
Qu. 82.-Ch. v. 22: Adt rl, evrlpea-rrToev 'Ev
,erTa To eyevvja-al tov Ma0ova-da eTr77 SLacoaoa ;
Here aVTrv is omitted after yevvocr-a and S
transposed. Holmes notes thus: omit avrTv Eu
ern 8. is read in 15, 16, 18, 19, 37, 56, 61, 64,
Compl. Orig. iv. 310. Chrys. iv. 186. Slav. Arm
Qu. 83.-Ch. v. 21, 22: Aia Toi 6 pLera\eX.lOd
T7}? /LerTaUe?e?la1 XeyeTaL pjraa 'ET? eKaTo eriKovT
fUeTa 6 Prv UeTra,peXeav &wacoc6 a ;
Here E'Tr eIKaTov erjcovTa TrevTr is read in (H
19, 20, 37, 56, 59, 64, 76, 82, 108, 129, 134. C
iv. 186. Slav. et sic cum praemisso et ante qui
Arm. Ed. (Holmes). Philo then in his LXX.
read.
Qu. 84.-Ch. v. 29: Aid ar eviv; 47rn ryevvr07)

7raTr7p EL7rev ovTro09 avawrav'o-et f7La a7ro TwY ''
Tr&v Xt7ritv cal airo' 7j yr) 7 c 7rTo 1 ca'raTpoa-aTo K
In Philo i. 214, jptuiv is supplied after pywov. T
of ir&v xefp&v i&I&v is due to title. In i. 215 aTrO is not given

before s, but compare Ch. iv. 11, 7rtlca7 parTof av &7rO r i
7y7. It is probable that Philo read cT7r here in his LXX.
Qu. 88.-Ch. vi. 1: Tivee elo' rov N6&e 7peZi vlol, X75L,
Xdau, 'IdaeO);
Qu. 89.-Ch. vi. 1: ada T' dc ov e7rX7f'rla?ev o fcaTarcvXvcoo
7rXeovd'etv XeyeTra. To a&vGpo7rov eyevo ;
Qu. 9-. 90. Ch. vi. 3: Ti E , ov r) tcaTra ivyp ' rrveva
.ov v ev TO? avOpcoroLt elF TOv alowva bla TO elvaF avTov'
.oapKa ;
Here TOVTrot is omitted after avOpco7rotv. So also in Philo
i. 265. I infer that it was absent from his copy of the
LXX.
In the solutio is cited Exod. xxxi. 3, as follows: ev-erXroaa
avTrov Oeiov '7TvevaTro o-oflaD Ka aovvee'Oe, where Tischen-
dorf has 7rvevLa Oetov; but since Philo i. 265 has 7rvevJLaTro
O8eiov, it is certain that he so read in his LXX.
Qu. 91.-Ch. vi. 3: Azta T al jLpe'pa& avSpwv (or avOpcd-
r7TOv) e'ovTaL T eTY) EKaTOVY cal eiiCOt ;
Here Tischendorf has ego. e\ atl 7. avtriv, e'carOv e'Loo-
CT*7; The verse is cited in Philo i. 270, as follows: "EocovTra
al r. av&rv errt7 Kacwv E'Kcoo'v. The order erT Ec. ELK. is also
found (Holmes) in 56, 76, 129, 134. Chrys. iv. 197, Theo-
doret i. 58, Slav. Arm. 1. Arm. Ed. We may infer that Philo
read erTv Ec. ei'. in his copy of the LXX.
Qu. 92.-Ch. vi. 4: 'AL T l af 7y7eXwOv Kca EKc yvvacKcYv o0
lYtyavTe ;
Tischendorf reads in vi. 4, ol vtiol ov Oeo^, instead of
a7yeXot. But in Philo i. 272, ol ayyeXot is read. It is quite
certain, therefore, that Philo's LXX. had ol y,7yeXot. In the
Arm. solutio of this quaestio we read: KcaXef ie EvoTe TOV?e
ay7ye7ovv OeoD vlov;, obs EyevovTo eS o vevos 6vrov aGavarot.
Perhaps, therefore, Oeoo vlol was written against ayyeXo,
in the margin of Philo's LXX., and eventually supplanted
that older reading in MSS. of a later age.
Qu. 93.-Ch. vi. G: TI EaTv eveOuv/Lr OTFr e7oLOljQ ToV
avopw7rov E7rl T vy 7ri Kal 8tevorrt ;
On. the Philonean Text of the Septuagint. 255
Tischendorf reads, cal eveOvOiOrt o O reo iT Kol. c. X. Thus

acal is omitted in the lemma: it is also omitted in Philo
i. 275, and seems to have been absent in Philo's LXX.
Perhaps o 0eoT was also absent, and was replaced in Philo
i. 275 by a copyist.
Qu. 94. - Ch. vi. 7: AtA rT, a7reAXo'ac TO v avpofpwrov
aTraXelfreLV, Tcal T VCTrVr avr' aV roXe'ai av "ai. r
,v8p;rrou rn p ,e ,5 \ e w I
avOpco7rov fyap eco KT
fyap jTapTe rTa TrvI
Here TOV oivpavov is
merely, as it seems
versely, Kcal before
supplied in the Arm
Qu. 95.-Ch. vi. 7: Ae
avTrovs ;
The Armenian commentary runs thus: TO 7rpWcTOV /jev
ir6\tv c av0pon7rov L'TOpe6 COT Ev iceoaXauc9. aXX: o&'ctY
JCVpilw o O eF o Vc op7?eTat, aXXb Icpeiaav o dvTwv cv
7ra0opv. This in itself proves that Philo read in his TXX.
?e0vpaj)007v, and not eve0v,I,vOrnV, which Tischendorf retains.
Holmes notes that eCvufOvr0v is read in I. 37, 71, 131. Alex.
Philo in duobus MSS. i. 280, et alibi. Aug. Amb. Arab.
1, 2, et sic Arm. Ed. Philo's Greek commentary i. 280 also
confirms 3eOv,LwOrv, viz.: 7rad\v rwvel 7'ov eLpqf'evcwv Jacov-
o-avTre v7roXa,/l3avovT Ov/uolS Kcat op7aai Xpao-Oa ro o 'v. In
Philo i. 283 envu0arn'v is given.
Qu. 96.-Ch. vi. 8: Aia Tr vviv NdGe >rat1 XaPpwv evpetv 7rapo a
rcTO O' ;
Here Tischendorf has ev5pe xapiv evavrPov Kvplov TOv 0eov.
In Philo i. 102, the quaestio is propounded thus: SLa T1 qlo-6
Tov N6ie xaptv eupetv evavrTov Kvpovov Ov i eov; but just
below, in the same context, we read: x%dpv evpewv 7rapa Oero.
In i. 288, also we read: Ti e c' a- Nce eApe %apwv 7rapa
Kvpilco Oe, and in same context: 7rriXKov yadp TLCa elKO
ryeveroaaL ToV atdov XavpiTO Kpt07c6Latevov 'rapa '0e. In i. 284
we read: SBo vvv 8f'qlt 'oV NSe Xappv evpelv 7rap' avTco (7ra
ewI), OTC ol asXXo& wavevrev' aXipt-TOL iVEVW i'e\\XXOVi &cKaq.
256 The Jec'is]t Quarterly Review.
Lastly, in i. 285 is read: Ni5e espe X. evavriov Kvplov ToV

Oeov. The MSS. of the LXX. give no hint of a reading
Xdapv espe 7rapa Tc Oe,j, though there is good ground for
supposing that Philo so read in his LXX. The MSS. of
Philo need to be re-examined at i. 102, i. 288, and i. 285.
Qu. 97.-Ch. vi. 9: A' zl ryeveaXkoyiv ?v Nc&e ovKc trrt
T&VT 'nrpo6yovv adXX'c)) ao v aper v;
And in solutio = &'ltatoc iv, TeXE?o9, evapea-Trov.
Qu. 98.-Ch. vi. 11: Ti ea'Tv 'cOdpt 45 ry7} e'vavtrlov 7TO
Beov) /cal e7r\7rja07f 717 fty c a&Kta;
Qu. 99.-Ch. vi. 12: Ti Ie'r, IcaTre'0eipe 7raaa aap 72rrj
ooov aurov e7rl T77v 7'9;
Qu. 100.-Ch. vi. 13: Ti eo'rT, Kcatpo4 7ravro, avOpc,7rov ICeC
evavrlov Lov, OT6' 7reXl O tj01 yI 7y aStLK Ita ;
Here omission of a7r' aiVrTiv after a&StKla' may be due to
title.
In the solutio Num. xiv. 9 is cited thus: aJe'ar1icev 7r'
av'"v 0 Katvpo, o 8s Kvpio9 ev t'1,iv. But in Philo i. 248,618,.
the words run in the usual order: ab. o6 caipo ca7r' av7T.
K.. X., in which form they are found also in Procopius,
who cites Philo's solutio 292 A (vide Paul Wendland, Neir
Entdeckte Fragmente Pltilos).
QUAESTIONUM ET SOLUTIONUM IN GENESIN.
SERMO II.
Qu. 1.--TI Er7v 7 icaTao7acevq TOV N&e ;

