cism and exegesis, and by its variation from the received

text."

As a whole, this version is chargeable with want of literalness, and also with an arbitrary method, whereby something foreign to the text is brought in. In general, it betrays the want of an accurate acquaintance with the Hebrew language, though it furnishes many good explanations.'

[The versions of separate books differ from one another in the translation of separate expressions, as well as in their general character. The translation of the Pentateuch is the most excellent. The first place, says Eichhorn, must be assigned to the Pentateuch. The author of it was familiar with the language and with the sub

Egyptian words: Παστοφορεῖον, ἀρτάβη, ἴβις, ἄχι, νόμος. Isa. xix. 2. Usher, 1. c. ch. i. p. 24, sqq. Hody, l. c. p. 115, sqq. Gesenius, Com. über Jes. vol. i. p. 60. His Geschichte der heb. Sprache, p. 77. [There are numerous instances of the use of an Egyptian word - which is sometimes a local term - as an adequate expression for the Hebrew. Thus, for example, the first book is called The Generation, (Févɛois,) but it would be more properly called The Formation, (Kilois,) but the Egyptian philosophers were wont to speak of the Generation of the world. In Amos v. 26, the Hebrew, Saturn, is rendered Pear, the Egyptian name of the same deity whom the Greeks called Koóvos. The Hebrew measure, the homer,, is translated agráßus 5, though the artab was an Egyptian, and not a Greek measure. The same word occurs also in Bel and the Dragon., which means a rush, in general is rendered názvos, the rush of Egypt., the ephah, is rendered gol, which is still a Coptic word. The Urim and Thummim, on the breastplate of the high priest, are called 'Aɛα, Truth, because the Egyptian priest wore an image called Truth. The east wind, in Ex. x. 15,- said to bring the grasshoppers (quære mosquitoes) — is translated south wind, which brings them to Egypt. See Hody, 1. c. p. 113, sqq. See, also, Dähne, Geschichtliche Darstellung d. jud. alexand. Religions-Philosophie, vol. ii. p. 1, sqq.]

See the exaggerated estimation of this version by Is. Vossius, De LXX. Interprett. c. i. p. 30. But see, also, Carpzov, Crit. sac. p. 505, sqq. Hottinger, Thes. Phil. p. 352, sqq.

Hody, p. 224, sqq. Lex. Heb. ad Origen. Hexap. ed. Montfaucon, vol. ii. p. 401, sqq. Gesenius, Comm. p. 56, sq.

jects treated of in these books. "The next place must be given to the translator of the Proverbs. His work proceeds not in the stiff gait of a dictionary, for he had both languages at command. Often he expresses merely the sense of the original, but when he misses that, you recognize his genius even in his mistakes. Job was translated by a man fired with the true poetic spirit, and well read in the Greek poets; but he had too little acquaintance with the Hebrew, and too little learning, which the translator and expounder of Job can by no means dispense with. The Psalms and Prophets were defiled by men without feeling or poetic spirit. The translation of Daniel is so bad, that the ancient church gave the preference to Theodotion's version of this prophet, though it adopted all the other books of the Seventy." Ecclesiastes is translated more literally than the other books, says Jahn.]

In the books of Esther and Daniel, the translator performed in part the office of a recensor, and permitted himself to depart from the text. We notice omissions and abbreviations on the one hand, additions and interpolations on the other. Chapters are sometimes transposed.' In Job and the Proverbs, we find departures from the present text, which are to be ascribed to the imperfection of the copy made use of, or to the caprice of the translator, or both. In the Pentateuch, the version rests on a

[See Eichhorn, § 165. The peculiarities of some of these books are distinctly marked; e. g., in Judges, Ruth, and Kings, the word elu is often redundant after 7ó: Jud. v. 3, йooμai ¿yó eìui tô zvole. See Bos, Prolegg. in LXX., ch. i. p. 2, sqq. Jerome, Præf. in Daniel, testifies to the character of the version of that prophet. Danielem juxta LXX. interpretis Domini Salvatoris ecclesiæ non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione, et cur hoc accederit nescio...... hoc unum affirmare possum, quod multum a veritate discordet, et recto judicio repudiatus sit.]

