Final DRAFT (28 Oct 1997) incorporating comments from Emanuel Tov [some remaining issues: a few first names of authors are missing; a few queries in the text -- e.g. regarding Muraoka's Index; style of capitalization in Latin titles] New Introduction to the Supplemented Edition of the Hatch-Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint... by Robert A. Kraft and Emanuel Tov Pertinent Literature (arranged alphabetically): Biel Johann Christian Biel (posthumously ed by E. H. Mutzenbecher), Novus Thesaurus Philologicus, sive Lexicon in LXX et alios Interpretes et Scriptores Apocryphos Veteris Testamenti 3 vols (The Hague: J. A. Bouvink, 1779-1780). Bindseil Henricus Ernestus Bindseil, "Ueber die Concordanzen," ThStKr 43 (1870) 693-696, which is an abbreviated presentation of his more detailed treatment [not seen] in the prologue to the anthology entitled Concordantiarum Homericarum specimen cum Prolegomenis in quibus praesertim Concordantiae biblicae recensentur earumque origo et progressus declarantur ... (Halle: Hendelius, 1867) [one of Bindseil's main sources is Le Long]. CATSS Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint/Scriptural Studies Project; see John R. Abercrombie, William Adler, Robert A. Kraft, and Emanuel Tov, Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies (CATSS), Volume 1, Ruth, SCS 20 (Atlanta: Scholars 1986); see also Tov-CATSS below. CATSS is a joint project of the Hebrew University and the University of Pennsylvania, with assistance from various other institutions. Dos Santos Elmar Camilo Dos Santos, An Expanded Hebrew Index for the Hatch- Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint (Jerusalem: Dugith, [1973]) Gagnier Jean Gagnier, Vindiciae Kircherianae, sive adimadversiones in novas Abrahami Trommii concordantias graecas versionis vulgo dictae LXX interpretum.... (Oxford: Theatro Sheldoniano, 1718) [not seen]. Go%ttsburger J. Go%ttsburger, "Berichtigung zur LXX Konkordanz von Hatch- Redpath," BZ 3 (1905) 39 [a brief note on correspondences between Isa 9.6 and Job 20.15 ()L = a)/ggelos) and also Job 42.3 (PL) = me/gas, and a correction for H-P 528 col 3, Ps 139(140).8 (not 7)]; and "Zu ei)rh/nh bei Hatch- Redpath," BZ 4 (1906) 246 [again, focussing on Isaiah]. GRAMCORD Computerized Grammatical Concordance project from the GramCord Institute, Vancouver WA, under the direction of Paul Miller; initially developed for the New Testament but more recently expanded to include Jewish Scriptures in Hebrew and in Greek. Gregory Caspar R. Gregory, "Concordances," in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908-1912) [for a similar treatment in French, see E. Mangenot, "Concordances de la Bible," in Dictionnaire de la Bible 2.C, ed. F. Vigouroux (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1912 [1899]) 901- 902; both Gregory and Mangenot are heavily indebted to Bindseil]. Hanhart For an analysis of Schleusner's lexicon, see Robert Hanhart, "Ju%dische Tradition und christliche Interpretation -- zur Geschichte der Septuagintaforschung in Go%ttingen" in: A.M. Ritter (ed), Kerygma und Logos, Festschrift Carl Andresen (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979) 280-297. Jacques Xavier Jacques, List of Septuagint Words Sharing Common Elements, published simultaneously in a French edition, Index des mots apparente/s dans la Septante: Comple/ment des Concordances et Dictionnaires, Subsidia Biblica 1 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972). Jarick John Jarick, A Comprehensive Bilingual Concordance of the Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Book of Ecclesiastes, CATSS -- Basic Tools Volume 3; SCS 36 (Atlanta: Scholars 1993). Jellicoe Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968). Kircher Conrad (Konrad) Kircher, Concordantiae Veteris Testamenti Graecae, Ebraeis Vocibus Respondentes polu/xrhstoi. simul enim et Lexicon Ebraicolatinum, Ebraicograecum, Graecoebraicum: genuinam vocabulorum significationem, ex Septuaginta duorum, ut vulgo volunt, interpretum (vel istis, pro tempore, deficientibus, ex Aquilae nonnunquam, vel Symmachi, vel Theodotionis) translatione petitam: homonymiam ac synonymiam Graecam & Ebraeam: quin & Ebraismorum variorum explanationem Graecam: Graecismorum elocutionem Ebraeam: & sic diasa/fhsin Veteris & Novi Testamenti, collatione linguarum utrobique facta, suavissima sumfwni/a|, lectoribus exhibent. 2 vols (Frankfurt a.M.: Claudium Marnium, & heredes Iohannis Aubrii, 1607). Kraft Robert A. Kraft (ed), Septuagintal Lexicography, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 1 (Missoula Montana: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972). Le Long Jacob Le Long, Bibliotheca Sacra in Binos Syllabos Distincta, quorum prior qui jam tertio auctior prodit, omnes sive Textus sacri sive Versionum ejusdem quavis Lingua expressarum Editiones; nec non praestantiores MSS. Codices, cum Notis historicis & criticis exhibet. Posterior vero continet omnia eorum opera quovis idiomate conscripta, qui huc usque in sacram Scripturam quidpiam ediderunt simul collecta tum ordine Auctorum alphabetico disposita; tum serie sacrorum Librorum. Huic coronidis loco subjiciuntur grammaticae et lexica linguarum, Praesertim Orientalium, quae ad illustrandas sacras paginas aliquid adjumenti conferre possunt, 2 vols., ed. P. N. Desmolets, with the preface by C. F. Boerner reprinted from the 1709 Leipzig edition (Paris: Montalant, 1723 [1709]). Lust J. Lust, "J.F. Schleusner and the Lexicon of the Septuagint," ZAW 102 (1990) 256-262. Margolis Max L. Margolis, "Entwurf zu einer revidierten Ausgabe der hebra%isch-arama%ischen A%quivalente in der Oxforder Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament," ZAW 25 (1905), 311-319 [English translation in Kraft (52-64), "Specimen Article for a Revised Edition of the Hebrew- Aramaic Equivalents in the Oxford Concordance..."]; see also the following related articles: "kai/ein (einschliesslich der Komposita und Derivata) und seine hebra%isch-arama%ischen A%quivalente im Gra%zismus des A. T.," ZAW 26 (1906), 85-90 [Kraft 65-69]; "Lambanein (Including