Qu. 2.-Ch. vi. 14: dta 7-l EKc Trepa7yovo v 777\Xv T1
KiLSwT'rv 7roe?;
Qu. 3.-Ch. vi. 14: ila Ttrl /7ra vooa-a9 vo'ai TOrLa'et^l
7T7V Ki/RWcTV;
Was volo-a't repeated in Philo's LXX., or is it a mere
device of rendering? The Armenian Vulgate uses a dif-
ferent word to render vooaawtF, but agrees in repeating it.
The old Latin versions, also some Greek codd., have
ek T7'v KLCTo7'OV, where ely is due to 7rotrjaetq preceding.
Oa the Philonean Text of the Septuagint. 257
Qu. 4.-Ch. vi. 14: Alah i 7 eXe,teu 6 o-k)oev Kcat e`'0eev T'7v
lKt,8 co' daaX\TOv ;
Qu. 5.-Ch. vi. 15: Aia T& Ta T7rj ICKtcTOVr a7TreoKe ra
/uLerpa 'ravTra' /ICKO TrptaKOooawv 7rXEWY, Kal 'rX6aTo avrTj'
T'revT7rcov7a cal TrO 3a6OoS 7rpdacova ; Kta ek rrX,vv avaoOev
<rvvTreXeC'a, KaTa a'lipov e7rwLvvayeov fa'eWo rpo7rov;
It is impossible to say for certain if any of these dif-
ferences were in Philo's LXX., or whether they are not all
due to title; TO before pKO?o is absent in Holmes's Cod. I.,
and in Clem. Alex. Str. vi., 783, ftdOo, is read. It is cer-
tain, therefore, that Philo's copy of the LXX. had /3d0os
for vi5oi. The other variations are due probably to citation
only.
Qu. 6.-Ch. vi. 16: Ti eorTv 7 EI: w7rXayL'v Ovpa' ,oial
yap, 'rvv Ovpav TroLtr'et EFC irKXayL'v ;
Here T') Kct8owrov is omitted after O'pav. The same
omission occurs in Holmes's MSS. 15, 18, 19, 20, 37, 61, 82,
106, 108. Compl. Chrys. iv. 221. We may infer that T'^
Clt8TOD was omitted in Philo's LXX.
Qu. 7.-Ch. vi. 16: AdL T'i rn t KcaT'ryata topoafa tcal
prputpofa fyiLveoaat;
Qu. 8.-Ch. vi, 17: La rTi 77rlt ,caKacaKXvatLov rylyver0at
Xaraie;pal ~raav -ap,ca ev j eTt 7rvevOa (oyv vroicaTrc rov
.ovpavov ;
In the Armenian Commentary on Genesis, KcaTaKXvvajl&o
is always used, KcaTaKXvayqAo iv8op never. Did, then, Philo's
LXX. omit v8op after icaTacXva'ov ? Probably it did, for
in the New Testament, in Matt. xxiv. 38, Luke xvii. 27,
2 Pet. ii. 5, iii. 6, viop is similarly omitted. Also woo\v, for
o0c77?, is hardly an accident of citation, for the Armenian
Vulgate implies woo\v here.
Qu. 9.-Ch. vi. 17: ALa Ti oo'a a,v e'7rT 7^79 7y TreXEvrrT)E ,
f7a'l TI 7yap afapTaveM Ta aXo ya;
Qu. 10.-Ch. vi. 18: TI E'OT, aTr7rOT)o Tr7v Sat0rcj v p/OV
Irpo ace ;
Here ,rpo' ae is read for crETa arov. Holmes notes that
VOL. V. R
258
2The Jewish Quarterly Revietw.
7rpo9 ae is read in X. 31, 38, 55, 56, 64, 68, 120, 121, 129,
131, 135. Aid. Alex. Ambr.
The agreement of these codd. with the title of the
quaestio would sufficiently prove that Philo, in his copy of
the LXX. read 7rpo6 ace, did not the Armenian solutio show
beyond a doubt that he read a-e without any preposition at
all. His solntio ends thus: SevTepov Se, 7rXetovad lTva %apl-
eMral T wtTaei pcKXrfpovo/Lav& ov ydp Tfnaj, Ta' r6f rr]v &Ia/j0C7v
arol, daXXt aer 7TO S ET7t, av) el Slcala Kac ad\Xj0,9 LtaffrtCl, iv
e,3aLwacco r oe Xofyifcw yevet 7rpob icTfOV Te xca& 7rpo evT7rpe-
irelav, oLo apeTr) XP1o4/7 ;
In S. Ambr. de Noe et Arca, c. x. n. 35, this part of the
solutio is thus paraphrased: " Multum autem tribuit iusto,
dicendo: statuam testamentum meum ad te; eo quod
rationabilis et fidelis vir sit testamentum Dei. Ipse est.
enim hereditas, ipse possessio, in quo virtus divini testa-
menti est." Must we not conclude that in Ambrose's cita-
tion a copyist has added ad before te, and that the Armenian
citation has been similarly conformed? The Armenian
Vulgate implies rather ,.etrc aov than 7rpo ae, and is other-
wise quite independent of this Philonean citation. Perhaps
the Greek text of Philo had already been conformed before
the Armenian version was made. In any case, if Philo's
LXX. had neither 7rpot ae nor /eTar a-o, but only oe, the
conflict of readings in MSS. of the LXX. of a later date is
explained.
Qu. 11.-Ch. vii. I: 'ta Tl Xeye.6 eltaeXOe a'v cait 7ra& o
I ! t
O4&
7p
He
wr
7r
I h
th
W
re
56, 58, 64, 73, 75, 77, 78, 130, 131, 134, 135. Compl. Cat.
Nic. Chrys., iv. 230.
Qu. 12.-Ch. vii. 2: aai Tr le T?7V K$loT'v ice\Xete& ele\X-
Oev a7ro TCoV KaaOapiov /crTv e7rra ap Ca& jXu, appev a v, aro 8e
T&Yv Ir Kca0ap&v Svo appev Kcat QfXv, SLa9pefa a"re'ppa erl
,raaoav r7rv y7 v;
Tischendorf has e7rTa, e7rTa and Svo Svo. In Philo Q. D.
P. I., i. 223, is the following citation: elayaayelv ei ?r2lv
ct/3arobv ar & oo\y rrlv&v
aaro\ ?&v
v V TTaapcov
CaOapWerra7appev
f" Kal OiXv,
which makes it probable that Philo's LXX. did not repeat
e7rTa and Svo. But the difference may be due to citation,
as also may be the changed order, Tiv c aO. IT. for TWv /r.
Trv ica0ap&cv, and the omission of r&v cKT7rvvV before TOW
Jr, ica0apcv. The other differences are less easily explained.
(i.) Why are the words of verse 3, Kcal a7ro r v T rereivOv T
ovpavo--appev cai OrXv, omitted, and (ii.) e4, T?v KF1CWTO
used instead of 7rpo? ae ?
i. No other authority omits the words Kai aTr7rO v 7reT.
K.T.X., and in absence of other authority we must regard this
omission as due to exigencies of citation.
ii. elk rjv Ktcwrorv for 7rp o\ e, has support of Q. D. P. I.,
i. 223, where we read thus: 'rapawvel Tw' 4avevT SlKcaiy . . .
eloa7rayetv el, T;V K/ciFTOr, oTrep rv TO T?r? *VX%I ayrelov, TO
o'pa 7, a7ro r&v rClTVOv . T. X. We may almost infer that
Philo, in his LXX., read ek T7~v Ict8ftTov, instead of 7rpos oe.
Qu. 13.-Ch. vii. 4: Ata l ed e vTa TO eo-EX ei Trlv
IclfwTOVb ejrTa Tepl'pat SAtijov, fpeO' o 6 KaTaKcXvo#o, ;
Qu. 14.-Ch. vii. 4: ALa' rl o verTo Tov KaTaKXvattv o
7t/yvraT eil TeaoapaKovra 7l/uepa Ktca& evl rapa7rX7oalal vvtcTav;
rTOv VerTv, implied in above title, is read in Holmes's MS.
37. Philo probably read Tov v. in his LXX. It is also pro-
bable that he added Tov0 iarTaKXvo.ov, for in Copt. Arab. 3,
aquam diluvii is implied. In the solutio is given: el TeaO'a-
paKovra flpepa Kcal Treo-oapaKcoVra YVKTag.
Qu. 15.-Ch. vii. 4: Tl e'7rv, eaXeliwo 7raoaav 7rrv
e'avdaTraa tv eroitorla a7ro qrpoa'o7rov (? rs) r7^y;
This title is also preserved in the original Greek. (See
R2
260 260le tezcish Qutarterly Review.
Rendell Harris, F4-rageme8ts of Phtilo, p. 21, and Paul Wend-

land, p. 54.) Procopius cites av4a'rTao-w for Tavda'CTaocw
The Armenian version does not make it certain which was
read in its original, though it proves that one or the other
was read. Philo himself, therefore, in his LXX., read either
avaaTaro ')avyraoTLv )v, and not a'vc rrj a a; his com-
mentary in itself proves that he had this reading: St'o xat
av~aTao-tv c07 -LV' aivaoCTa'a Se a'vM'iaXov IcaOalpeo-vq. (Paul
Wendland, p. 54.) The same reading is found (Holmes) in
1., 55, 71. Slav. Sahid. 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 25, 32, 37, 38,
57, 59, 61, 72, 74, 76, 79, 82, 106, 107, 108, 127, 128, 130,
131,134, 135. Compl. Orig. iv. 112. Chrys. iv. 226, 227,
230. Arm. 1. Arm. Ed.
In the title 7rca'oq is omitted after nrpocro',rov. So also in
the original Greek of quaestio in R. Harris, 1. e. 7rrdo-tj
omitted (Holmes) in 15, 19, 20, 37, 38, 55, 56, 58, 61, 64,
82, 107, 108, 129, 134, 135. Compi. Alex. Chrys. iv., 2
227, 230. Ambr. Copt. Arab. 1, 3. Arm. 1. Arm. Ed.
is certain, then, that 7rd'O-,q was absent in Philo's LXX.
Qu. 16.-Ch. vii. 5: Jha ri Tlf-t. &robr)ge N65e rrvaTa o'
E 'aTreiXaTo a'iTc K p tov Oe6';
Qu. 17.-Ch. vii. 11: Jud ia E'V rf 6'aKocrLoc-TTqi T7'7
'Vf Ncie yieraT a KaKXVeYULO%V 'V) f T /386pacp plyvl eu'ca&St
Here (i.) &EL is omitted after 6'KaKoO-MToo'-an omissio

