, in Ezra and Nehemiah present a text most closely related to the Codd. 19. 93. 108. (partly also 121.) in Holmes and Ed. Compl. agrees, except that the first of these codd. is not compared to Nehemiah of Holmes. But in the book of Esther, as the author already remarked, it is above all the Cod. 93, b. with which the additions of Fri. Aug. agree, only with the difference that in the latter mostly the asterisi and other characters are absent, which the former (although not always from first hand, s. Parsons praef. ad Esth.) contains . The fourth Haud, however, deleted many of the additions of the third hand, but seems to have approved those which it left standing and generally to presuppose a text related to the text of the third hand. For the other readings, which the author has expressly designated as coming from the fourth hand, also largely agree with the above-mentioned Codd. agree at Holmes. such as B. 2 ezr. 10, 3. yɛvvœuɛvɑ for yɛvóueva with 121. (236) Compl. Neh, 9, 13. oival for ova with 93., Esth. 5, 8. Tyv avolov 8, 13. (fol. 18, a. c. 1. l. 4. ab imo) oornoia μev TOV EVVOOVV *) Where namely this, which is very often the case, from which Ed. Rome. deviates.
Finally, as far as Jeremiah, together with the Lamentations, is concerned, here is unfortunately a comparison of the Cod. F. A. with the Vatican. therefore impossible for now, because Holmes possessed no collation of the latter with the prophets. But as far as the relation of the FA to other Codd., first of all to the Uncials (Alex. Marchal. and Venet. I.), he agrees about as often with these against the Ed. Rom., than conversely with the Ed. Rome. against those. Among the minuscules, however, it is especially 26, 106, and 144 that, before others, frequently coincide with the code F. A.; but he also gives in Jeremiah a multitude of readings which have not yet been noted from any other codex. Furthermore, the corrections, which seem to have been made here mostly by a third hand, sometimes (e.g. 43, 25, 52, 12.) also by a fifth hand*), consist for the most part only in the correction of real errors or in small changes, additions and Omissions, very rarely in longer additions (cf. e.g. 41, 17. and the fifth-hand corrections just mentioned). They therefore seem to presuppose and find a text that is not essentially different from the first hand
Finally, the question as to whether the Codex F. A. in Jeremiah contains a hexaplarian text should definitely be answered in the negative, both in relation to the original text and in relation to the notes. Admittedly, there are also individual additions here, which in Montfaucon's Hexaplis or in other hexaplarian Codd. (e.g. after 86. and 88. in Holmes) are marked with the asteriscus, both in the original text and 16, 17. ουκ εκρύβησαν απο προσωπου μου (cf. the hexapl. to St. ), than in the notes and corrections, such as 24, 3., where the article τα before συκα, 26, 6., where the little word και before επι την πατριδα; 52, 12., where the words αυτος ενιαυτός βαβυλωνος nidev in Cod. 88. (on the 1st and 3rd St. also in the Hexaplis) have the asteriscus. But here, too, these few examples cannot prove anything against the mass of those who, in really hexaplarian Codd. be found with the Asteriscus, and of which no trace can be found in the Cod. F. A. Because here not only those additions are missing, which were already in the Ed. Rome. are missing, but also some others, such as 21, 4. και συνάξω αυτους and 27, 12. ενετράπη n texovбα nuas, both of which are provided with the asteriscus in the Hexaplis, namely in the Ed. Rom., but not found in the Cod. F. A. (not even in the margin). And, if, on the other hand, the latter codex also contains some additions which are mentioned in the Ed. Rome. are missing, the same applies to these as has already been remarked above about the additions of the first hand in the historical books.
The undertaking of the author is therefore all the more meritorious, in the edition of the LXX mentioned at the beginning, to provide the larger public with an aid that does not completely replace the main works, but makes them superfluous for normal use and at the same time in the complete variants des Cod. Alex. will offer a grateful encore. dr phil. Adelbert Lipsius, Tertius at the Thomas School in Leipzig.