The Witness of the Vulgate, Peshitta and Septuagint to the Text of Zephaniah 9781463212490

Citation preview

At.

/

""

«•"

¿ > -

y

'

s

V r" p

.. ií 0 ,i K v

r ¡f.»

111**'

ì

'

>r •o

o

r--

,í; 'lis540 >7 . i « v%. /

-.'i,

j * . ..A C ^ 'i a -i, Ö -3? «T h.

f ¡

X,

--»

'

•e-.. M , W. M \\

-

O/ • %

Í*

'

O' -

-y'S

?ï- ?'

O"

t

ANALECTA GORGIANA

Volume 25

General Editor

George Anton Kiraz Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and short monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Now conveniently published, these essays are not only vital for our understanding of the history of research and ideas, but are also indispensable tools for the continuation and development of on-going research. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utilized by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

T h e Witness of the Vulgate, Peshitta and Septuagint to the Text of Zephaniah

The Witness of the Vulgate, Peshitta and Septuagint to the Text of Zephaniah

SIDNEY ZANDSTRA

GORGIAS PRESS

2007

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2007

The special contents of this edition are copyright © 2007 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey

This edition is a facsimile reprint of the original edition published by Columbia University Press, New York, 1909. When different from original publication, A.nahcta Gorgiana pagination appears in square brackets.

ISBN 978-1-59333-567-0

GORGIAS PRESS 46 Orris Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America

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

May 20th, 1909.

GOTTHEIL.

CONTENTS. Pa

Chapter

Ses

Introduction,

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1-6

I.

The Vulgate,

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6-17

II.

The Peshitta,

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

18-24

III.

The Septuagint,

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

24-35

IV.

The Interdependence of the Versions,

V.

-

-

35-38

Departures from Massoretic Tradition and Variants from Consonantal Text,

VI.

-

Conclusion,

-

38-45 -

45-47

Appendix I.

Difficulties in the Hebrew Text,

Appendix II.

Conjectural and Higher Criticism of the

Text,

-

-

47-49 49-52

INTRODUCTION. § I. It is proposed in the following pages to study tlie text of Zephaniah in the light of the ancient primary versions. This study was undertaken largely to become familiar with Old Testament Criticism—a field of which it is peculiarly true that orientation 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 RysseP seems ever to have been made. (6.) 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. A s it would be fatal presumption for one to ignore the work of predecessors, whether it bore directly or indirectly on one's theme, it Perles, Meletemata Peschittoniana, 1859, p. 48. Ryssel, Untersuchungen über die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches Micha, 1887. ' Schwally's Das Buch Zephanja, Z.A.T.W. (188B), 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 if. and Z.A.T.W. (1891), pp. 185 f., 260 ff. 1

9

2

The Text

of

Zephaniah.