found in no other source, and probably due to tit
(ii.) T1rqip j for 4' TV' fwq', is implied by the rendering- vit
in Copt. Slav. Ostrog. Arm. 1, 2. Arm. Ed. Philo, ther
fore, read T2q fCO"Iq (See below, Qu. 45, on Gen. viii. 13
(iii.) 4' T?' Cf861 .rCo /Vt for TOV^ 8VTEpOV ttr77n'6. The fo
of the citation, 4Y T' r vb ~tvi, may be due to title, but i
certain that Phulo, in his TLXX., read either 16F'C68
4%4udwov, and not TevC'pov. For not only does the Armenia
commnentary repeat the former, but Ambrose, in his pa
phrase of that commentary, writes as follows (De Noe e
Area, c. xiv.): Septimum mensem verni esse temporis no
ambigitur. . . . Tune ergo fecit diluvium." (iv.) elic. K
On the PaPilonean Text of the Septuagint. 261
/38., for el386,uy /ca elca2d. The commentary agrees with the
title in this order, e4K. K. 8.; which we must therefore infer
was the order of the words in Philo's LXX.
Qu. 18.-Ch. vii. 11: Tt er'Tv, eppayr7av 7raaoat al 7rTyal
.Tj a3uiacov iKal ot caraTappacTaL TOV ovpdvov aveXoOflacav;
There is a diversity of readings in the Armenian title,
the one reading being = ,carappadcTat, the other =
Karappoal. The same diversity of reading reflects itself
also in the Armenian solutio.
Qu. 19.-Ch. vii. 16: TI eort, cXeieaev o 0eoO; E9soev atvro
TTNV t/37VT0;
Here (i.) K6vpLo is omitted before 6 0ebc. So in 76. Just
M. Dial., p. 410. Chrys. in Cat. Nic. 147 (Holmes).
(ii.) The order 't. av. r. cKl., instead of T. Kt/. f. av., is
found in X., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 25, 31, 37, 38, 57, 58, 59,
61, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 106, 108, 128, 130, 131, 134,
135. Compl. Cat. Nic. Chrys. iv., 235, et alibi. Arm. 1, 2.
Arm. Ed.
We may infer that Philo, in his LXX., read the verse as

in the title.
Qu. 20.-Chap. vii. 17, 18: Ti foTv, 7r\rX770vVt' TO iVop
Kca e7rrjpe Trv KCL/3TOV, Kai Ere7TpeTO epe rao Tro rov vSaroo ;
Here there are omitted, after KIt/OrTOV, the words Ica
V8+07, CK. T. X., which we need not suppose were absent from
Philo's LXX. Tischendorf has &7re7rX\Vr0v0r7, against which
the Armenian title is not decisive; it may only neglect the
preposition e7r. We find X7rrX0vlv09r in (Holmes) 14-16,
18-20, 38, 55-59, 61, 64, 71, 73, 75-79, 82, 106-108, 128,
130, 134. Compl. Alex. Cat. Nic. Chrys., iv., 239.
Qu. 21.-Ch. vii. 20: Zl ta TrLevreKVTaieea 7rrXetl vrepa'dv
(rather wrcvwo) 7ra'vTaa ' prXa eop ErXeovae ;
Here Tischendorf has 7revr. 7r. 7rrepavow v'rcoS07 f'o VScop cKa
7revKaXvfrE6 ra'vTa Td opr77 ra T nr7 X'.
Perhaps eirEcKXv.e lurks behind the word which I render
err\Xevae. Nothing can be inferred from this mutilated
citation as to the text of Philo's LXX. In (Holmes) 20
Chrys. iv. 139, ETrEKtXvCev is read. The Armenian solutio
contains the words: avSTa al '7revTecaL8eica 7rrXeFt, al v7repavw

ao-av' KaTaKXrcXoovTat yap Ka' avrat (or OTSro). Tils suggests
CT76K/ vev. Ambrose in his paraphrase writes: "Excelsi
montes qui hanc carnem passionem obumbrant;" and
Aucher, following him, writes: " Montes enim altiores in
corpore nostro obumbrant sensus," where the sense of the
Armenian is: rOTt .VrfXc 6pr xcara TO uz r,v a"viTTreTral
alo'rjsfet.
Qu. 22.--Ch. vii. 21: TI ealv, cire'ave \ra&a rap~
K&vovJevr) ;
Qu. 23.-Ch. vii. 22: TI e0TL, 7rav ocrov (or 7rdavra o-a)
v E7rtl rT' qpa& a 7reOfave ;
Here oaov is read for o. The uncial and other MSS.
waver between 7rav & and 7ra? o's, the latter being read
those sources which usually agree with Philo. Perhap
zrdvO' 6s9 3v was the original reading.
Qu. 24.-Ch. vii. 23: Ti E'oTL, E:r'Xetle 7raaav avdaraao
2 ?Iv 67rT 7rpooaWrov T79 70ys;
Here 7raaav acvcta'raOav r is read for 7rav To advaOTrrIpa
We saw that in Qu. l15 avdaTraart was similarly read.
this passage (ch. vii. 23) the older reading, avdoaraaotv, which
Philo had in his LXX., has disappeared from all the Gree
MSS. of the LXX. without exception.
Qu. 25.-Ch. vii. 23: Ti eoaTt, KaTeXe\lfl 07 povo Nce Ktal ol
CUET' avTroV v Ev7y TKLfcor,;T
Qu. 26.-Ch. viii. 1: tla Trl c7lqv, e'vraf8rq 0 6eb Tro
NS6e Kal Tcov OrplUWV Kcal T'wV IT?7VCOv, T?7 e e vyaVctO icaK TCa
Teicvwv ovc avepvLrflar;
Here (i.) 7rdvr,v is omitted twice before TrCv Orptcov and
7jTv rKT,vv. (ii.) e'vtj6O,r for avelv4f'a4r. The Armenian
title would not in itself be decisive for e'Hprv8r , did n
Procopius (P. Wendland, p. 56) cite this title of Philo's as
follows: 7rc,e T TroV NE /jvr?aOfel,6 0$ Oeo catl KcrTvjvv K
7upi)v, yvvauco rt g vTaOYv oU jLeCvrTrat; Also (P. Wendlan
p. 106) Theodoret, imitating Philo, quotes thus: e'vrjaf
Kvpio9 Tov N&ie. Furthermore efvrjrirl is read (Holmes)
I., X., 15, 16, 18, 25, 31, 32, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 64, 6
73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 82, 106, 120, 121, 129, 131, 134, 135.
Aid. Alex. Cat. Nic. Chrys. iv., 246, et saepe.
It is therefore certain that in Philo's LXX. e'vraOGq stood.
The first 7rarVTov is omitted in Ambr. (Holmes); the
second in 75, Ambr. (Holmes). We cannot safely infer that
they were absent in Philo's LXX.
In the solutio of the same quaestio is cited the following
from Isaiah, ch. li. 2: rlowv ' 7rporr7T7' ep,L3ArCaTe e14
ABpaa, r'ov 7raTepa v,w.v Kcal eg Xappav rrv wlvovo-av
v/za;, an addition to the very scanty citations of Isaiah
given in Philo.
Qu. 27.-Ch. viii. 1: JAL rlT 7rpo'7pov Tr&v Olplov, re7eTa
rTsv cTlvwv avaLvafflvoei0, X oOv Otl fLvrfjaOq TOV N6e cat Tr&v
Orlplov Kca 'rTv IcTrcv&v ;
Here rrdarwv is again twice omitted, which strengthens
the surmise that in Philo's LXX. the same omission occurred.
Qu. 28.-Ch. viii. 1: TI earTv, E7r7ya-yev vrvev,ta rri 77v
ryiv Ical e/co7ra'e TO icop ;
Here o 0e6d is omitted after e'ryaryev. Procopius (Wend-
land, p. 56) has preserved this quaestio in Greek thus: cal
e'7rryaye rvevta etS r1jv ry7v cal tceKc67raKce ro viSop ; where elk
for e7ri and xceKfcraKe are singular, and are not confirmed by
the Armenian or by any other authority. Procopius is not
an independent authority for omission of o OeoF, which may
be due to title; though, on the whole, it looks as if o 0eb<
was absent from Philo's LXX.
Qu. 29.-Ch. viii. 2: T l o'TTv, e'TriKaXi Orlaav at 7irrlyal
7?9 a!t3 ov UcaOV oK l tcaraTappaicrat Tov ovpavov;
In the solutio the epassage is again cited, where Procopius
preserves the Greek (P. Wendland, p. 57), thus: peO' tylepas
ryap, 'jlrqLV, pv' EfrTLaXvOOvaf da Ta e 767rlaq Kal 7ov0 KaTa-
pa/CTav.
Qu. 30.-Ch. viii. 3: TI eTav OT&r 1fXaTrTovoVro ro Vcop

era eicarTv gcal 7reVrTTrKovTa l1puepa? ;
Procopius has preserved the Greek of the above (Wend-
land, p. 57), ,/eT v' Se Kcat p' ffle'pa qXXaT'rovfro To ViSop. It
is impossible to say which the Armenian represents, whether
)XarTTOVOlro or jXaTTovro. The order, KcaTrv 7TrvT7KovTa,