Compounds and Derivatives) and its Hebrew-Aramaic Equivalents in Old Testament Greek," AJSL 22 (1906) 110-119 [Kraft 70-79]; "Complete Induction for the Identification of the Vocabulary in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament with with its Semitic Equivalents: Its Necessity and the Means of Obtaining it," JAOS 30 (1910) 301-312 [Kraft 80-91]. Marquis Galen Marquis, CATSS-Base computer software for linking and searching the CATSS materials; see his report "The CATSS-Base: Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Study for All -- Transcript of a Demonstration," in Claude E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Leuven 1989, SCS 31 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991) 165-203. Martin, et al. The Computer Bible series (Wooster OH: Biblical Research Associates) -- e.g. Raymond A. Martin, Syntactical and Critical Concordance to the Greek Text of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, The Computer Bible 12 (1977); Martin and S. Scorza, Syntactical Concordance to the Correlated Greek and Hebrew Texts of Ruth: The Septuagint Series, The Computer Bible 30 (1988-89). Morrish 1887 George Morrish, A [Handy] Concordance of the Septuagint, Giving Various Readings from Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Ephraemi with an Appendix of Words from Origen's Hexapla, etc., not found in the above Manuscripts (London: Bagster, 1887; repr. 1970, 1974, 1976 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan], 1987 [Regency Reference Library]) [title originally included "handy," but not on library entries for some later reprints]. Muraoka Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Index to I Esdras, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 16 (Chico: Scholars 1984); and A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Twelve Prophets) (Louvain: Peeters, 1993). Redpath H.A. Redpath, "Concordances to the Old Testament in Greek," The Expositor 5.3 (1896), 69-77 [reviews the earlier works of Kircher, Savile-Gagnier, Aungier, Trommius, and "G.M." = Morrish]. Reider Joseph Reider and Nigel Turner, An Index to Aquila, VTSup 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1966). Rosenerch [apud Redpath 77; not in RLIN or OCLC: Vocabulary of the LXX, published as a Lexicon in 1624; not found]. Rosenmueller Ernst Friedrich Karl [/Carl] Rosenmu%ller, Handbuch fu%r die Literatur der biblischen Kritik und Exegese 1 (Go%ttingen, Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1797), 449-455 [start of a 4 volume series, to 1800; not seen]. Rouse R. H. Rouse and M. A. Rouse, "The Verbal Concordance to the Scriptures," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 44 (1974) 5-30 [deals almost excusively with early concordances to the Latin Bible; note p.5 n.1: "The history of the Greek and the Hebrew concordances ... needs more careful investigation"]. Schleusner Johann Friedrich Schleusner, Novus thesaurus philologico- criticus, sive lexicon in LXX et reliquos interpretes graecos ac scriptores apocryphos Veteris Testamenti (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1820-1821; 2nd ed. Glasgow: Duncan, 1822 and London: Duncan, 1829 [reprinted Turnhout: Brepols, 1994]). Simotas N. Simotas, Ai( a)meta/frastoi le/ceis e)n tw=| keime/nw| tw=n O' (Saloniki, 1969) [lists and analyzes the transliterated proper names and common nouns found in LXX/OG, based on HR (thus incomplete)]. Smend Rudolf Smend, Griechisch-syrisch-hebra%ischer Index zur Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin: Reimer, 1907), III-XIII (Vorrede). Swete Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1902; supplemented ed by Richard Rusden Ottley, 1914; reprinted by KTAV 1968, Hendrickson 1989) TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae computerized text project at the University of California in Irvine, under the direction of Theodore Brunner; for further information, access the computer web site URL . Tov [=Tov1997] Emanuel Tov, "The Use of Concordances in the Reconstruction of the Vorlage of the LXX," CBQ 40 (1978) 29-36; revised version as Excursus 1 to chapter 3 (142-154) in The Text- Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor 1981) = 90-99 in the second, revised and enlarged edition of 1997. Tov-CATSS Emanuel Tov, A Computerized Data Base for Septuagint Studies: The Parallel Aligned Text of the Greek and Hebrew Bible, CATSS 2, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, Supplement(ary) Series 1 (Stellenbosch, 1986). Trommius 1718 Abraham Trommius, Concordantiae Graecae Versionis Vulgo Dictae LXX Interpretum, Cujus voces secundum ordinem elementorum sermonis Graeci digestae recensentur, contra atque in Opere Kircheriano factum fuerat. Leguntur hic praeterea Voces Graecae pro Hebraicis redditae; Ab antiquis omnibus Veteris Testamenti Interpretibus, quorum nonnisis fragmenta extant, Aquila, Symmacho, Theodotione & aliis, quorum maximam partem nuper in lucem edidit Domnus Bernardus de Montfaucon, 2 vols (Amsterdam/Utrecht: Sumptibus Societatis, 1718). --- Exactly a century ago, in 1897, the two volumes of the main body of the "Oxford Concordance," as it was then known, were published as a unit after five years of the appearance of individual fascicles (starting in 1892). The original editor, Edwin Hatch, died in 1889, and by 1906 his successor, Henry Redpath, completed the project by including a list of additions and errata to the main body (1499ff) as well as appendices (1) on newly published Hexaplaric materials, (2) on the recently discovered Hebrew of Ben Sira, and (3) a comprehensive (if awkward to use) reverse Hebrew to Greek index. An unmodified reprint was issued by Graz (Austria) in 1954. The locations of corrections are noted in the body of the present improved and supplemented reprint at each relevant point of occurrence. History of Earlier Concordances of Greek Jewish Scriptures This Oxford Concordance, or "Hatch-Redpath" (=HR) as it has come to be known, was hardly a new concept or endeavor. Concordances of various sorts had been available for a long time as a backbone of