goes almost without saying t h a t all available sources of information have been carefully examined and freely laid under tribute. T h a t which is presented, while based on original investigation, has thus also of necessity the virtue of being a more or less complete digest of the work of others. 1 §11. 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 t h a t shall not only explain it, but also j u s t i f y its use. (A.) T h e 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 supposedly large number of corruptions in the text on the other. These two phenomena are mutually exclusive in an ancient document t h a t 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 t h a t the text presents and by known facts in Jewish H i s t o r y . ' Strack, who about t h i r t y years ago could pass over this view in silence, 3 states in his article on the Text of the Old Testament in 1 A b i b l i o g r a p h y h a s n o t b e e n p r e p a r e d b e c a u s e c o m p l e t e lists of t h e l i t e r a t u r e t h a t m u s t be consulted a b o u n d . Berger ( H i s t o i r e de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du moyen âge), Swete ( The Old Testament in Greek) a n d Nestle ( Urtext und Übersetzungen der Bibel, r e p r i n t e d in t h e Real-Encyclop'àdie für protest. Theologie und Kirche) are p r a c t i c a l l y e x h a u s t i v e as f a r as t h e g e n e r a l l i t e r a t u r e is c o n c e r n e d . To t h e c o m m e n t a r i e s m e n t i o n e d in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (article Z e p h a n i a h ) those of Marti a n d Driver m u s t be a d d e d ; in t h e miscellaneous l i t e r a t u r e E h r l i c h (Mikrd Ki-Pheschutö, I I I , pp. 456-463) m a y well be i n c l u d e d . This last w o r k is w r i t t e n in H e b r e w , b u t a G e r m a n t r a n s l a t i o n of t h e passages discussed is given. 2 I n a few c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p a r a g r a p h s ( S y m m i c t a , I I , pp. 120,121), i n t e n d e d p r i m a r i l y to s h o w t h a t this thesis was e n t i r e l y original with himself, L a g a r d e i n c i d e n t a l l y gives a brief a c c o u n t of h o w it h a d b e e n received by s c h o l a r s u p to 1880. I t a p p e a r s t h a t Olsh a u s e n h a d i n d e p e n d e n t l y r e a c h e d a very s i m i l a r view t h r o u g h a d i f f e r e n t process of r e a s o n i n g . Cf, f u r t h e r 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. x x x i x ff. 3 L a g a r d e , Symmicta, I I , p. 120.

Introduction.

3

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible that it is accepted by most moderns. He himself does not accept it, but holds that the custom 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 sufficient to explain all the 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 reconstructing this history with the help of versions, which serve in a secondary capacity to fix the time and place of origin of the different textual types that the manuscripts present. In the Old Testament, 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 n e w ' Edition of the Hebrew Bible according to the Massoretic Text of Jacob Ben Chayim ' (British a n d Foreign Bible Society, August, 1908) c o n t a i n s t h e results of a collation of 71 m a n u s c r i p t s a n d 19 early p r i n t e d editions. T h e e d i t o r h a s p r e s u m a bly used e v e r y t h i n g t h a t s e e m e d w o r t h using in this latest edition a n d yet t h e r e a r e at most b u t 27 m a n u s c r i p t s a n d 9 early p r i n t e d e d i t i o n s of t h e P r o p h e t s cited. T h e e a r l i e s t of t h e m a n u s c r i p t s is d a t e d 916 A. D. A l t h o u g h s i x t h c e n t u r y dates h a v e b e e n d e f e n d e d for c e r t a i n m a n u s c r i p t s , t h a t of t h e P e n t a t e u c h f r o m circa 820-850 (Or. 4445) a n d t h e K a r a i t e s y n a g o g u e m a n u s c r i p t of t h e L a t t e r P r o p h e t s , ' w r i t t e n 827 years a f t e r t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e Temple,' i. e., 895 A. D., a r e g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d as t h e oldest.

4

The

Text of

Zephaniah.