which the Armenian probably implies in its original, is in
following codd. (Holmes): 16, 19, 20, 37, 38, 56, 587, 5,9,
61, 64, 73, 75, 78, 106, 108, 129, 130. Compl. Chrys. iv.,
248. Arab. 1. 2. 3. Slav. Georg. et sic sed interposito et,
Arm. 1, 2. Arm. Edition.
Qu. 31.-Ch. viii. 3: dla 'r 'f)rqiv, e'cdOaev EY : iclTOS& v
ry ?B6o, bw11vl e1cd1 Kal eSo ,88? 77 TOV 6Lf;
Here (i.) Tr e88. p. is read for T p. rw e 38. The same
variant is in (Holmes) 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 25, 37, 38, 56,
57, 58, 61, 64, 73, 77, 78, 79, 106, 129, 130, 131. Compl.
Cat. Nic. Chrys. iv., 248. Arm. 1. 2. Arm. Ed.
(ii.) celaSl Kcail e9oy,4 for ,88 K. . ec. That this order is
no device of rendering is certain, because it is found in the
Cat. Barb. with the lemma, iXcovo? ETri-KO'rov. The passage
(vide P. Wendland, p. 49) is as follows: e'386L,g Kcal eicKad
'TO 70 Lvos TroV evrTpov o KaTacXvafuLos aPipxerTa cal CelKSt
e3So, 'TO) ,8E380oFOV /IL)VO eecLOLaev V c Kbt,8ro1' el op7 p. It
may be inferred that elKca&Sl e,So&p was read in Philo's
LXX.
Qu. 32.-Ch. viii. 5: zila ri f)cL, Ev TO- ecaTOp /L7;vil, Tj7

7rpoTp b?7o9aoav at KecaXca\ TaiV opecov;
Here rov , Ljvo is omitted after r7 rrprnc. The omission
is not shown in any other source, so it may be due to
title.
Qu. 33.-Ch. viii. 6: A\u Tl per e TrearapdaovTa /te'pa,

avoIyet 'T7jv UvpL8a T79 IC/LPTOVv O &iKcato;
Here o Si,cawo for Nc5e, which in Tischendorf's text fol-
lows 7ve,)e, may be set down as a device of citation.
Qu. 34.-Ch. viii. 6: T &Tan T'0 KfCt3TOV' Ovpl\ v aYvoye7,
0 &,Kato,;
Qu. 35.-Ch. viii. 6: Aca Tl TOv cKopapta 7rp&TCov a7rereTlXe ;
Here Tischendorf has a're'TrelXe rTv xcopaica. The varia-
tions may be ascribed to title. The Armenian solutio which
follows makes it certain that Philo had not in his LXX. the
words 'ov iie&v elt ceKd7raKcev TO v6op, which in so many codd.
are added after icopaca. See also Quaestio 38.
On the PPhilonean Text of the Septuagint. 265
Qu. 36.-Ch. viii. 7: Adl rT eeX8Av o iKcopae oV'KET

avacTpefert, OrT o #irw qv ,Epo; T 7ryI9 lpavev ;
Here oVKceTi is confirmed by the Armenian Vulgate. The
rest of the verse is cited in the usual form in next
quaestio.
Qu. 37.-Ch. viii. 7: Aia ri je'ST6aXe XEy coy, &eos Tov
57qpavOfYva T r 6 Scop a7ro r y? y7rI. ov yap vSwop 7ro yq7^, aXAa\
7yq a() v8aToq;
Qu. 38.-Ch. viii. 8: dla r Tr Sevrepov drrocreTXXe& Trlv
reptLarepav, tcal 7rap' avTov Zal Setv el IeKG7raic TO vScop, Wv
ove\v 7rep\ TOv Kopa/Ka elprlTat;
Here (i.) 7rap' avrov is read for o'rl'C av'rov. The same
variant is in (Holmes) 20, 61, 74, 106, 107, 129, 134. Chrys.
iv. 249. It is certain that Philo read trap' avrov in his
LXX., for the solutio of this quaestio repeats and explains
the title. (ii.) /cal is twice added, before 7rap' avrov, and
before iSelv. This is due to citation only. (iii.) adro 7Tje ryq
is omitted after v;8op, an omission which does not seem to
be due to mere exigencies of citation, since in the solutio
the citation is again made without these words being
added.
Qu. 39.-Ch. viii. 9: Ala rl ovX eupovaa 7) 7reptLTepa dvZ-

rravo'v TOL TroowlV avaarTpeeE 7rp6S avrov;
Here avrT^1 is omitted after 7roalv. No other source
shows this omission, which I yet think was in Philo's LXX.,
because it accords with the greater terseness observable in
many of his citations.
Qu. 40.-Ch. viii. 9: Ti*eOTWv, ecKreiva rT7v XeLpa eXa/ev
avTrrv cKa etal7yayEv Trpo, eavrovT;
Here avT7v is omitted after elo?ryayev and ek T7rV KIC/TOVr
after Eavrov. Both omissions may be due to exigencies of
citation.
Qu. 41.-Ch. viii. 10: Ada T E7rtLXwV e'rTa ' eT erpa
Er'Ipa, Trai eav c re'aetXe e T'Yv TreprfTepav;
Tischendorf has the order, e7rLO-Xov ETL 0A. errTa Er.
trdXtv. One MS. of Holmes, 58, has the order, &rrTa erepa;
?te'pa!, and many more have ve7rTa '3., viz., 3, 15, 16, 19, 37,
266 2The Jewish Quarterly Review.
64, 75, 82, 83,106, 129, 130. Compl. Chrys. iv. 250. Georg.
But none entirely agree with the title, which yet most pro-
bably represents the reading of Philo's LXX. The omission
of eIC v ICc/o0Tov must be ascribed to exigencies of citation.
Qu. 42.-Ch. viii. 11: Ti eoTv, aveaTrpeJe eld aVrov ,7
-7rTptLTEpa rT 7rTpo ea7repaav e:ovaoa U\XXov eXa'a? Kcpo ev
TOt) r6ToarTL avTjr;
Here exovaa, for Kal elXe, may be a device of citation, or
even of rendering. The original Greek of the title seems
to have had etl aTrov, not ?rpov avirov.
Qu. 43.-Ch. viii. 11: 'Aa rti evo N&oe ob6 KeoTraKe TO,
Viop a7TO T7r 77y?;
In the solutio is embedded a text of Isaiah, thus: &&o
^'yvwptLLo Mo'eCoC Kcal fuXoc 7rpo0f)jrTr7 nTl evo.o6errT'e 'roItv
Se rtva X7yov, el r o' Kvptow 7raVT7ocpaTOp efca7eXtLrev ' i,iv
a7repuLa dETev7jrlfJUeV av c) TvcfXol xcal CrTelpoLevot, ovre
'y7TvrfcOOELV TO iaXov ovre 7evvav SvvdaVevot. TIv 86 v TUXoTTra
xal aTelpWcLY T,y rraTpla yXcto'ra XaX\8aot KcaXoov' Xosota
xa r6toAoppa.
This text, Isaiah i. 9, runs in Tischendorf's ed. thus: ,cal
-e V7r KvpLto Xala\oO efYEcaTreXL7rev lV anre'p,toa, 6 poSoa &v
?yevrlornLEV Katl CO r6o,foppa av cOl.o0oW'L?cyv .
Qu. 44.-Ch. viii. 12: At r T O Topirov /.reTa erpa w7rTa

,EL?paS êa7wreTo'eXe T?qV 7repuTp V Ka OjepaIv ta O 7reo Trpeev
vrp0o avTov ;
Tischendorf's text runs thus: Kal e7rricoyv erT 'pepa e7rrTa
?TEpa9 7rrdXtv e:a7'rrETe\Te rr)v 7reptrTepav, 0ta ov 'rpoeiOero
70V e7TrtTpe6Jat 7rpo' arTOV ITt.
Here Philo's title has (i.): .TO rpirov /Ta&, for eTaOX^C er1.
This may be a device of citation.
(ii.) &Tepaq eTr'ra ql., instead of 7. r. . .
The order err&Ta . is found (Holmes) in X. 15, 16, 18, 25,
37, 38, 56, 57, 59, 61, 64, 75, 79, 82, 106, 128, 129, 130, 131.
Compl. Cat. Nic. Chrys. iv. 250. Slav.
The same order presented itself in verse 10.
(iii.) ratXtv is omitted before da7reo-TeLXe. It is also
omitted in Holmes 15, 58, 61, 64, 106, 107. Compl. Chrys.
I.c.
(iv.) OlCTovc eC7rerTTprev 7rpo0 avrov, for ov 7rpoO-ero 7ov