study and research, primarily to assist in locating words and/or subjects in the main text of a standard edition, with the "dictionary" forms of the concordance words usually arranged in alphabetical or other conviently accessible order (see Rouse on early concordances to the Latin Bible; Gregory in general). When the first concordance of part or all of Greek Jewish Scriptures was created is unknown -- a Basilian monk named Euthalius of Rhodes is credited with a handwritten concordance to the entire Greek Bible around the year 1300 (so Sixtus Senensis Bibliotheca sancta [1566] 4.286; according to Gregory, this MS was reported to have been at Rome, "but is unknown") -- but in the era of the printing press there have been several notable productions that fulfilled this index-type of function and sometimes more. They have also generated a significant amount of debate about how best to perform the desired tasks associated with a concordance. The first printed concordance that attempted systematically to incorporate information from the LXX/OG and associated materials was published in 1607, after seven years of preparatory work, by Conrad Kircher, a much traveled Lutheran pastor born in Augsburg -- it is probably significant that the first published New Testament concordance was also by a native of Augsburg, Xystus Betuleius (Sixtus Birken) in 1546 (so Bindseil, 689 and 693). The title of Kircher's work was seen by some critics (especially Trommius) to be deceptive, since the material was not arranged primarily as a "concordance to the Greek OT" with the Greek words governing the format, but alphabetically in accord with the supposed Hebrew roots. Thus in some sense it was basically a Hebrew-Greek concordance, and under each Hebrew headword was listed each apparent Greek equivalent along with the passages attesing it, including, occasionally, information from the Hexapla. Latin translations were included with both the Hebrew and the Greek headwords. Critics struggled to find any consistent rationale for the exact order of the Hebrew entries (e.g. )BYB, )BD, and several other Hebrew words stand between AB = "root" and AB = "father" in the opening columns) or the order in which the Greek equivalents were presented. An alphabetically arranged Index was provided to make it possible for users to locate the Greek words, but the value of this index was severely compromised by the fact that it only indicated the column numbers to which the user must then turn to determine what Hebrew was being represented, and where. Greek words found in the Apocrypha, which had no preserved Hebrew basis and thus were not covered by the body of the concordance, were included in the index (but without Latin translation) along with the specific scriptural passages in which the words were found. As a pioneering effort, Kircher's work boldly aimed at comprehensiveness (see the lengthy "title" with its listing of various features and functions -- organization according to Hebrew headwords; lexica for Hebrew- Latin, Hebrew-Greek, and Greek-Hebrew equivalents; materials from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion as well as LXX/OG; Greek and Hebrew homonymns and synonyms; Greek explanation of Hebrew variations, and Hebrew of Greek; usefulness for New Testament studies as well as Old Testament). As Trommius and others would later point out, however, problems both with the organization and with the details compromised the reliability of Kircher's contribution. Several attempts to improve on Kircher's concordance are reported from the following decades of the 17th century. One is attributed to Henry Savile, although that identification is questioned by Redpath on the grounds that it is dated to "a time when Savile had been long dead" -- but at least two literary figures by that name flourished in the 17th century, the first and most famous of whom died around 1622, but the other not until 1687. In any event, Redpath calls the "Savile" compilation "a mere work of scissors and paste for the greater part. Two copies of Kircher were cut up and distributed in alphabetical order according to the Greek words, and the Hebrew equivalents were inserted either in MS or from the headings of Kircher's articles." Redpath notes that this work was preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford (press-mark, Auct. E. I. 2, 3), and that "a speciman" was printed and published in 1714 by the University Press, edited by Jean Gagnier. Another similar concordance manuscript was completed in 1647 by Ambrose Aungier, Chancellor of St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin. This was in the possession of Trinity College, Dublin, when Redpath wrote his article. Redpath did not actually see the MS, but describes it on the basis of information he had received as "in many parts an abridged transcript of Kirchner," but following the Greek order of words, like "Savile." Le Long (1.456) also notes some other byproducts from Kircher's efforts: (1) Arnold Bootius (died 1560) produced an Epitome Concordantiarum Graecarum Kircheri [not found]; (2) a two volumed work, without any editor being identified, also appeared under the title Concordantiae Graecae Veteris Testamenti Hebraicis vocibus respondentes, sive Conradi Kircheri Concordantiae inversae [not found; according to Le Long, this work is found in codd 3046-47 in the Bodleian Library; Bindseil suspects that this may be a muddled reference to Trommius]; and (3) Francisco Michaele Vogelius edited a Concordantiae librorum Veteris Testamenti Apocryphorum Graeco-Danicae, Kircherianis perfectiores prior to 1699 [not found]. Perhaps the most impressive and comprehensive effort at publishing a concordance of the Greek Jewish scriptures came from the hand of Abraham van der Trommen, or Trom(m), or Trommius as he calls himself in the volume under examination. Trommius was a protestant pastor from Groningen, in the Netherlands, who had studied Hebrew with the younger Johann Buxtorf in Basel and had also traveled to France and England during his career; already in 1692, he had produced a "Belgian" (Flemish) concordance