ana translation

xxii
INTRODUCTION
that as Origen chose the " Chisian" Daniel to stand as Kara TOUS
O in
the third column of his Tetrapla, so he may have preferred this similar
and kindred paraphrase of Ezra to occupy the like place. In the case
of Daniel he acted contrary to his own marked preference, which has
led him in all his extant works to cite the version of Theodotion.
But in dealing with Ezra the case is otherwise. I have been unable
to find a single instance in which he cites the canonical Ezra or shows
himself aware of its existence.* With him,
" Esdras " means Nehemiah,!
except in two places
in which he cites this First Esdras,J once
freely recognized as Scripture by writers of authority and unquestioned
orthodoxy, though now classed as " apocryphal."
Against this supposition is the fact that this " First Esdras," though
it contains the substance of the Hebrew Ezra, does not lie within the
same limits, but begins with a chapter equivalent to 2 Chron. xxxv. 1-
21 ;
includes a large interpolation, the well-known episode of Darius
and the three youths, of chh. iii. 1 v. 6 ;
and borrows its close from
Nehemiah viii. But Origen, as we know, dealt successfully with like
difficulties of imperfect coincidence in the case of his Tetraplar Daniel.
Moreover, it is to be remarked that our Catena cites no passage
from the parts borrowed from 2 Chronicles, and from Nehemiah
only the two verses (1 Esdr. ix. 45, 46) which serve as concluding
extract.
It may be, therefore, that Origen only inserted in his Hexapla
so much of 1 Esdras as extends from ii. 1 to x. 45, thus omitting the
parts which coincide with 2 Chronicles and with Nehemiah. But he
certainly did not omit the above-mentioned episode, known as "the
story of Zorobabel," which (as
we have seen) he cites twice, and from
which the Catena gives extracts.
It would be out of place here to enter into the question between the
two Greek versions of Daniel, their relative priority and comparative
value, and the like question as regards
the two Greek versions of
* Dr. Field has noted (Origenis Hexapl., t. i, p. 486) that neither Montfaucon
nor Parsons after him has found any vestige of Hexaplar readings recorded in
MSS of the Esdras (canonical) of the Septuagint.
t So In Matth. t. xvi (xix. 12), Neh. i. 11 ii. 6. In Cant. Cantt. lib. iv (ii. 15) ;
Neh. iv. 3.
J In Joannem vi. 1, and In Josuam ix. 10 ;
from 1 Esdras iv. 37, et sqq. : 59, 60
(passages not in canonical Ezra, but in the interpolated episode).
See preceding note J ;
also note * , p. xviii.