Psalms of Solomon

Historical printed page 626

INTRODUCTION The genealogy of these MSS.., as established by von Gebhardt’s investigations, is as follows: Ζ where the small letters represent lost MSS. and capitals the existing MSS.: in particular z is the archetype of the Greek MSS., y is an (uncial) MS. from which R and x an (uncial) MS. were copied. MS. τὸ was also probably uncial; v and w,on the other hand, probably minuscule. As between R and + (i.e. practically J LC H in agreement) von Gebhardt finds it difficult to determine which is the better MS. The variations between them amount to over 200 (von Gebhardt, p. 71), though by no means all of these affect the sense even of the Greek, and still less that of the Hebrew text lying behind the Greek. For some of the more important of these variations see ii. 6, 24. § 3. THE SyrrAc (3): A VERSION FROM THE GREEK. The Syriac Version is incompletely preserved: the MS., which also contained the really distinct work known as the Odes of Solomon, first published by Rendel Harris! in 1g09, is defective at the close; xvii. 38 4 to the end of xviii (the last Psalm) is missing. A small fragment of another MS. (containing xvi. 6-13) was subsequently discovered by Dr. Barnes in the Cambridge University MS. Add. 2012 (see Harris, p. 16), and Dr. Burkitt has still more recently drawn attention to yet another Μ5 2 Harris (pp. 38 ff.) has argued (1) that the Syriac is a version of the Greek, not of the Semitic original of the Psalms: (2) that the place of the Greek text lying behind 3 is with RJ L, perhaps being intermediate between J and L: (3) that in some passages 3 implies a reading of & preferable to that of all existing MSS. of & (e.g. in ii. 41 ὑπὸ τῶν 3, ἐνώπιον δ). From these conclusions the present writer sees no sufficient reasons for dissenting: there are, here and there, renderings of S which might well rest on a Hebrew original rather than on &, or which are not entirely explained by the text of any of the existing MSS. of &; but these renderings could scarcely establish a Hebrew original, and certainly should not outweigh the substantial evidence that $ is a version of &. For this evidence see Harris, pp. 38 ff.: he rightly declines to allow this evidence to be outweighed by the curious paronomasia in xi. 6 f., where .3/ might more readily have been suggested by an original Hebrew than by the ἀνέτειλεν of G&. So again we might more readily explain o9o>0a> of ii. I as a rendering of M822 (cp. Ps. ix. 23 (x. 2)) than of ἐν τῷ ὑπερηφανεύεσθαι (= 1823), for 3 commonly has 9 where & has ἐν with the infin. (see e. g. i. 1, 3, ν. 3, Vi. 2, ix. I, XVi. 1, 3); yet see v. 7, xv. 1. For another example of passages which might in themselves be well explained as resting on ® rather than &, see xvii. 21. Apart from the general agreement of S$ with G, even where there is ground for suspecting that the latter rests on corruption in the transmission of &, or is the result of original faulty translation from 38, there is evidence which may be illustrated by two or three examples: (1) in v.16 KXSo must be due to a confusion of od and of; (2) in ii, 24 (Vi. 7) ἐδεήθην τοῦ προσώπου κου, a euphemistic rendering of 5 "5 Srey (cp. 2 Kings xiii. 4), is literally rendered from the Greek hisx09 oad? Muss; ct. 2 Kings xiii. 4, where ® is, indeed, para- phrased, but differently, Lis Pro 405 (3) in xiii. 3 the ambiguous clause ἐν ταῖς μύλαις is rendered by %, not as the context requires with molar teeth (= mybnna), but with millstones (which in ® would have been entirely dissimilar—onn3). See further notes on passages where $ agrees with & though & appears to have misunderstood ®; e.g. ii. 12; iii. 2, 4; viii. 3 (‘ws’), 12,17 (xvii. 14). ; 1 The Odes and Psalms of Solomon published from the Syriac Version, by J. Rendel Harris, Cambridge, 1909 ; ed. 2, 1011: * This MS., now in the British Museum (B. M. Add. 14538), was described in Wright’s Catalogue, pp. 1003-1008, and assigned by him to the tenth century A.D. For a description of that part of the MS. which contains the Odes and Psalms of Solomon, and for a collation of the variants as compared with Harris’s MS., see Dr. Burkitt’s note in the Journal of Theological Studies, April, 1912, pp. 372-378 ; 3. See also ii. 20, where all MSS. of & read κώτέσπασε(ν), but S$ = xareordabn; xvi. 9 ἐν τόπῳ (so all MSS. but J), a scribal emendation of ev τωπὼ (so J), which is itself a corruption of ἐνώπιον (so 3). 626 _ —