to the Bible before he, at age 84, issued his Greek concordance in 1718, following sixteen years of effort. He died the following year. Trommius is understandably critical of aspects of Kircher's work, and even includes in his lengthy title (typical for those times) the description "with words following the order of the Greek verbal elements, contrary to the approach taken in Kircher's work"! In his Preface, Trommius takes issue with Kircher on three main points (as well as several lesser matters): (1) the failure to organize the materials alphabetically with the Greek as the basis; (2) the numerous erroneous quotations, probably caused by the manner in which Kircher worked by first recording where a Greek word occurred and only later filling in the actual contexts; (3) the confused and confusing attempt to organize by Hebrew roots. That Trommius was not opposed in principle to some sort of lexical grouping is shown by his own juxtaposition of related Greek words in his entries -- e.g. the same structural block contains agapaw, hgaphmenos, agaph, agaphtos, etc. But the presentation of the Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents to the Greek headwords and of the invaluable Hebrew-Greek reverse index (130 pages of detailed listings, not just page/column references) is strictly alphabetical. In addition, Trommius discusses briefly the following procedural points: 1. For his main Greek text, he uses the 1597 Frankfort edition of Andrew Wechel, including its occasional appended scholia and its chapter and verse divisions (as did Kircher). 2. Other editions have been consulted, such as London 1653 (with its scholia) and Cambridge 1665 and Amsterdam 1683 and the recent 1709 edition by Franciscus Halma and Lambert Bos (with its numerous scholia); an appendix also is included, prepared by Lambert Bos (33 pages), which lists differences in chapter and verse locators between the Wechel text and the London edition of the Vatican text (MS B). 3. Other ancient Greek versions and variations are also included, such as Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion (so also Kircher), while Montfaucon's Greek lexicon to the Hexapla constitutes a second appendix (70 pages). 4. A special notation is used to mark passages in which information from Greek scholia and similar older sources has been inserted where the actual LXX/OG text lacks any equivalent for the Hebrew (Greek "omissions"; Kircher also includes such material). 5. Hebrew words not represented in the Greek are not included, except as noted in #4; for Greek words that have no Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent, an appropriate notation is also provided. 6. Transliterated Hebrew words and place names are treated variously. 7. Partial or paraphrastic renderings in the Greek present special problems for which there is no single solution. 8. Passages in which the Greek does not fully render what is in the Hebrew also present special problems. 9. Proper names are not included (similarly Kircher), unless they are actually translated (not simply transliterated) by the Greek. 10. Indeclinables, prepositions and conjunctions are not included (so also Kircher). 11. Words found in the Apocrypha are included, appropriately designated (see also Kircher's Greek-Hebrew Index). 12. Latin meanings for Hebrew and Greek words are included (as in Kircher; in Trommius, occasionally also Flemish definitions are found!), but basically the dictionary order of Hebrew and Greek words is followed (unlike Kircher). Redpath's summary comparing the works of Trommius and Kircher is worth excerpting (73f): "Trommius gives many more quotations from the Hexapla than Kircher did. He does not quote the transliterated words, and omits passages which are paraphrastic or do not give the meaning of the Hebrew. Proper names are, as a rule, omitted, and both Concordances omit indeclinable words and pronouns. The apocryphal quotations are by no means complete. A certain number of passages are given by both compilers, derived from scholia and other sources, but not actually to be found in the present text of the LXX. These are marked with a # by Trommius" (and similarly identified by Kircher). Redpath continues (74), with marked understatement(!): "Though the book is by no means perfect, it is in some respects an advance upon Kircher. Trommius generally notices the Hebrew conjugations and also inserts conjectures as to what the Hebrew reading of the LXX was. But the work is disfigured by a considerable number of misprints and misplacements of passages in succession. This was probably due to a slip of the MS being misplaced, as we gather from these mistakes that each slip contained about six or seven lines of MS. ... So far as a rough calculation can settle the point, there would seem to be four quotations in Trommius for every three in Kircher." As an interesting historical sidelight, the approach of Kircher was defended against Trommius by Jean Gagnier, who had migrated from Paris to England and received an Oxford appointment in 1717. Already in 1718, the year that Trommius' concordance appeared, Gagnier published an essay to vindicate Kircher and criticize the work of Trommius. Doubtless this had something to do with Gagnier's plan, noted above, to publish more of the "Savile" material, of which a "speciman" appeared in 1714. Redpath concludes on the basis of existing correspondence from that period that "many thought...that Gagnier had transgressed all the bounds of moderation in his Vindiciae, and the dispute about the rival merits of the two Concordances died away" (76). But it was an era of planned and completed Greek concordances. In addition to Gagnier-Savile and Trommius, Le Long (1.456, with reference to Alexander Helledius, Praesens status Ecclesiae Graecae [1714] 7) mentions reports from the same general period (around 1700) that for 30 years a person named Sugdor (George Sugdures, who studied at Rome and later taught in Constantinople) according to Gregory) had been working on a Greek concordance for the entire Christian Bible (OT and NT), although