See below, § 200, 258.

'See Ziegler, Uebersetzung der Sprüchwörter, p. 52.

recension of the text, which is distinguished by explanatory readings. Jeremiah is from a recension that is more free from additions."

§ 43.

IMPORTANCE AND USE OF THIS VERSION.

The high esteem in which this version was held by the Hellenists is apparent from the fables respecting its origin, and their belief in its inspiration. But the Palestine Jews likewise entertained these opinions."

The Septuagint version of the Law was read in the synagogue not only by the Hellenists, but perhaps also

• See below, § 217, 218.

с

On the agreement between the LXX. and the Samaritan text, see Animadverss. Samarit. in Textum Heb. et Samarit. in Polyglott. Lond. vi. 19. Hottinger, Thes. Phil. p. 294, sqq.

For the hypothesis that this version was made directly from Samaritan MSS., see Hottinger, 1. c. p. 301, sqq. Postellus, Tab. Ling. T. ii. J. M. Hassencamp, Diss. de Pentateucho LXX. Interprett. Græco non ex Hebræo, sed Samaritano Textu converso; Marb. 1765, 4to. His Entdeckter wahrer Ursprung der alt. Bibeliibers.; Mind. 1775, p. 211, sqq. Eichhorn, § 388. [Sce above, § 40.] The chief arguments in favor of this hypothesis are derived from Jerome's account, Præf. ad Libros Regum, and from Origen, in Montfaucon's Diss. prælim. ad Hexaplam, vol. i. p. 86; from Jerome, Ep. 136, ad Marcellam, and from the pretended confusion of letters that are similar in the Samaritan alphabet. See Gesenius, Gesch. der Hebr. Sprache, p. 176. Comment. de Pentat. Samarit. p. 11, sqq. Jahn is opposed to this supposition, vol. i. p. 156, sq.

Some think there were interpolations in the MSS. See R. Asariah, Meor Enaim, fol. 49, col. 1, in Hottinger, 1. c. p. 301. Usher, 1. c. p. 215. Seb. Rau, Exercitatt. ad Hubigant. Prolegg. p. 132, sqq. See the true view in Gese

nius, De Pentat. Samarit. p. 14, sqq. See Amersfoordt, 1. c. p. 60, sqq. For the hypothesis that this and the other Greek versions were made from Hebrew MSS. written in Greek characters, see Tychsen, Tentamen de variis Codd. Heb. V. T.; Rost. 1772, p. 66, sqq. Le Long, l. c. pt. ii. vol. ii. p. 54, sqq.

Hieros. Megilla, fol. 62, col. 4. Babyl. Megilla, fol. 9. Tr. Sopher. col. 1. Morinus, Exercitatt. Bib. lib. i. Exercitatt. 8, ch. 1, p. 180, sqq.

Tertullian, Apol. ch. 18, says, "The Jews read it openly." Justin Mar

by the Palestine Jews. Josephus makes more use of it than of the Hebrew text."

On the other hand, it subsequently became suspicious to the Jews, on account of the controversy between them and the Christians. In this way we can explain the hostility of the Talmud towards it." [The controversy

tyr, Apol. i. 31, p. 62, and Dial. cum Tryphone, ch. 72, p. 170. [In the latter place, Justin charges the Jews with removing many passages from the LXX., which relate to the suffering of Christ. He mentions several passages, and adds that a paragraph omitted in Jeremiah was still extant in some copies that are kept in the synagogues of the Jews.] See, also, Justinian's Novella, 146, [where he permits the version of Aquila to be used by such as disliked the LXX., but forbids the reading of the Mishna.] See Hody, p. 224, sqq. Carpzov, Crit. sac. p. 522, sqq. Jahn, vol. i. p. 162.