f r o m the t h o u g h t of t h e first or assault upon t h e idiom of t h e second. T h e vagaries of translators are also all b u t incalculable. I n t e s t i n g one's retranslation of a r e a d i n g t h e dividing line between t h e necessary use of the H e b r e w t e x t f o r g u i d a n c e and prejudicial dependence upon it is h a r d to locate. Because he cannot entirely p e n e t r a t e t h e s t r u c t u r a l difference of the t w o dead languages, the critic is inclined to find variants where none exist ; and in obvious disagreements he is a p t to make too little allowance f o r t h e t r a n s l a t o r whose mental processes he cannot sufficiently follow, and whose k n o w l e d g e and ability he cannot accurately gauge. E n o u g h has been said to show t h a t t h e " p e c u l i a r i t i e s of each translator, the character of his translation, and t h e k n o w l e d g e of b o t h languages displayed " b y h i m — i n f o r mation in r e g a r d to these m a t t e r s can of course be gained only b y comparisons both within a n d b e y o n d the limits of the book being studied 1 —are d e t e r m i n i n g factors in the evaluation of his version. I t is also evident t h a t t h e large f a c t o r of i g n o r a n c e b y which t h e critic is necessarily handicapped establishes in all d o u b t f u l cases a s t r o n g presumption in f a v o r of the a g r e e m e n t of the c u r r e n t H e b r e w w i t h the source of a version. 2 (C.) T h e necessity of f r e e i n g t h e t e x t of each version f r o m inner corruptions b y t r a c i n g it as f a r back as possible is p a t e n t . N e i t h e r t h e Y u l g a t e , P e s h i t t a nor S e p t u a g i n t can, however, be carried back to t h e time of their origin, 3 and it is t h e r e f o r e necessary to seek such help as early quotations can give. T h e m u t u a l relation of the versions has an i m p o r t a n t b e a r i n g on their value as witnesses, and consequently the presence or absence of interdependence must be established. 1 In the case of the Septuagint these comparisons are much facilitated by the excellent 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. 3 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 m a k e the Massoretic Text equal the Septuagint ; Streane held that the Septuagint was better than the Massoretic Text (cf. Stekhoven, De Alexaandrijnsehe Verlaling van het Dodekaprofeton, p. 121; Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, IV, p. 731»), Frankel's results are therefore in so far forth the most dependable. 3 It is not definitely k n o w n w h e n the Septuagint and the Peshitta originated; and although Jerome translated Zephaniah about 398 A. D., the date of the manuscripts used by him is unknown.

Introduction.

5

§ III. The method of procedure adopted in the present inquiryis 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 evidence to the contrary, be ascribed to the characteristics or nuances of the translator, have been grouped together, and for the Vulgate 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 consideration 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 criticism by the help of translations must yield to Conjectural Criticism. A tree only the top of which is visible above some obstruction 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. § IY. The little that the Hebrew text in editions and manuscripts offers may be at once presented. 1 I 1 rvprn—R. rrp^n , cf. Peshitta; pnx—R. }'nx, due to the accidental joining of the strokes for 1 and final 3. I 4 i m — K . (3 MSS.) d®, cf. Septuagint. ntn—R. xinn, error due to the forgetfulness of a scribe who carried his copy in his memory from clause to clause; ns— 1 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. = Kennieott's Collations as cited by R.

6

The Text

of

Zephaniah.

R . nxi, to avoid possible confusion due to asyndeton. I s m j j — R . niJJ, error of vision. 1" leipa—G. B. ltsrpa . I s D'usn by—R. D'ltfn Sa Sp, error of memory, cf. 1 \ l 1 2 jipa—R. Dra , cf. Septuagint. I 16 D'ty—R. D n n , error of hearing, f r e q u e n t w i t h g u t turals. 2' wtfhpnn—B. lBtonpnn. 2' p a — T . W. f i n a ; DIED clause (3) omitted, R . (6 MSS.), K . (8 MSS.), homoioteleuton. 2' m a n r — B . m a ^ r . 27 oniai?—M. Diva» (G. does not point this word). 2" 'U—R. D'lJ, error of memory, cf. I 4 ; D1T3"—W. D1I3\ 12 2 ' a m — R . a m , cf. P e s h i t t a . 214 nxp—B. nt\odp£Ì9t)aav irdvres èvQpjj.évoi àpyvplif.

(

)

ol

11-14aj

. . . . OLKoòop.TjaovtxLi' OIKLas, Kai OV /ATI KaTOlKrfcTOV&LV év avracs

" Kal KaTavTeùS

Oipwvia

mroXtXvT ptupiv-q yoyviai

avriuv;

peTacrrpaj/ui

TTOTap.wv 'Aidioirias

eVt

rroXii,

3 s eis Xuovs oitrovtri

ovai.

§ Y I I I . 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 irpcatbirov. The one before 'IoiiSa 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.