it does not seem to have ever been published. Nor is there yet such a concordance from "western scholarship," after all these years! The existence of these basically bilingual concordances helped spur progress in lexicography, and vice versa. In passing, the rather unmethodological efforts of John Williams to introduce the main Hebrew equivalents as found in Trommius into a concordance of the Greek New Testament (1767) may be noted, if only because its existence was mentioned by Bindseil (see also Tov) as an addendum to his discussion of LXX/OG concordances -- Bindseil knew the work only third hand, and clearly was not acquainted with its actual contents. Despite its ambiguous title, Williams' work is not a concordance of the Greek Jewish scriptures. It does, however, show how lexicographical interests were served by the tools that generated Greek-Hebrew equivalents. More promising for our purposes was the line of development laid out in Johann Christian Biel's posthumous Novus thesaurus philologicus that appeared in 1779-1780. This work deserves to be discussed along with its successor, Johann Friedrich Schleusner's Novus thesaurus philologico-criticus (1820- 21), since the two works are, in general, virtually identical both in title, and in structure and general content. Indeed, Schleusner reprints the preface that E. H. Mutzenbecher contributed to the edition of Biel, immediately following Schleusner's own introductory comments. To be sure, these works of Biel and Schleusner are not concordances in the normal sense, and they do not attempt to list all biblical occurrences of each Greek headword, but they do organize the material in Greek alphabetical order, followed in each entry by the Hebrew or Aramaic word equivalents and sample references. Basic to these efforts is the concordance produced by Trommius. Where Biel and Schleusner make marked progress is in annotating and analyzing the presumed equivalents, including those drawn from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, with much more attention to identifying situations in which the Greek translator may have had a different Hebrew text, or may have read the text that was present in what seems to us an unusual manner. Although Biel and the first edition of Schleusner do not include a Hebrew index, this has been supplied (Hebrew words in alphabetic order together with the page locations where the words occur) in the 2nd edition of Schleusner, published in Glasgow (1822) and London (1829). Even today, the materials in these antiquated volumes provide valuable information to be used alongside of our improved reprints and new tools (printed and electronic); for some suggested refinements, see Kraft, "Towards a Lexicon of Jewish Translation Greek" (in Kraft 157-178). Indeed, current electronic capabilities facilitate the combination of "lexicon" and "concordance" features (as well as "grammatical" and others) into a single multipurpose tool through the linking of interrelated files (see further below). What motivated Schleusner to produce his work so relatively soon (at least from our vantage point) after the appearance of Biel's work? Doubtless there were a variety of factors, but an important event in LXX/OG study had occurred in the interim, the appearance, in stages, of the major collation of Greek variants from the numerous available MSS of the LXX/OG by Holmes and Parsons (Oxford, 1795-1827). It was a period of renewed interest in and access to these materials, and Schleusner represents a high point of such activities. The same sort of proliferation of textual activity provides the context for the appearance of the Hatch-Redpath concordance, surrounded as it was by a flow of new discoveries and attendant textcritical work that remains unfinished (the Cambridge edition) or in progress (Goettingen). One last item remains to be noticed before we reach the Oxford Concordance project, however, and that is the Bagster product by "G.M." (George Morrish) which attempts to incorporate a wider range of textcritical information into its utilitarian format (1887). Redpath gives a handy thumbnail sketch of this relatively thin volume which gives biblical chapter and verse locations but not the actual Greek, or even English, contexts (76): "Pronouns and prepositions are omitted. It contains no proper names. No Hebrew equivalents are given except under qeo/s and ku/rios, and then they are given in English characters. No references to the Apocrypha are inserted. In some of the longer and commoner words only references are given to passages where there is a various reading. The various readings are given at the foot of each article. The Appendix also contains words from the twelve Uncials of Holmes and Parsons, but 'no attempt has been made to give all the references where a word occurs.' It is impossible in any satisfactory way to compare the number of entries with that in previous Concordances. It is an extremely useful and handy book as far as it goes, but something more is still felt to be desired in the way of a complete setting forth of the Hebrew equivalents and of Hexaplaric references, and also of the Greek of the Apocrypha." This brings us, finally, to the appearance of the Hatch-Redpath Oxford Concordance project a century ago! The Hatch-Redpath (Oxford) Concordance Interestingly, the brief preface to HR (dated 1897) makes no reference at all to the history of concordance work as we have tried to lay it out here, and as Redpath himself presented it elsewhere (1896). While HR is in many ways a vast improvement over its predecessors, there are aspects that might have been even more useful if the older discussions and quibbles had been weighed more carefully, especially those between Trommius and Kircher. The most obvious failure of HR to profit from this history is in its Hebrew-Greek reverse index, which basically mimics Kircher's Greek-Hebrew index in format (criticized by Trommius and others for providing only cross referenced column locations) and ignores the considerable improvement introduced by Trommius (with also a side glance to Schleusner's