7rt"rrpe'ata 7rpo' avTov 'rt.
The reading ovKc ave4orpe4rev 7rpo? avrov eTt is in (Holmes)
37; and (Holmes) 82 reads &r after ov, omitting it after
-avrov. This agreement of the MSS. 37 and 82 is note-
worthy.
I infer that variations (ii.), (iii.), and (iv.) stood in Philo's
T,XX.
Qu. 45.-Ch. viii. 13: A la T ev T, ev, Kal6 acaKooa0To,

eTE& Tv9 ?g)? rov' N&e rov 7rTp0rv JTLO a Tovy A)7voF eCekXlrev TO
v6&op a7ro Trs 79 ;
Here (i.) recurs T7' Coi3, instead of ev T7r yg.W.
(ii.) LYvo\ is omitted after 7rpoorov.
Of these it is certain that (i.) is not accidental, but stood
in Philo's LXX., for it has occurred before in ch. vii. 11.
That (ii.) the omission of upvo\ was in Philo's LXX. is
proved by the solutio of above quaestio, which begins as
follows: -O rrp(rTov caT' XXetLv e'tpTrait f o\rv q a v-
0pw7rov cal Xoyov EiXe EcaTepov. el Tyap Xcal 7rpo'rov p'r)vo (or
IrpCOWr' ltvl) aCKovOrTEOV E'Tt TO 6eKXhrTELV TO vOop, voLO'eovI'
ro?v e/3,sOuov r)va Xaf3ev favat, TOVY eaT' la?/JEuplav. ? avTo0
fyap /rfv 7rpco709 Te eo6 cal aE/oo88/,uo. coaeL rpWTroI 7 ev fEVY Ve
a& &svvaJLet, X%pov Se g,88opoO. ev adX owe 1 <ro-Lt roT7r (Exod.
xii. 2): "o FLv 070rVO Vv aPXTJ /Lr7Vwv' 7rpooT o 'eTtV 'E TO'l
fp7aol rov evtavrov .... El e e7rt avOpco7rov XeyeraL To
TrpCwroT fIvptLTrepov ptlOfjaeETat. orwTS yap Trp&roT Kal Travv
a7yao 6 O' lecaLto C.T..X.
In the citation of Exod. xii. 2 vbutv is omitted after
wrpcwroc T elv. In the Armenian commentary on Exodus
(Auch. 2. 443) the citation recurs, again with this omlission
of V/aL, which we may therefore infer was in Philo's LXX.,
though no other source confirms it.
Qu. 46.-Ch. viii. 13: Ti c'rTv acrexcdXv*e N&e ?77j
-oTrEv '77 TnCl tf,)Tr ;
Qu. 47.-Ch. viii. 14: Ata ,; ev TN c/880/p 1/.vl elcaS& cal

E/6Lr) e77pUv97 rj ry ;
Here (i.) e/3o,to is read for SEvrTp.
(ii.) e y. ? 7y follows /rvlv in Tischendorf's text.
(iii.) r-ov /UvosV is omitted after E,/3680x,.
(iv.) elK. K. /35., instead of e/38. K. elK.
Tischendorf reads as follows: ev 8e 8 ' &SvrEpp /ptVI
erjpavOq? y] 7Y;, /3S6fJy ecKal etlcdS6 rov p7o)VF.
As to (i.), compare Quaestio 17 above. The Armenian
solutio of this and of other quaestiones confirm it. Also
the best MSS. of the Armenian Vulgate have / b,86/A,, both
here and in ch. vii. 11. There can be no doubt but that
Philo's LXX. read 6/3,6/t8 , although none of Holmes' sources
confirm it.
(ii.) This general order of words (but retaining ro/v W7vo?)

is in (Holmes) I., X., 14, 16, 18, 25,31, 55, 56, 68, 71, 72, 74,
75, 76, 77, 79, 82, 83, 120, 121, 129, 131, 134. Aid. Alex.
Cat. Nic. Ambr.
(iii.) This omission cannot safely be ascribed to Philo's
LXX., for in the similar passage, Gen. vii. 11, 'roev '/.v? is
retained.
(iv.) This variant was in Philo's LXX. Cp. Qu. 17 on
Gen. vii. 11.
Qu. 48.-Ch. viii. 15, 16: alt' rt lpavOelto'f ro i 7ryi oufc

e'epxe'ra Nce EKx 'rT Kt,3cwTrov rrpIv rov X\6yov aKovlaJ' Ecrre
ay\p Kvptos 6 deo r\ o NTw'0 e'eO0e oT', eca 0o yvvvrj oov, cai
OL Viot OOV Kal a y^vvatieE 'Trv vlwv aOov Kat Ta Ac\a ?'a ;
This title is preserved in Greek in the Cat. Barb., and in
Procopius (see Wendland, pp. 58 and 111), always omitting
eK T'? KIt3wTOV after ee\Xe. These are not, of course, inde-
pendent sources for this passage, yet I think Philo's LXX.
omitted eKc "r? tfCLWTOV. The words Kcab r a.. . seem to be
a paraphrase of xcal 7ravTa Ta 0rlpla, in verse 17.
Qu. 49.-Ch. viii. 18: idla Tr oTre elf'fqXOov eiV rTv Ki,TO/r6
a} Tas, ~7V avtroV re Ecal vulv, 'e7reFa wIov ^yvvatccov avrov re
iKa TWv ViCv' oGe 8T e &cSXOov, eLTa3eX/37rrat. eXe\eiv ycip
On the Philonean Text of the Septuaginit. 269
nlor-i NW6e Kcal r yv ryvvaZica, ereLra oc viol ical atl fvva,ce rT7vo
vi6&v;
The first part of this title is in accord with Gen. vii. 7, 8,
and the latter part with Gen. viii. 18. The triple omission
of avrov after yvvaucta, viol and vi&v must, in default of
other testimony, be attributed to title only.
Qu. 50.-Ch. viii. 20: Ata Tl -wco8o,rlfe Oucvara5ptov, ov
CEXevaOdlS ;
Qu. 51.-Ch. viii. 20: AiLa ri Tr Oecw T'o vaOtarraptov,

.XX' ov rv Kvpico Xey?Tea olK0ofielv ;;
Tischendorf has rw Kvptl. TrN Oew is read in (Holmes)
III., X., 14, 16, 18, 19, 25, 37, 38, 55-59, 64, 71-79, 82, 106-
108, 128-131, 134. Compl. Alex. Cat. Nic. Chrys. iv., 257,
Fulgent.
Thus Philo read here TC O0eO in his LXX.
Qu. 52.-Ch. viii. 20: TI erOa , T kXa/ev cwro TWvv KTCrjv7V

' , ' ?
ca a
qrooaYe?L ;
Tischendorf reads: eX. a7ro vra'vv 7. C Cr. 7TZv KaOapcov Kal
, \ ' **
aro 7
tvo-aaTriptov.
The title (i.) omits -7ravrov twice, before Tiwv rK. and before
TrCj 7rET.: (ii.) it omits rwv caOapwv after crjVcwV: (iii.) it
omits elI: and (iv.) has oXoKca,o7roreLt for oXoKcdpTrroa-v. The
title has the air of being a formal and full citation of the
text, so all four of the above variants must have stood in
Philo's LXX. The omissions accord with the terser, shorter
character which, from other instances, we see his text of the
LXX. must have had. okoKcap7rWa'et, instead of eds 6XooKdp-
wroolv, in X., 16, 18, 25, 38, 57, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 128,
130,131, 134. Cat. Nic. The preposition el, is omitted,
though the singular OXotKCp7rowltv is retained in VI., 14, 15,
19, 37, 55, 56, 58, 59, 64, 72, 75, 79, 82, 106, 107, 108, 129.
Comp. Alex. Chrys. iv. 257. Fulgent.
Qu. 53.-Ch. viii. 21: Atla rt Ovata T, daoTrowO Uvvdatee
Tou Oeov, 8e '7Tro8oX) ylveTrat 8&a Svo 8vvt~'eov rov 7e
270 2The Jetcish Quarterly Review.
Kvptov cal rov 0eov' frl,l ryap' wffopa-vr,v Kp to, eos-

oayx)v evw&la ;
This title confirms the reading rw 8ewd in ch. viii. 20; see-
on Qu. 51.
Qu. 54.-Ch. viii. 21: Ti aT'v, et-re Kvp to d0 ebo Sta-
vofe78e. Ov'c ,'7 ,rpoaO0loaco KaTapaaaoOat r2iv y777v Staa rC pya
Trv av6pr0W7cov on' e'Kterat & &Svota rTOv av6po7rrov e7r/LeXoW-
ael e7rl Tra 7rovrlpa EIc VEOT77TOT. ovIC o3V &rt rpoOOa qw TardaaL
7ra-aav ap.'ca ?Caoav KaO& e robca'a, enr (or rather \XX' &t).
Here (i.) enT 7rpoaOr'jao, for 7rporo-. eT.
(ii.) de\ added after C7rtueX6io.
(iii.) avrov omitted after veorTTOT.
(iv.) ovlc o?v erT rpoaO. for ov Trpoao. oVv e%r.
(v.) (? cXXa\) rt added after e'rolrj7a.
Of these, (iii.) avtro is omitted in (Holmes) 15, 20, 37,
55, 61, 64, 68, 74, 83, 120, 121, 129, 130, 134. Aid. Philo.
i. 516. Epiph. i. 805, 951, 1034. Chrys. iv. 260. Cyr. Al.
i. 488. Athan. i. 755. Ambr. (iv.) The meaning of the
Arm. is here not quite clear, but certainly implies C'T
which is added in (Holmes) 15, 55, 64, 74, 76, 134. As
to (i.), it must be remarked that in the Armenian solutio
Philo cites again part of his title thus: T' Se 7rpoa0rjco>
KcaapdaacYao vr7v nyv, Xeto/LEvov 'rayicaX . We must not
lay stress, therefore, on the transposition of words in title.
(ii.) The addition of del is also doubtful, for, citing the
verse in detail in the Armenian solutio Philo does not add
adc; nor does any other source supply it. Nor in Philo
Q. R. D. H. i. 516 is ael added. The variant (iv.) is doubt-
fully indicated by the Armenian solutio.
Thus (iii.) the omission of avrov and (v.) addition of err
are the only ones of these variants certainly attributable to
the text of Philo's LXX. The addition made in the title at
the end of the verse answers to aXX' ert rather than to e&s
singly. Perhaps a new clause began with these words. If
so, why cite them with verse 21 ? See on the following
quaestio.
On the Piilonean Text of the Septuagint. 2T1
Qu. 55.-Ch. viii. 22: Tl eao' r'rep/a xKa OepLa'lo, IXow

