do the other fathers who merely repeat the same story throw much light upon it.1 It is not easy to draw any certain conclusions from a history which has been handed down so dressed out with legends. That the translation was of Alexandrine origin is proved by itself, though perhaps some of the words which Hody relies on as Egyptian may not on examination be thought to give decisive evidence. That one of the Ptolemies, whether Soter or Philadelphus, commanded the version to be made is also more likely than that it originated, for a literary or ecclesiastical purpose, with the Jews; while the object of Aristeas in his story was probably to raise its credit. This object was attained the version acquired general authority and respect. The Pentateuch must have been first translated; and even in its various books some critics imagine they detect a variety of hands. If this be so, there is additional reason to believe that the five-fold division of the Pentateuch was already recognized. Other portions of the Scripture followed, it is quite uncertain at what intervals; but the different modes in which the same word is rendered in different parts, and the general diversity of style apparent, would seem to prove that different translators were employed. The Greek text often departs widely from the Hebrew. Thus, for instance, though Jeremiah is best rendered of the prophets, yet the version differs remarkably from the original. Of the agreement of the Septuagint with the Samaritan Pentateuch no satisfactory explanation has yet been given.*] 3. Before we conclude the history of the Septuagint version, it may not be irrelevant briefly to notice a question which has greatly exercised the ingenuity of biblical philologers, viz. from what manu scripts did the seventy interpreters execute their translation? Professor Tychsen supposed that they did not translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, but that it was transcribed in HebræoGreek characters, and that from this transcript their version was made: this hypothesis has been examined by several German critics, and especially by Dathe'; but, as the arguments are not of a nature to admit of abridgement [and the hypothesis is untenable], this notice may perhaps suffice. Bishop Horsley doubted whether the MSS. from which the Septuagint version was made would (if now extant) be entitled to the same degree of credit as our modern Hebrew text, notwithstanding their comparatively high antiquity.5 The Septuagint version, though originally made for the use of the Egyptian Jews, gradually acquired the highest authority among the Jews of Palestine, who were acquainted with the Greek language, and subsequently also among Christians: it appears, indeed, that the legend above confuted, of the translators having been divinely ' Porter, Principles of Textual Crit., book iii. chap. iii. pp. 87, 88. 2 See Keil, Einleitung, § 178.; Hävernick, Einleitung, 1. i. §§ 68-71.; Davidson, Bibl. Crit. vol. i. chaps. xi. xii. Comp. Bp. (Fitzgerald) of Cork on the supposed Samaritan Text of the LXX. in Journal of Sac. Lit. for Oct. 1848, vol. ii. pp. 324-332. Tentamen de variis Codicum Hebraicorum Vet. Test. MSS. Generibus, Rostock, 1772, 8vo. pp. 48-64. 81-124. In Ernesti Bibl. Theol. tom. ii. p. 357. See Bauer, Crit. Sacr. p. 255. inspired, was invented in order that the LXX. might be held in the greater estimation. Philo the Jew, a native of Egypt, has evidently followed it in his allegorical expositions of the Mosaic law; and, though Dr. Hody was of opinion that Josephus, who was a native of Palestine, corroborated his work on Jewish Antiquities from the Hebrew text, yet Salmasius, Bochart, Bauer, and others, have shown that he has adhered to the Septuagint throughout that work. How extensively this version was in use among the Jews appears from the solemn sanction given to it by the inspired writers of the New Testament, who have in very many passages quoted the Greek version of the Old Testament. Their example was followed by the earlier fathers and doctors of the church, who, with the exception of Origen and Jerome, were unacquainted with Hebrew: notwithstanding their zeal for the word of God, they did not exert themselves to learn the original language of the sacred writings, but acquiesced in the Greek representation of them; judging it, no doubt, to be fully sufficient for all the purposes of their pious labours. 2 The Septuagint version retained its authority, even with the rulers of the Jewish synagogue, until the commencement of the first century after Christ; when the Jews, being unable to resist the arguments from prophecy which were urged against them by the Christians, in order to deprive them of the benefit of that authority, began to deny that it agreed with the Hebrew text. Further to discredit the character of the Septuagint, the Jews instituted a solemn fast, on the 8th day of the month Thebet (December), to execrate the memory of its having been made. Not satisfied with this measure, we are assured by Justin Martyr, who lived in the former part of the second century, that they proceeded to expunge several passages out of the Septuagint3; and, abandoning this, adopted the version of Aquila, a proselyte Jew of Sinope, a city of Pontus.