81

such as are about to be individually considered, may be at once adopted in preference to their alternates. I 6 All the evidence goes to show that KCU TOWS irpoo-Kwowras was absent from the original text of the Septuagint, and these words must be deleted from B. I 9 In omitting iirl iravras 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 ©eou is not explained by a note, but that this word was in the original Septuagint is attested by the Vulgate. 22 The last clause is asterisked in the Syro-Hexapla. In the preceding clause 8v/x.ov is added with opyrjv (^Kjnn), and in the clause asterisked opyijs seems to have been read for Ovpmi. 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 (xc 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. 27 The Syro-Hexapla misrepresents Origen in suggesting that his fifth column read airo -rrpoa-wTrov vlSiv -4- 'IouSa 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 KaraXvav in the sense of to lodge. 35,6 According to the Syro-Hexaplaric notes and text Origen's fifth column read: Kpi/MI avrov &U>s KO.1 OVK u.7rtKpvfiyj KCLI OVK eyvw (crav) aSi/aav tv a7ratrryo"€t X Kal OVK as VIKOS aSi/aav iv 8ta(f)6opa -r- KaTeoTrao-a. mTtprja.vovs rjv— D'ntySfl (this is the usual translation except in the Hexateuch). 26 airo\u> v/xas—^mat^n (the object in the Septuagint is not Canaan, but the Philistines); ¿K KUTOIKMS—atii' pan (cf. 3"). 2s -N-PO/SÁRUIV— [IS (collective). 27 roís «araXonrots—jyiNty (concrete for abstract, cf. 3 13 ); €IRIav-qcrcTai (cf. the

Syriac translation of &ou in Joel 211-31 and Hab. 1 ' ) ; r=oJ—¿¿ O \oOpevo-e. 2" «¡^aeovlJ Uo-^—Orjpia '-»

Criticism

of the Text.

49

translations offered by the Revised Version illustrate the extreme obscurity of this verse. 319 n«-nt?y is unusual (Gratz suggests that hSd be added, cf. I18).

T h e grammatical governments of DfiEto is not clear (Noldeke proposed to delete the final 0 of D'rrot? and to take as its object.

APPENDIX THE

CONJECTURAL

TEXTUAL

II.

CRITICISM

OF T H E T E X T

OP

AND

HIGHER

CRITICISM

ZEPHANIAH.

§ I. N o one can say what may or may not happen to a t e x t transmitted in manuscript, and therefore not even the wildest conjecture can be dismissed as impossible; b u t it is equally true, even t h o u g h the contrary seems to be implied in the confident assertions of some, t h a t the fact that Zephaniah may have expressed a t h o u g h t in a certain form or written a sentence in a certain way does not actually prove t h a t he did so write or express it. T h e relative plausibility of the readings which it has been proposed to substitute for those in the current Hebrew can be more or less accurately gauged. In Appendix I the conjectures t h a t 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 2 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 i M u c h s t u d y h a s b e e n d e v o t e d to H e b r e w p o e t r y in t h e last two d e c a d e s . M ü l l e r (Die Propheten in ihrer ursprünglichen Form; Strophenbau und Responsion), K ö n i g ( S t i l i s t i k , Rhetorik, Poetik) a n d Sievers (Studien zur Hebräischen Metrik) h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d l a r g e l y to t h e r e c e n t p o p u l a r i t y of this s u b j e c t . T h e l a t e s t a t t e m p t to r e c a s t Z e p h a n i a h i n poetical f o r m w a s c o n t r i b u t e d by F a g n a n i to t h e Harper Memorial Volumes (1908). 3 C h e y n e (Critica Biblia, i n loc.) h a s c h a n g e d 2i to r e a d : D'tiD niiT7 lltl/TOni D H p l b UH1. is required

H e h a s t h e following n o t e i n s u p p o r t of o n e of his c h a n g e s :

as a parallel

s B a c h m a n n (Zur

to lb though

Textkritik

to r e a d : m ^ D • • • •

represented

des Propheten « S 'UPI.

only by 1 in

Zephanja,

niH'^

Ityipl.