taf /ca ac, Opo? Ical eap, r/eiepav Ka& vvicra ov IcaTaravcaovat ;
Did Philo's LXX. omit the preceding words, 7rro-a r7a
ietpa, Tr? 7yr? ? One MS. of Holmes, 25, omits them. The
Armenian solutio does not imply them, indeed; yet their
omission may be due to title only. Most probably Philo.
began the verse with ao7repha. Cp. Holmes's note on verse
21: "Vocem errotloa connectit cum quinque prioribus verbis
commatis proximi, eamque connectionem urget in com-
mentario, Chrys. iv. 260." It is impossible not to connect
the reading of Chrysostom with the Philonean titles of this
and the preceding verse.
Qu. 56.-Ch. ix. 1, 2: ztaL ri evtXoye7 rv N),e ecal 7oo
vWoW6, el7r&v' AivdveaoOe cal 7rXrlOtvveoOe Icat 7rXflpoa-are T'v
yqjv cacaT icaTratvptevoaTe avTr1f Kat 6 rppoTo vfLv Kca 6 (p d3oo
ecrTatl ET7 T7o O7ploLt Kcal T7o0 'retetvoti icail TOlF ep7rTTrol Ktca
To&s iXO'-tv, a (or &a or ovs) Vero Xelpa? vb;v SECo/ca ;
Here (i.) 6 Oeo\ is omitted after evo7yel.
(ii.) av'Tv is omitted after TOV\ vIOV' .
(iii.) avTroT after eirwv.
(iv.) Kcal 6 7rpOfLO b&v Iy cal 6 f68oo, instead of cal 6 rp.
K. 6 4. V/muov.
(v.) 7raoi omitted before TO, Oplplioti, and T y 7ry after it.
(vi.) Ical T7o; 7rere&vol, for 7rl 7rava Tr rrereLva To
oupavov.
(vii.) Kcai TOL ep7rerToE for Kal '7rl 'r a vT Tc civov eva 47r
7ri ra7'.
(viii.) ical ro^T0' xlo'tv for Ka er 7r vTaq TOVf x')(vag T71
,OaX\da''7f.
(ix.) a (or ov,) is added before Vr7rt %etpas.
(i.) This omission may be due to title. In one parallel
case, ch. viii. 1, 6 Oeok is given; in another, ch. vii. 1, IK6pto'
0o 0e is omitted. On the whole, it is probable that in
Philo's TLXX., o 0eso was absent in ch. ix. 1, and that the,
subject was supplied from Kvpto 6g Ooe6 in ch. viii. 21.
(ii.) avrov may have been omitted in Philo's LXX., which
seems to have been altogether shorter and terser than our
own, but in the absence of evidence from other sources we

cannot be sure.
(iii.) This omission is due to title.
(iv.) This variant is preserved in (Holmes) I., 19, 31, 58,
68, 120, 121,129. Ald. Alex. Georg. It is certain, there-
fore, that it stood in Philo's LXX.
The other variants (v.-ix.), in absence of other evidence,
must be set down to title.
The solutio of this quaestio cites Gen. i. 27, 28, thus:
cat e7roltr7aev o OesO TOY IvOpporrov Kca' Elecova Oeov E7rotja?ev
, ,
avTrov apaev fcal OXlXv

6 eo\v Xe'ycov Avdvea-
7fyv Kat carTaIvpte-aTr
rTreTtvwv cab T v T pTre
The omissions in this citation must be set down to title
in absence of further evidence.
Lower down in the same solutio are cited parts of Gen.
ii. 5, 7, as follows: ov 7yap ,Bpeev 6 Oeo e67rr\ T7v fyrv Kca
avOpoTroq oLeK 'V o Epya5ofevo T\)V ryv7. (7) cal 67rXa(aev o
eb'o To)V av0po7roY, Xovv a7ro Tr^' yr?7;' ca eve6vr7ifTev el; To
prpocrOlrov avrov 7rvolv aoit), KaL eyevero o avtpo7ro el'
v' xr, P aoav.
Here, in verse 5, 6 e'pyao,uevo rr)v 7rv for Epdyf?eaoa&
avrrjv. The reading V,Yv ?yv was in Philo's LXX., for it is
given in Philo i. 47, as also in (Holmes) X., 14, 15, 16,
20, 25, 32, 38, 55, 56, 57, 59, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 83, 127,
128, 129, 131, 134. Comp. Alex. Cat. Nic. Athan. i. 417,
Chrys. iv. 93, et saepe. The phrase o ep'yatpevo%, for e'pyl-
ea-Oat, does not appear to be a mere device of rendering,
for it is also found in the Armenian Vulgate.
Qu. 57.-Ch. ix. 3: Alda T 7Trav ep7reTrv o earT c')v Vl,2v
erra (fr7at eE';s /3p0otv;
Qu. 58.-Ch. ix. 3: Te &,Tiv, C' XadXava XopTov sK &Ka
vi,v Ta rcvra ;
The Armenian implies 'eSoKa rather than 8e8olca. $o8cKa
is given in Alex.
On the Philonean Tezt of the Septuagint. 273
Qu. 59.-Ch. ix. 4: Ti Zc7, Opeav e'v aiaTt PvkiX oiv

adyeoae ;
This title is preserved in Greek (R. Harris, p. 25), but is
there given thus: Ti 6arTv EV atiaTrt vX /ctpe'as ov'
ayeo-0ee; This discrepancy suggests that in Philo's LXX.
icpeaa was wholly absent, and was afterwards interpolated
in his text, but as naturally happens in such cases, was
inserted in one copy here and in another there. That this
was so is almost certain from the omission of Kpeae in
(Holmes) 38, Orig. ii. 32, Arm. 2, and also from Philo's
solutio (for Greek of which see R. Harris, p. 25),which im-
plies the absence rather than the presence of cpe'aw in his
text of LXX. The solutio contains Leviticus, ch. xvii. 11,
7radrjo *vX%77 ac'&aroS TO atlfa eo0-, where the Armenian
must be corrupt, as it yields no sense.
Qu. 60.-Ch. ix. 5: TI ea1 rt vubre'Tpov atLa 'rcv #fvxCv
vL0v efc7?7'rjaWo IC 7raVT OV 87lplov, Kcal etc XEtpob avWOpw'rov
a?Xfbov.
Here Tischendorf reads: efc Xetpof 7rdVwrv Tr'v 0rplIv

eKi77rT'r'o avro, K.T.X.
Holmes's codex 75, Tert. Lucif. Cal., and Chrys. ii. 32,
give the verse exactly as in the title, only retaining XE&po\
before vrcavTwv r7iv ^ cov. Minor agreements of the sources
with the title are the following:
(i.) e'Kcrr7ja is added after FvXcwv vIiv in I., 15, 25, 37,
38, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 74, 75, 76, 79, 82, 106, 128, 130, 134.
Alex. Damasc. i. 301. Theodoret iv. 745. Arm. 1, 2. Arm.
Ed. But these sources repeat e cTrrrao avTo.
(ii.) Xespo\ before 7rdvTcLv )v Tv ., is omitted in Theodoret
iv. 745.
(iii.) avrT after e'vfTj-w is omitted in (Holmes) 107,

135.
Undoubtedly Philo read the passage in his LXX. accord-

ing to the title. Did he not also read in his LXX. the
words efr'rioJo 'r;T#V fVXjv TO'V a'vOpW'rov, which follow and
end the verse in our TX X. ? The Armenian solutio (which
VOL. V. S
is fairly rendered in Aucher's Latin) in no way implies the

addition, and Plilo's commentary continues with verse 6.
It is therefore probable that EK4 . T. o. ov acv. is an addi-
tion later than Philo.
Qu. 61.-Ch. ix. 6: 'TI ?<TTv, 6 ecxe'ov alta v'Opo7rov avrt
Tov a oLarog avTov EcxvOroriTa ;
I suspect that this title has been tampered with in the
original Greek, if not in the Armenian version, and that for
avrov Philo himself wrote avrTo, for in the Armenian solutio
we read thus: av'of yap fnotL eKvKrf'ae wTa& oarep ati'a 6
?EcXowv alpa, which Ambrose, De Noe et Area, n. 98, renders:
"Eo quod is qui effuderit sanguinem hominis ipse quasi
sanguis effundetur." This renders it practically certain
that Philo read in' his TLXX. avTo? EIcXvOjaereTat. The read-
ing of Chrys. iv. 262, avrt rTo aitiaroT 'o av7 ov, led Holmes
to conjecture that the uncial codices originally had al/Za ro
eaTrov, which was easily corrupted into ar'aTroq aTrov;
but avTos was clearly the reading in Philo's age.
Qu. 62.-Ch. ix. 6: Ata ri oa-7rep 7repl eTepov eov, l'qs,
T ev eov eo eV KO7rorta-a Tov avOpco7rov cal oVc ev r7
Eavro ;
Qu. 63.-Ch. ix. 11: Ti ecrTl, oUlce'T 'Tat i"ca

