Title Page(A) Different Translators(B) Difference of TextVariations in Group IVariations in Group IIC. Later Additions to the Hebrew TextEndThe Journal of Theological Studies 16 (July 1915) 449-82. Public Domain. THE TABERNACLE CHAPTERS. A. H. Finn IN the book of Exodus there are two groups of chapters dealing with the construction of the Tabernacle:-- Group I. Cc. xxv-xxxi. The Divine Instructions. Group II. Cc. xxxv-xl. The carrying out of the Instructions. From certain peculiarities in these chapters, and in the LXX version of them, three inferences have been drawn:-- (A) that the Greek translators of Group II were not the same as the translators of Group I; (B) that the translators of Group II worked from a Hebrew text differing from the Massoretic; (C) that cc. xxx, xxxi, and xxxv-xl were later additions to the original text of Exodus. These conclusions have been put forward with a good deal of con- fidence, and have been accepted by Biblical students of note. Yet they will bear further examination. (A) DIFFERENT TRANSLATORS. The inference that the translators of Group II were not the same as the translators of Group I is based solely on the fact that in some cases the translation of certain Hebrew technical terms in Group II differs from that in Group I (see Dr Swete's ‘Introduction to the Old Testa- ment in Greek’, p. 236 ; Dr Driver's ‘Exodus’, Cambridge Bible, p. 378; and Dr McNeile's ’Exodus’, Westminster Commentary, p. 223). Dr McNeile in his Commentary on Exodus, p. 226, gives a list of seventeen of these variations, and this list is also referred to by Dr Driver. The instances cited are not very happily selected: several are not technical terms at all but quite ordinary words; at least two depend on what is the true reading of the Greek text; in one instance, the only difference is that between the genitive and dative of the same word; and in another the same verb is used, but compounded with a different preposition. It would be instructive to examine the whole list in detail, but it will not be necessary here, because even if all the instances were indisputable, the inference would not be justified. For that inference really depends 449450 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES on an assumption that, as a rule, the LXX translators were fairly con- sistent in their rendering of Hebrew words. This is not the case. (i) In both Groups of chapters, the translators have varied their renderings in the same context.1 A few instances from a list five times the length of Dr McNeile's will shew this. Group I. (a) In xxvi 3, the same Hebrew word is rendered by e]xo<menai, and sunexo<menai; in the next verse by sumbolh<n; and in the tenth verse by sumbolh<n and sunaptou<shj. (b) In xxvi 36, the ‘Screen’ is e]pi<spastron; in 37 katapeta<smati. (c) In xxvii 10, ‘hooks’ are kri<koi; in 17 kefali<dej. (d) In xxviii 37, the ‘mitre’ is mi<tra; in 39 ki<darij. Group II. (a) In xxxviii 27,2 ‘sockets’ are kefali<dej; in 31 ba<seij. (b) In xxxix 34, the ‘covering’ is difqe<raj in one clause, and kalu<mmata in the second. (c) In xl 36, ‘journeyings’ is a]parti<%; in 38 a]nazugai?j. This tendency to vary renderings is not peculiar to these chapters, or to Exodus.3 In Lev. xxv 39-44, ‘servant’ appears as oi]ke<tou, pai?j, and dou?lon; in v. 55 oi]ke<tai pai?dej; in some other places qera<pwn is found. In Num. xxii 23-28, ‘smote’ is rendered by e]pa<tace, masti<cai, e@tupte, and pe<paikaj. In Num. xxxv 2-5, ‘suburbs’ is rendered by proa<steia, a]fori<smata, sugkurou?nta, and o!mora. Since then the Greek translators frequently vary their translation of a Hebrew word, whether technical or ordinary, in the same passage and even in the same verse, the fact that some of the technical terms in Group I are differently translated in Group II is absolutely without significance. Nor is this all. (ii) In several of the instances adduced as variations, the whole of the evidence has not been considered. Again, a few instances will shew what is meant. (a) xxii 3 has pneu?ma qei?on where the parallel xxxv 31 is said to have pneu?ma alone. In the latter passage qei?on is omitted only by the first hand of B; all the other authorities have it. In the large Cambridge critical edition 1 This has also been noted by Mr H. St John Thackeray : see 2nd Ed. (1914) of Dr Swete's ‘Introduction’ p. 236 note 2. 2 The references to chapter and verse are according to the Hebrew numbering throughout. 3 See Dr Swete's ‘Introduction’ pp. 328, 329.451 NOTES AND STUDIES of the LXX pneu?ma qei?on is placed in the text, and the omission of qei?on only recorded in a note. It is nothing but a scribal error. Similarly, xxxviii 6 has xrusou?j where the parallel xxv 18 is said to have xrusotoreuta<. But xrusotoreuta< is scarcely found except in B*; Ba, A, F and other authorities have xrusa? toreuta<, and in vv, 31, 36 toreuth< is the transla- tion of the word (‘of beaten work’) which immediately follows ‘gold’ in xxv 18. That is to say B* and a couple of cursives have combined two words which most of the authorities keep separate, and the alleged difference turns upon a very dubious reading. (b) xxxi 4 has e]rga<zesqai where xxxv 32 has poiei?n. But xxxi 6 has poih<sousi, and xxxv 10 has e]rgaze<sqw. Both passages shew the two renderings of the same verb, which rather suggests that the translators were the same. (c) xxv 17 has i[lasth<rion e]pi<qema; xxxvii 6 has i[lasth<rion alone. Each of the five verses which follow xxv 17 also has i[lasth<rion alone. Were these verses due to a different translator from that of v. 17? If not, why must xxxvii 6 be due to a different translator? In this connexion e]pi<qema does not appear again anywhere. It may be due to a variant rendering which has crept from the margin into the text, but there is another explanation possible. In some cases, the translators seem to have begun with one rendering which they have immediately abandoned for another. Thus, where casting (of metals) is first mentioned in xxv 12 e]la<seij is used, but does not recur again, xwneu<seij taking its place at xxvi 37. So too at the first mention (xxv 7 and the parallel xxxv 9) the Breastplate is podh<rh; at xxviii 4 peristh<qion; and afterwards (xxviii 15, xxix 5, xxxix 8) logei?on. It is therefore