reverse index). The attempts to rectify this problem by various scholars in various formats are laudable -- Dos Santos (1973, handwritten expansions of the HR columns) and Muraoka (privately circulated handwritten manuscript ca 1970, mentioned already in Dos Santos, now published in the present volume) come most readily to mind, along with the "in progress" Greek Lexicon of Hebrew Words underway in Athens (1968- ) -- but perhaps in hindsight a reprint of the reverse index by Trommius (which includes Latin glosses and indications of the number of occurrences for each equivalence) would have served scholarship well in the intervening century! As we have noted, HR appeared at a time of great ferment in biblical studies, with a wealth of new textual and lexicographical materials becoming available, and old perspectives and theories giving way to newer insights (see Jellicoe for details). Swete's "manual edition" of the LXX/OG in three volumes -- the "smaller Cambridge Septuagint" (1887-1894) - - was underway, and with its focus on the "great uncials" B,A, and S, provided a convenient companion to HR. Frederick Field's Oxford edition of the Hexaplaric materials had appeared in 1875, and a burst of new energy relating to these materials was inspired by the Cairo Geniza discoveries a few years later. Meanwhile, Paul de Lagarde was preparing in Goettingen his influential, if partly misdirected, reconstruction of the text of the "Lucianic" recension/revision (1883), and the larger project of which it was a part (carried forward by his pupil and successor Alfred Rahlfs). In such a rich and fermenting scholarly context HR was greatly appreciated and praised, with good reason, although in some areas the need for even better tools was already apparent. Rudolph Smend, for example, was able to improve on the treatment of the materials from Sirach almost immediately (1907), illustrating how much of a moving target faced our editors a century ago. The new collections and collations of textcritical materials -- by projects in Goettingen, Cambridge, and elsewhere -- also quickly exposed the limitations of HR in terms of its value for coping with the textual richness of the LXX/OG and related traditions. Indeed, even apart from what was about to happen with the appearance of the "larger Cambridge Septuagint" and its selected wealth of variant readings (Brooke-McLean, 1906ff), HR did not do justice to the textcritical data that had already been long available in the Holmes and Parsons edition (1795-1827), and even earlier. For example, even Trommius included some Greek entries which were subsequently absent from HR such as the Aldine edition's prosekxe/w in Ex. 29:16 and sunala/lagma in Job 39:25; note also plhsioxw=rai found in MS 87 of Theodotion in Dan 11:24. Other examples include: e)cana/stasis in Gen. 7:4 of the Go%ttingen Septuagint edition by J.W. Wevers (1974), for which HR lists only a)na/sthma, the reading of manuscripts AM and some other sources -- manuscripts B and S are not preserved in this section. The absence of readings contained in minuscules is particularly regrettable with regard to important minuscules such as the Lucianic group (bo(r)c2e2) in the historical books and in Esther. Furthermore, HR does not include emendations, e.g., e)pi/xeira in Jer 49:10(29:11) emended from dia\ xei=ra (found in all manuscripts) on the basis of the occurrence of this word in Jer 27:5(34:4) and 48(31):25 (thus J. Ziegler in the Go%ttingen Septuagint). In all three places it represents ZR(. Of course, it is unfair to hold HR responsible for any such particulars that were not known a century ago, but the principle of neglecting variants and emendations is a sound criticism. Careful work on the special problems presented by translation literature, by scholars such as Max Margolis already in 1905, reminded researchers of the need for a more sophisticated approach to word-groupings in Greek and Hebrew, something pioneered already by Kircher (for Hebrew roots) and Trommius (for interrelated Greek words) and expanded by Biel-Schleusner. The significance of the failure of HR to provide information on such word groups is well illustrated by the equivalence hw)lnw = katamei/namen in Josh. 7:7, which should be compared with the equivalence of me/nw, perime/nw, u(pome/nw and prosme/nw with xwl/xyl, hwxyl, yxl elsewhere in the LXX/OG. The approach advocated and to some extent pioneered by Margolis is now facilitated by the 1972 List compiled by Xavier Jacques -- a valuable supplement to the mechanically alphabetic approach of HR. Jacques lists together all the words occurring in the LXX/OG which belong to one word-group, such as s.v. klh=ros: a)klhrei=n, a)poklhrou=n, e)/gklhros, e)piklhrou=n, eu)/klhros, kataklhrodotei=n, kataklhronomei=n, kataklhrou=sqai, klhrodosi/a, klhrodotei=n, klhronomei=n, klhronomi/a, klhrono/mos, klh=ros, klhrou=n, klhrourgi/a, klhrouxei=n, klhrouxi/a, klhrwti/, o(loklhri/a, o(lo/klhros, sugkataklhronomei=n, sugklhronomei=n. This index also indicates in which part(s) of the LXX/OG the entry-word occurs: Torah, historical books, poetic and sapiential books, prophetic books. Especially frustrating is the approach taken in HR to identification of Hebrew // Greek translational equivalents. In the academically conservative British environment from which HR derives, it is understandable that there is a focus on what Tov calls "formal" equivalents -- the word or words that occupy the same locations in the parallel texts -- rather than on the "presumed" (conjectured) equivalents, although it is worth noting that Trommius already had included references to presumed equivalents, added in parentheses after the formal equivalents (see, e.g., s.v. dou=los, ka/llos, katadolesxe/w, katadoulo/w). But even in its low-risk setting, HR is frustratingly inconsistent -- as the Preface states (vi) "There are ... many passages in which opinions may properly differ as to the identification of the Greek and the Hebrew: it must be understood in regard to such cases that the aim of the present work, from which philological discussions are