carTac0epai 7raorav T7)v rjv ;
Here v68aTo is omitted after KcarTa\Xvuao. So in
(Holmes) 131. Ambr. Slav.
Qu. 64.-Ch. ix. 13: lta rl arfJdeLOV To0v P7 ryeveoOa& e7rT
7racyav Tiv 7?7V iycaTra/AvoajI6v />7o- Ttlfeval TO\ To0ov avrov
ev T TV? YePeX7;
In the solutio is a more direct citation: T TOrov Iuou
TrOl, ev TV vefe.
Qu. 65.-Ch. ix. 18, 19: la\ Ti roV vlov\ rov Stcalov
ava/vrfaOeli\ r\7P, Xad/ 'IaOeO, To Tov /acTov 7yevo1 pfovov
lo'TopeZ, h\XEaov Xad Ov 7ra,Tp Tro Xavadvy, Kal pJerTc 7oro
ETrl.Epet, OU7Tr TpeLF viol N&e.
Here (i.) Oe is omitted after Xat,.
(ii.) 7ro added before Xavaav.
(iii.) oGTOr Tpew for Tpe OVTOL' 'lo.
On the 1Piilonean Texrt of eke Septuagint. 275
(i.) is found in I., III., X., 14, 16, 18, 31, 35, 57, 68, 73,
78, 82, 120, 121, 128, 129. AId. Arm. 1. Arm. Ed. habet in
charact. minore Alex. (ii.) is in Chrys. iv. 272. (iii.) is not
found in any other source. Variants (i.) and (ii.) were, we
infer, in Philo's LXX. Less probably (iii.) was in it also;
for Procopius (Wendland, p. 61) preserves the title in
Greek, but cites it thus: TpEt9 OV.TO viol TOD N65e.
Qu. 66.-Ch. ix. 20: Ti CaTTLV, %'P~aTo Nw6e a;6pcorrov
eiva& ?yEwpyoF yi'm ;
To this quaestio is prefixed in the best Armenian MSS.
the words, repl yecopryta, as if this and the following
sections of the commentary which followed were known
separately under that title.
In the above title etyat is added before eyecopy?. So also
in Philo i. 303, 319, 328, 329. So it is certain that Philo
in his LAXX read eZvat here.
In the Armenian solutio is embedded Gen. ch. i. 9, as
follows: ovvaxO'To T'O V&op eNc ovva7y y2v caV, Kcat
6e60 trT CO ~qpa. The beginning of the solutio, including
this citation, is preserved in Greek in Procopius (see Wend-
land, p. 36); there the citation is given exactly as in the
Armenian, except that T)V is added before avvay(o7yv. The
omission after i;&op of ro 5`w0Ka,arw0 TaD oipavov is in no
other source, and must therefore be due to citation.
Qu. 67.-Ch. ix. 20: Jua T& 6 &' Ia&oK 'IrpoW7Yv cIa/.rAXc'a
Qu. 68.-Ch. ix. 21 : T7i 'OTLV, EiUev E'K 7ToL OtVOl Ka\b
Qu. 69.-Ch. ix. 21: TI EUTtY, eryV/hV6 CY T9O ofir'K
Qu. 70.-Ch. ix. 22: Jta Ti ovYX d7rXcr en, El3e Xa\/
i7ji V7LACa)Olv, e'XX Se E X'.0 7 ra7lT\ XavaYv TYv fy't/vraov
TOVI 7raTpO9
Here a&Lu'ris omitted after 7raTpo'q. The omission is in
no other source; yet from the uniform way in which
a TOV is omitted in such collocations, it is probable that
the omission existed in Philo's AXX.
s2
2'76 6Tlhe Jewish Qitarter'ly Review.
Qu. 71.-Ch ix. 22. TI EoTLV avt'yyetXe 7rotq &&otv A&eX-

~bo; ~Fo;
Here ai',roi is again omitted, and the omission is also
found in (Holmes) 37 (" sed habet margo "). X. has ai'iroD
a8eX/oUir; and this is in itself signiticant, for a conflict
between the earliest MSS. as to the place of a word in a
sentence is often an indication that at an earlier stage
the text was altogether without it, as seems to have been
here the case. Philo's LXX., therefore, omnitted au'TOV' here;
cp. note on preceding quaestio.
Qu. 72.-Ch. ix. 23: TI EO7t, Xa30'V7ET 6 '27/L ,ad 'IacOe9
ITt7OY E7rE'OevTO '-7 7r' T&%U v&Ta Ka' '7ropevOlOav 0o7rioOo-
Oayc'O Ka' tIccaXv#av T2)v yM.tvwatv TOV 7rarpOI xat o;c
El'Sol ;
Here (i.) T0 is omiitted before L/.aWTIOV.
(ii.) 'cKaXv#av for 0VVEKaXvJav.
(iii.) av'TrCv omlitted after 7raTrpO\, and after vc2ra.
(iv.) Kca4 To 7rp6rW7r0ov aurTW^ 07i., Kal TV^Y 7y. T. 7raTpo9
are omitted before oi'u EMOV.
Of these variants (i.), (ii.), and (iii.) may be at once
set down to Philo's TXX.; ,cKaXv*av is found in (Holmes)
108 Compl.; and for the omission of avrrTw' see note on
the two preceding quaestiones. The first aVi'Tiv after vC2Tra
is omitted in (Holmles) Arm. 1, 2.
The only parallel to the larger omission (iv.) is in
(Holmes) 75, which, however, omlits the entire clause from
Kcat To rrp6orrrov to oi'uc el8ov inclusive. The quaestio
render-s ica\, or we might suppose that Philo's eye, in
making the citation from his LXX., ran on fr-om the first
to the second TrOV 7raTrp?\, and so omitted the intervening
words through homoioteleuton. The solutio of this quaestio
is preserved in Greek' (see R. Harris, p. 28), but is not
decisive for or against this lar-ge omission. I believe, how-
ever, that the words Tr\ WpoCCwOV aViT-rv 07rrtaoOo(avc7 (or
07rLtocJoaylk) were a marginal gloss on 06w. EVopEvOEaav,
which found its way into the text after Philo's day, and
that the words T\v YtLVcOo0tV ToD w aTpo\ av'TwrCo were added
at the same time before oVcK tSov to make the meaning

quite precise.
Qu. 73.-Ch. ix. 24; Ti eaTvv, 6e'vye N?e ao' 7rov
OLVOV.
Qu. 74.-Ch. ix. 24: ' a i rTov Xau' ue'-Tov Tro o'a-replaTro
voflC'ov rcw'v Trpiv auSeXXCv, TrepOV (?) veTorepov YOpaLC'F&
t , ,, e . \ *
eWMrcov oaa e7r

Here avTov is omitted after 6 vlO,. So also in Philo i.
392, 397. It is therefore certain that avroO was absent in
Philo's LXX.
Qu. 75.-Ch. ix. 26: ta ri ,T 5t,\ ervdaevoa oEv roo O &)o
EV\O7yrnTO (or rather evXoyr?evoq) Kvps60o 6o 0e, Oeo rov0
Srjfl, Ical e"Tat Xavaav 7raF? avrov;
Here (i.) 0eoS? is added before roiv X',. The commentary
of Philo i. 400 proves that 0eo stood here in his LXX.; the
words are as follows: rov ryap Kvplov Ical 0eov Tro Te co'CAFov
Ka 'r&Tv Ev avo 7trdvrTov, 8l,a Uebv, acar' eatperov Xdptv,
tov iLt, avacaXe?. The actual citation, however, in i. 400
and 401 has been conformed in the MSS. to the Greek
Vulgate. The Armenian solutio, no less than the G
Philo, involves the addition of Oebs before Tov i'7.
(ii.) 7raZ instead of 7rak^ oblKerrF. In Philo i. 400 is r
ecat eara Xavaav SoviXo av'roi. The word OlKce7Tq, wh
may have slipped in from the preceding verse, is omit
in (Holmes) I., VI., X., 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 25, 31, 32, 37
55, 56, 57, 58, 64, 68, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83, 107, 120,
128, 129, 130, 131, 134, 135. Aid. Alex. Cat. Nic. Just.
Dial., p. 432. Chrys. iv. 291. Cyr. A1. Glaph., p. 42. T
doret i. 71. Aug. Copt. Arab. 1, 2.
In regard to the reading of 8oV\Xo in Philo i. 400, Ho
notes: "Forte igitur haud agnovit OlCeT)71.'
It is therefore certain that Philo in his LXX. omitted
oblce'rV. Whether he also read evXoyrfLLevo9, instead of
e?XoyIrTo\ is less certain. In Philo i. 401 e?Xoy,7nvoq is
read; in i. 400, ev1XoyrTrv6. Probably the former, which best
answers to the Armenian, was read in Philo's LXX.
Qu. 76.-Ch. ix. 27: JaLi T Tw 'Id^cef eva:devO'q OL,.
7rXaTvvaat o 0eoq Tr 'IdaeO tca'l faToLICTE'To ev T) OtK'0 TOV