"The proof of this may be found in Hieros. Sota, fol. 21, col. 2, cited in Buxtorf's Lexicon Talmud, p. 104: "Rabbi Levi went to Cæsarea, and hearing them read the lesson, 'Hear, O Israel,' Deut. vi., in Hellenistic, wished to prevent them; but Rabbi Joshua, perceiving it, was angry, and said, 'If a man cannot read Hebrew, shall he not read at all? Let every man read in that language he understands, and thus fulfil his office.'" [But it is thought by some that this passage relates merely to that paragraph which was recited or read at evening prayers.] See Lightfoot, on Acts vi. 1, and Hody, p. 227, who understand it as relating merely to the Keri, Hear, O Israel. [The former denies that the LXX. was generally used by the Jews.]

Spittler, De Usu Vers. Alex. apud Josephum; Gott. 1779. Scharfenberg, De Josephi et Vers. Alex. Consensu; Lips. 1780. Compare Ernesti, Opuscula phil. crit.; ed. 2d, Lug. Bat. 1776, p. 363. Michaelis, Or. Bib. vol. v. p. 221, vol. vii. p. 189. Gesenius, Geschichte der Heb. Sprache, p. 80. Reinhard, De Vers. Alex., in his Opuscula, ed. Pölitz, vol. i. p. 36. He thinks the high esteem for the LXX. was limited to the Christians.

с

The first trace of this controversy between the Jews and the Christians in relation to the LXX. is found in Justin, Dial. cum Tryphone, l. c. On the other hand, Philo, De Vita Mosis, vol. ii. p. 510, believes in the agreement of the Greek and Hebrew. See Hody, p. 233.

It is said in Megilla Taanith, fol. 50, col. 2, (ed. Basil, 1578,) that there was a fast on the 8th day of the month Tebet, "because on that day, in the time of King Ptolemy, the Law was written in Greek, and darkness came upon the world for three days." Again, in Tract Sopherim, ch. 1, this version is called "the work of the five elders, who wrote the Law in Greek, in the time of King Ptolemy. That was a sad day for Israel, like the day when the calf was made." [But there is little reason to believe such a fast was ever kept.] See Hody, p. 220, sqq. Wolf, Bib. Heb. vol. ii. p. 443. Hottinger, Thes. Phil. p. 336. Carpzov, 1. c. p. 524, sqq.

respecting the authority of this version did not commence till the second century A. C. Previous to this date, both the Jews and Christians seem to revere it as of nearly equal value with the "Hebrew verity " itself. Philo and Josephus had used it with no scruple. The Jews were finally led to detest it, from the fact that the Christians, in controversy with them, appealed to this. The Jews then retreated to the Hebrew text, that they might reply to the argument of their adversaries; and, in comparing the original with the translation more carefully than before, they found additions and alterations in the latter which led them to reject it. Even the Hellenists began to despise it, in the second century. Besides, most of the Christians before Jerome were ignorant of Hebrew; the Jews, therefore, would have an advantage over them, if they could prove the incorrectness of the Septuagint.]

§ 44, a.

II. THE OTHER GREEK VERSIONS.

AQUILA'S VERSION.

Nothing but fragments remain of several other ancient Greek versions. Aquila," a Jewish proselyte' of Si

• In the Jerusalem Talmud, he is called op, and in the Babylonian Talmud, op. [He must not be confounded with Onkelos, op, the author of one of the Targums, who lived in the time of Hillel and Shammai.] See § 58. Hottinger, 1. c. p. 376. Wolf, 1. c. vol. i. sub voce. Bartolocci, Bib. Rab. vol. iv. p. 281, sq. Hody, p. 573, sqq. Eichhorn, § 210, thinks the two are different men, judging from the more free character of the translation in those fragments cited from him by Rabbi Asarias, in Meor Enajim, fol. 146, col. 2. See, also, Buxtorf, Lexicon Talmud, sub voce A ·

Irenæus, iii. 24. Eusebius, Demonst. Ev. vii. 1. Jerome, Ep. ad Pammach. Opp. iv. pt. ii. p. 255. Catal. Script. eccles. ch. 54. Opp. iv. pt. ii. p. 116. On the contrary, in the preface to Job, and elsewhere, he calls him a Jew. There is a fabulous account of his conversion to Judaism, in Epipha