necessarily excluded [see, e.g., Biel-Schleusner], is rather to give a tenable view than to pronounce a final judgment." The Preface goes on to say that the editors have resisted including conjectured Hebrew equivalents even when the "variant [Hebrew] reading followed by the Septuagint version was obvious." But when it comes to coding the entries by which the Hebrew list is linked to the individual Greek occurrences, "the absence of a number after a quotation implies that the passage does not exist in Hebrew [thus (-)]; and the presence of an obelus [thus (+)] instead of a number implies that the identification of the Greek and Hebrew is doubtful" and merits closer examination. Thus in practice, many equivalents that could easily be described unambiguously on a formal level are nevertheless denoted + (or sometimes ?), because the editors suspected, with good reason, that the presumed equivalent differed from the formal equivalent. For example, sunete/lesen in Deut. 31:1 is denoted +, even though its formal equivalent is fairly obviously hlk. Although dou=loi in 1 Sam. 13:3 clearly reflects (BDYM instead of its formal equivalent (BRYM of MT, it is misleadingly denoted +. Likewise, katadoulo/w in Gen. 47:21 reflects H(BYD, as elsewhere in the LXX/OG, but it is indicated as + because the formal MT equivalent reads H(BYR. ai)nei=n in Jer. 31(38):5 represents HLL, as elsewhere in the LXX/OG, but is indicated as + because MT reads XLL. On the other hand, no such + indication is found when a)sqene/w in Mal. 3:11 is listed as an equivalent of $KL (MT T$KL), while its presumed equivalent would be K$L (thus passim in the LXX/OG). Similarly, saleu/w in 2 Ki. 17:20 is indicated as reflecting the formal equivalent (NH (MT), while its presumed equivalent would be NW( (thus passim in the LXX/OG). Instances could be multiplied. The inconsistent employment of this + sign is not only misleading; it also reduces the usefulness of the concordance. An obvious example of side-effects of this situation is that the frequent use of the + sign in the body of the concordance, thus eliminating reference to any formal Hebrew equivalents that may exist for such Greek entries, makes the reverse index even less useful because it cannot include any Hebrew entries for Greek words thus marked. For example, in the reverse index, the formal equivalence of ZWR and kti/sths (2 Sam. 22:32) is not mentioned. Similarly, with the frequently occurring Greek words (conjunctions, prepositions, numerals, pronouns) for which Hebrew equivalents are not included in HR, there also can be no entries in the reverse index. Nor does the reverse index mention Hebrew words when they happen to occur in combinations which are listed elsewhere in the concordance. Accordingly, the reverse index often provides incomplete information (e.g., s.v. LPNY, KY, )XRY, )M). In addition, but for different reasons, the HR concordance does not list any Hebrew equivalents for words occurring in Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and other Hexaplaric sources -- here also, Trommius retains its usefulness (see also Biel-Schleusner). Thus HR is less useful for studying those sections of the LXX/OG traditions that represent a translation approach similar to or identical with what we identify as Aquila or Theodotion (for recent relevant discussions of this situation, see Tov 1997, pp.17-29, on literal and free translation techniques; note also the Reider-Turner Index), or for research on individual equivalents in which the Hexaplaric materials may provide important clues to recovering the presumed Hebrew -- e.g. in 1 Sam. 9:25 the proposed presumed equivalence of die/strwsan // RBD where MT has DBR finds support in Prov. 7:16, where Aquila and Theodotion are credited with rendering RBD with peristrw/nnumi. For other examples, see Margolis, "Complete Induction," p.306. This sort of information is difficult to discover from the information in HR. Interestingly, the notation of equivalents is different in the Supplement to HR which lists the proper names of the LXX/OG, probably because the editors (mainly Redpath at this point) thought that the presumed equivalents of proper names could be determined more easily than those of common nouns. In some instances equivalents in proper names are described as "aliter in Heb.," while in others the formal equivalents are given and yet others indicate the presumed equivalents: thus (Ebrai=oi in 1 Sam. 17:8 is listed as an equivalent of (BDYM of MT and not of the presumed (BRYM. But Su/ros often is represented by )RM even where MT reads )DM or )DWM, as may be seenon p.148 of the Supplement. As with the sign +, many question marks in the HR notation are superfluous when the formal equivalent can be indicated easily. For example: 1 Ki. 6:7 MT )BN $LMH MS( NBNH OG li/qois a)kroto/mois a)rgoi=s w)|kodomh/qh In this phrase, the first, second, and fourth Greek words are presented in HR with their Hebrew equivalents. The third word, however, is annotated with "?". Is. 23:17 MT W$BH L)TNNH OG a)pokatasth/setai ei)s to\ a)rxai=on The first Greek word is given with its Hebrew equivalent, but the last receives the "?" code. 1 Sam. 20:30 MT BXR )TH LBN Y$Y OG me/toxos ei)= su\ tw=| ui(w=| Iessai me/toxos (sharing in, partner), the formal equivalent of BXR (choose), reflects here XBR, as in five other places in the LXX/OG. HR therefore decided to add a question mark to the formal equivalence. Likewise, HR often deviates from its system of listing equivalents in the description of words that are transposed in the Greek translation. In accordance with the overall layout, HR often records the inverted words in the arbitrary order of formal equivalence. For example, the inverted translation of Deut. 33:8 TMYK W)WRYK // dh/lous au)tou= kai\ a)lh/qeian au)tou= is recorded according to its formal equivalents (for a discussion of these renderings, see A. Toeg, VT 19 [1969], p. 494). The inverted Greek text of Deut. 11:1 is treated similarly. More usually, however, HR inverts the notation with reference to the Greek words, and thus records them as if they reflected a