S'iK' eal y6ev77rOrTO Xavav 7rat? avrTJv;
Here (i.) IcaTOLKlCT&o for KarotcrcarwTo. Although
Mangey's text, at i. 101, gives caTrolcrarT(rw, there can be
no doubt that KcaTrotLctr6O stood in Philo's LXX.
(ii.) Tr otIcp for ToZn? oltot. The latter is read in Philo
i. 401. Without support from the Greek MSS. of Philo,
it is not safe to infer that Philo read Tv ob'co in his
LXX.
(iii.) avrwv for av'ro. So (Holmes) I., X., 31, 57, 58, 59,
71, 73, 75, 78, 83, 108, 128, 129, 130. Compl. Alex. Copt.
Arab. 1, 3. Arm. Ed. From Quaestio 77 it is certain that
Philo read avrT6v in his LXX.
In Philo i. 401, Sov5Xo is again read here, instead of vrak,
a discrepancy that is remarkable in view of the next
quaestio. The Armenian implies the form Xavav, rather
than Xava?v.
Qu. 77.-Ch. ix. 27: Altari rov o Xa,t 41taapTovroP, rov
eicevov (or avrov) vlOv rTO Xavatv Sov^Xov a'roJa'veft ov
\,l ca To0 'IaefO ;
In S. Ambr., De Noe et Area, this title is thus para-
phrased: Deinde qua ratione cum filius (?) eius Cham pec-
caverit, non ipsum, sed filius eius servituti addixit ?
The above title proves that in ch. ix. 27, Philo read avrTv
in his LXX., and leads one to ask whether, after all, the
reading SovXoq did not stand in his LXX. instead of 7raZi in
verses 26 and 27, if not in the text, anyhow in the margin.
There can be no question of the titles of Quaestiones 75
and 76 having been influenced by the Armenian Vulgate,
for that translates SoviXo? in verses 26, 27. On the other
hand, St. Ambrose's paraphrase above cited proves that
SovXo? was read in Q. 77. We can only conclude that the
two readings rraC and SovXog are in verses 26, 27, both
equally Philonean.
Qu. 78.-Ch. ix. 28: al Tt 'Uera Tr'v caTaKiXVQIov N&e
C3nce e'r) TptaKcooTaa Kcal 7revTrTKovTa;
Tischendorf reads: e'o'e Be N. erTa rov tcaCrate. Cr) Tpt.
irevr. The variation in order of words may be ascribed

to title.
Qu. 79.-Ch. ix. 18, and x. 1: Ata Tri Tv rpi&v vl&v.
N1Ve X&apt &de o-o c(faivetrat' Tv o aiepa C\XXOVTa d i ore
7yeyEvrv77Tat iev rrpoTrov Tov 2/ 'eyE Ypa/./Uevov, OVTWr. ,
Xa,t, 'Iafef0 OTe e yevvaJO, TrpWTOT 7TETaIcTat 'Iaof)e? /cal
apXeTat a7ro TOv 'Ia.EO yeveaXoyeiv;
This title implies in ch. x. verse 1, the following order
among Noe's sons, 'I0def9, Xc,~, u rS/, the inverse of the
order in ch. ix. 18. The Armenian solutio equally implies
that Philo, in his LXX., so read ch. x. 1. It begins as
follows: ol r7)V pvTjV Trv iepwv rypa?aT.vrwv f-V sLepEVV.-
,Levot Xyowv evperai, rep, &TarTdeo rov ticar dpjY,v Xeyo-
pevOV 7rp&ov TOV To veWrepov vre'XaaTov, Tov e vrarov
7rpeo',SVrepo v TOv 'IadeO.
Qu. 80.-Ch. x. 4, 5: Ala ri ec' Tov 'Ia'eO, Kr'rt.ot, PodSo
cal Niaooi rov e0v6v ;
Qu. 81.-Ch. x. 6: dAa Tt ov) Xa,u 7rpea'Tpvrepos vio
Xov9.
The Armenian spelling answers to Choish.
Qu. 82.-Ch. x. 8, 9: Ata ri Xov 7yevva rov Necpdo.
O ipTarTo 7yt7ya cvv7yo, eZval evavTtov Kvptov. ca sla TOVTro
epo%Vcv / Ne3pc\ eylyyaq Kvvr)tyob evavrTov Oeoiv;
Here (i.) os is used for oV5ro.
(ii.) 71ryya7 r7 ri T^ 7r. orTOS9 v omitted after 'paTro
etvat.
(iii.) Tov 0eov is omitted after Kvpiov.

(iv.) Gca\ is added before 8&a rovro.
(v.) Tov ?eov for Kvptov.
(vi.) Nei3p00 for Ne/3po8.
Of these variants (iii.) is in (Holmes) I., 15, 82, 129, 135,
and may be set down at once to Philo's LXX. So may
(v.), which is in (Holmes) 56, 129, while rov 0eov is added
after Kvp[ov in (Holmes) X., 15, 18, 25, 32, 57, 58, 72,
73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 82,106, 107, 130, 134. Compl. Cat. Nic.
Orig. ii. 34. Chrys. iv. 292. Cyr. Al. iii. 440. Arm. Ed.
et sic xii. Codd. Arm. The spelling NeBpcoO (vi.) is in
280 The Jewish Quarterly Review
(Holmes) 31, 72,75. Theoph. 106. Epiph. i. 7. Aug., and

may, therefore, be accepted as Philo's.
In Philo, De Gigantibus, i. 272, is given the citation,
otroq jpacrTo eivat 7eyya eM7 T7?) 7r19, rendering it almost
certain that the other variants are mere devices of citation.
The Armenian solutio also cites the first words of verse 9
thus: S' v altTa v ao uraTv eXet T'o v 'ryya e'avriov Tov
Oeov.
F.. C. CONYBEARE.

Filon. On The Philonean Text of The Septuagint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filon. On The Philonean Text of The Septuagint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On the Philonean Text of the Septuagint

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

ON THE PHILONEAN TEXT OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

IT is known from the history of Eusebius that Philo

PHILONIS DE QULESTIONIBUS QU.E IN GENESI SUNT.

Qu. 58.-Genesis, ch. iv. 1: El op6Cw e'X)0X e'r 'roV Kav

munus. The Armenian Vulgate also has S&pov. It is pro-

The recurrence of i7peoacev and ape''Kovra inclines us to

Qu. 65.-Ch. iv. 7: Ti co.T rJ/.apTre%, O'vXa'ov;

Qu. 68.-Ch. iv. 9: AJL Ti o 7raVTa elS&o epcoTa Trv a8eX-

Here Tro is omitted before aSeXooOv and 7lri before fy7/.

2. Although in Philo Q. D. P. I. i. 210, the citation is given

Greek Philo i. 210 (above cited) has icaTapaTro in the Com.

Qu. 73.-Ch. iv. 13: Ti e'ar, pe&ioyv v alria acde07vai' , ;

so reads in this particular quaestio. Is it possible that

Holmes notes: 'ABa /cal e`XXa in casu dativo 20, 56.

Qu. 84.-Ch. v. 29: Aid ar eviv; 47rn ryevvr07)

of ir&v xefp&v i&I&v is due to title. In i. 215 aTrO is not given

Tischendorf reads, cal eveOvOiOrt o O reo iT Kol. c. X. Thus

Lastly, in i. 285 is read: Ni5e espe X. evavriov Kvplov ToV

QUAESTIONUM ET SOLUTIONUM IN GENESIN.

Qu. 1.--TI Er7v 7 icaTao7acevq TOV N&e ;

Rendell Harris, F4-rageme8ts of Phtilo, p. 21, and Paul Wend-

Here (i.) &EL is omitted after 6'KaKoO-MToo'-an omissio

We may infer that Philo, in his LXX., read the verse as

contains the words: avSTa al '7revTecaL8eica 7rrXeFt, al v7repavw

Qu. 30.-Ch. viii. 3: TI eTav OT&r 1fXaTrTovoVro ro Vcop

)XarTTOVOlro or jXaTTovro. The order, KcaTrv 7TrvT7KovTa,

Qu. 32.-Ch. viii. 5: zila ri f)cL, Ev TO- ecaTOp /L7;vil, Tj7

Qu. 33.-Ch. viii. 6: A\u Tl per e TrearapdaovTa /te'pa,

Qu. 36.-Ch. viii. 7: Adl rT eeX8Av o iKcopae oV'KET

Qu. 39.-Ch. viii. 9: Ala rl ovX eupovaa 7) 7reptLTepa dvZ-

Qu. 44.-Ch. viii. 12: At r T O Topirov /.reTa erpa w7rTa

(iv.) OlCTovc eC7rerTTprev 7rpo0 avrov, for ov 7rpoO-ero 7ov

Qu. 45.-Ch. viii. 13: A la T ev T, ev, Kal6 acaKooa0To,

Qu. 47.-Ch. viii. 14: Ata ,; ev TN c/880/p 1/.vl elcaS& cal

(ii.) This general order of words (but retaining ro/v W7vo?)

Qu. 48.-Ch. viii. 15, 16: alt' rt lpavOelto'f ro i 7ryi oufc

Qu. 51.-Ch. viii. 20: AiLa ri Tr Oecw T'o vaOtarraptov,

Qu. 52.-Ch. viii. 20: TI erOa , T kXa/ev cwro TWvv KTCrjv7V

Kvptov cal rov 0eov' frl,l ryap' wffopa-vr,v Kp to, eos-

Qu. 55.-Ch. viii. 22: Tl eao' r'rep/a xKa OepLa'lo, IXow

own, but in the absence of evidence from other sources we

avTrov apaev fcal OXlXv

Qu. 59.-Ch. ix. 4: Ti Zc7, Opeav e'v aiaTt PvkiX oiv

Here Tischendorf reads: efc Xetpof 7rdVwrv Tr'v 0rplIv

(iii.) avrT after e'vfTj-w is omitted in (Holmes) 107,

Undoubtedly Philo read the passage in his LXX. accord-

is fairly rendered in Aucher's Latin) in no way implies the

Qu. 63.-Ch. ix. 11: Ti ecrTl, oUlce'T 'Tat i"ca

Qu. 69.-Ch. ix. 21: TI EUTtY, eryV/hV6 CY T9O ofir'K

Qu. 71.-Ch ix. 22. TI EoTLV avt'yyetXe 7rotq &&otv A&eX-

at the same time before oVcK tSov to make the meaning

eWMrcov oaa e7r

7rXaTvvaat o 0eoq Tr 'IdaeO tca'l faToLICTE'To ev T) OtK'0 TOV

irevr. The variation in order of words may be ascribed

(iii.) Tov 0eov is omitted after Kvpiov.

(Holmes) 31, 72,75. Theoph. 106. Epiph. i. 7. Aug., and

You might also like