S.K ; 1894) h a s e m e n d e d 2!f>'-»

50

The Text of

Zephaniah.

the critic thinks Zephaniah ought to have said can with safety be dismissed f r o m serious consideration. 1 § II. This f r e e Conjectual Criticism of the text gives much support to and gains much help f r o m the Higher Criticism, which dissects an ancient document according to subjective standards of style and thought-cogency. T h e integrity of Zephaniah has often been denied. T h e following summary condensed f r o m of the article Zephaniah by J . A. Selbie in Hastings' Dictionary the Bible needs very little comment. 2 Keunen was inclined to regard 314"'0 as post-exilic on account of differences both in tone and situation f r o m the rest of the prophecy. Stade denied to Zephaniah 2'- , - n and the whole of chapter 3. Wellhausen (compare Nowack) suspected 2 " , rejected 2""11 and treated chapter 3 as a later supplement added in two stages (1-7 and 8-20). B u d d e (followed by Cornill, Einleitung, 3d edition) admitted 2 1 3 , gi-s.T.e.s.ii-13 a g j n harmony with Zephaniah's situation; he rejected 24"15 mainly because Israel appears as the victim, not as the perpetrator of w r o n g ; he excluded 3' 1 0 as breaking the connection between 3 8 and 3 " ; he declared 3 1, 20 to be a later lyrical epilogue. Schwally allowed to Zephaniah chapter 1, 2"",l> and perhaps 21"4, holding 26"" to be exilic and chapter 3 post-exilic, t h o u g h 31"' may be Zephaniah's. G. A. Smith denied to Zephaniah 2 ! U , 3' 1 0 and 314'a°. Driver remarked t h a t 2 " seemed to be somewhat out of place and t h a t 3142° is somewhat d o u b t f u l , t h o u g h the ' question remains whether it is sufficiently clear t h a t the imaginative picture was beyond the power of Zephaniah to construct.' Davidson defended the genuineness of chapter 2 as a whole, b u t considered it quite possible t h a t it had been expanded in various places; he allowed t h a t 3'° should possibly be omitted, b u t otherwise 31"13 appeared to him to be genuine, although t h e y might suggest t h a t the passage was later than chapter 1 ; in 3 1430 he recognized quite a different situation f r o m the rest of the book. K ö n i g 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 t h a t account no less positive, refutation of the method by which such conflicting 1

for D'TIJJ and ^ © J ' for "niEP (2") are of this kind. The article Zephaniah in the Encyclopaedia Biblica contains a similar summary by Driver. 2

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 Smith''s Dictionary of the Bible expressed the opinion that " t h e 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 witnesses, there is not a single verse which Zephaniah could not have written, and therefore one who is not anxious to father anything new can defend the integrity of the book by choosing his " a u t h o r i t i e s " with discrimination. The writer is free to confess that he is interested in the whole text, which may be Zephaniah'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 circumstances, 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 psychological 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. J u d g e d by present standards, strong arguments can be advanced to show that 3 16b originally stood between the two halves of l n : (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 31 to Nineveh, and the present chapter division of the Septuagint shows that 216 was referred to Jerusalem by its author. (b). The nexus between the second and third clauses of 3 s does not seem to be very close, but 36c in that it would emphasize the absolute hopelessness of Nineveh's condition would be an admirable conclusion to 216. (o). 3 1 continues in the style of l 1 1 and 3a"6b contain the full charge on which the punishment threatened in l 1 3 b is based. The ipsi dixerunt of the critics have no greater objective validity than those for this transposition have. A detailed discussion of all the points involved in this seemingly endless discussion would lead f a r into the theory of Israel's religious development, whose exigencies seem to demand such excisions (2 311 , 3 8 " ) 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 versegroup has found. 1

i The present tendency to find wholesale Interpolations in the Prophets has been discussed by Vos ( T h e Eighth Century Prophets, Presbyterian and Reformed Review,

1898).