Hebrew text different from MT. Thus for Gen. 30:43 W$PXWT W(BDYM // pai=des kai\ paidi/skai, the formal equivalents are abandoned in favor of the presumed. See further Tov chapter 5 section A3. As is to be expected in a work of the scope of HR, many equations are erroneous or doubtful. A few examples may be mentioned: In Gen. 4:21, HR incorrectly lists the equivalent of katadeiknu/nai as only TP$ rather than )BY CL TP$, where the Greek translation condensed the three words into one. In Gen. 49:24 HR records katisxu/ein as the equivalent of )BN even though from a formal point of view the Greek verb reflects both R(H and )BN. a)qw|ou=n (to hold guiltless) in Jer. 15:15 is recorded as reflecting NQH (as elsewhere in the LXX/OG), although MT reads HNQM (take vengeance). A few remaining minor problems deserve brief notice: HR fails to group the evidence in the most useful manner (e.g. by juxtaposing translation units that show similar approaches; or by providing references to related word groups, or synonyms or antonyms -- see now Jacques; also Margolis) or even to provide significant statistics about translational equivalents (how often does Greek x represent Hebrew y, and vice versa, and in what works? see Dos Santos [and now Muraoka??]); HR provides minimal grammatical and syntactical information; Most transliterated common nouns are listed in volumes 1-2, some in the Supplement, and others in both sections (!). Presumably some of the problems with the reverse index noted above, and elsewhere by Tov and others, will be solved in the present edition by Muraoka's expanded treatment. Moving Into the Future With the advent of the electronic computer, a new age of possibility has dawned for such tools as the textual concordance. If one has access to searchable and reliable electronic texts, and some standard computer with software for accessing them, the sort of simple searches that are made possible by a traditional concordance could be performed "on the fly," at least in theory. Nearly a quarter century ago, the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) project at the University of California in Irvine encoded the entire Rahlfs edition of the LXX/OG for computer access. A few years later, the Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica was similarly encoded, and the Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint/Scriptural Study (CATSS) project created parallel Hebrew/Greek files to permit bidirectional bilingual searching of a sort that conventional concordance users could perform only with difficulty. Gradually, morphological analysis for both the Hebrew and the Greek materials has been added, which not only makes it possible to find all forms of particular dictionary entries in either language, but also facilitates searching for specific grammatical and syntactical features that have never been systematically noted in traditional concordances (see now the GRAMCORD and similar computer projects). A project to encode the textual variants in the Greek witnesses is well underway (CATSS), with the hope that a similar project on the Hebrew side will soon follow, and the ability to link such data with itself and with other resources is becoming increasingly possible, on and off the InterNet Web (see, e.g., Marquis). Why, then, reprint an improved Hatch-Redpath in traditional "hardcopy" form? The most obvious reason is that the ideal technology is still suffering growing pains, and at best is not available to the majority of people who would like to make use of reliable research tools such as this proven concordance. Problems of displaying and printing Hebrew and Greek fonts for all interested users and their machines continue to frustrate many electronophiles who want the flexibility of moving between basic electronic resources (e.g. text editions, textual variants, other ancient versions and their variants, linguistic analysis, dictionaries, modern translations, images of manuscripts, etc.), on the one hand, and new configurations and applications (e.g. for selective extraction, reorganization, and insertion into research reports) on the other. It is true that the development of the InterNet and its World Wide Web has overcome some of the older problems such as the need for differently formatted data delivery systems for different machines (the old IBM/DOS versus Apple problem), but finding and accessing the wealth of materials on the Web is not yet a simple matter and is not yet easily possible from each and every individual study, or even every library or computer lab, for that matter. Tools are being created and will be created to solve these problems, but whether and to what extent they will ever replace the time honored book at one's elbow remains to be seen. In the meantime, we rejoice that an old friend in new clothing and with some newly acquired abilities will continue to respond to our basic needs. When Swete first issued his classic Introduction in 1900, he had little to say about concordances, beyond mentioning that the Oxford Concordance had recently appeared and was a great asset (290). Jellicoe's attempted update (1968) is only slightly more informative (335f): "Despite its being too narrowly based and other shortcomings of which the surviving editor was fully conscious [see HR 2, 1499], it has remained, with the supplements of 1900 and 1906 ..., the standard work." Jellicoe concludes (336f) that "it would still be premature to contemplate a complete revision of the Concordance. As it stands it remains, in the hands of the discerning, a most serviceable instrument. A further supplement would be the only practicable measure, and even this should await the publication of the remainder of the relevant materials from Qumran." Probably, given the developing state of affairs and its promises for future research, no "complete revision" in Jellicoe's sense will ever be needed. But during the often frustrating transition period, we can be comforted and assisted in having this revived HR at our sides. Robert Kraft (University of Pennsylvania) and Emanuel Tov (The Hebrew University) /end/