* 4. The great use, however, which had been made by the Jews previously to their rejection of the Septuagint, and the constant use of it by the Christians, would naturally cause a multiplication of copies; in which numerous errors became introduced, in the course of time, from the negligence or inaccuracy of transcribers, and from glosses or marginal notes, which had been added for the explanation of difficult words, being suffered to creep into the text. In order to remedy this growing evil, ORIGEN, in the early part of the third century, undertook the laborious task of collating the Greek text then in use with the original Hebrew and with other Greek translations then extant, and from the whole to produce a new recension or [Philo believed in the inspiration of this version; and Josephus at least most generally used it. In the Talmud its alleged miraculous origin is mentioned; and there is reason to suppose that it was read not only in the Egyptian synagogues, but in those of Palestine and elsewhere. See Tertull. Apologet. 18.; Just. Mart. Cohort. ad Gent. 13.; Dial. cum Tryph. 72.; Novell. Const. Auth. Coll. ix. tit. xxix. cap. 1.] On the quotations from the Old Testament in the New, see chapter iv. infra. 'Dial. cum Tryph. 71. &c. On this subject the reader is referred to Dr. Owen's Inquiry into the present State of the Septuagint Version, pp. 29–87 (8vo. London, 1769.). In pp. 126–138. he has endeavoured to prove the falsification of the Septuagint, from the versions of Aquila and Symmachus. revisal. Twenty-eight years were devoted to the preparation of this arduous work, in the course of which he collected manuscripts from every possible quarter, aided (it is said) by the pecuniary liberality of Ambrose, an opulent man, whom he had converted from the Valentinian heresy, and with the assistance of seven copyists and several persons skilled in caligraphy, or the art of beautiful writing. Origen commenced his labour at Cæsarea, A.D. 231; and, it appears, finished his Polyglott at Tyre, but in what year is not precisely known.' This noble critical work is designated by various names among ancient writers; as Tetrapla, Hexapla, Octapla, and Enneapla. The Tetrapla contained the four Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion, disposed in four columns: to these Origen added two columns more, containing the Hebrew text in its original characters, and also in Greek letters; these six columns, according to Epiphanius, formed the Hexapla. Having subsequently discovered two other Greek versions of some parts of the Scriptures, usually called the fifth and sixth, he added them to the preceding, inserting them in their respective places, and thus composed the Octapla; and, a separate translation of the Psalms [and minor prophets], usually called the seventh version, being afterwards added, the entire work has by some been termed the Enneapla. This appellation, however, was never generally adopted. But, as the two editions made by Origen generally bore the name of the Tetrapla and Hexapla, Dr. Grabe thinks that they were thus called, not from the number of the columns, but of the versions, which were six, the seventh containing the Psalms only.2 Bauer, after Montfaucon, is of opinion that Origen edited only the Tetrapla and Hexapla; and this appears to be the real fact. [It has been disputed whether the Tetrapla preceded the Hexapla or not. It is the opinion of the best modern critics that the last-named work was the earlier.] The following specimens from Montfaucon will convey an idea of the construction of these two laborious works 3: In this specimen the version of Aquila holds the first place, as being most literal; the second is occupied by that of Symmachus, as rendering ad sensum rather than ad literam; the third by the Septuagint; and the fourth by Theodotion's translation. [The times and places at which Origen began and ended his work are very uncertain. See De Wette, Einleitung, § 45. p. 69.; Keil, Einleitung, § 180. p. 611.] 2 The late Rev. Dr. Holmes, who commenced the splendid edition of the Septuagint noticed in the Bibliographical List, vol. iv., was of opinion that the text of the Septuagint in the Hexapla was not the Kown as then in use, but as corrected in the Tetrapla, and perhaps improved by further collations. Præfat. tom. i. cap. Origenis Hexapla, Præl. Diss. tom. i. p. 1ĉ sect. v. ישראל נער To EBP. 'EAAH ΝΙΚΟΙΣ ΓΡ. ΑΚΥΛΑΣ, ΣΥΜΜΑΧΟΣ. Oi O. ΘΕΟΔΟΤΙΩΝ. χι νερ Ισραηλ ου- ὅτι παῖς Ἰσραὴλ, ὅτι παῖς Ἰσραὴλ, ὅτι νήπιος Ἰσραὴλ, ὅτι νήπιος Ἰσραὴλ, τὸν υἱόν μου. υἱός μου. In the preceding specimen the first column contains the Hebrew in its proper characters; Septuagint, the fifth; and Theodotion's, the sixth. anonymous translations, not containing the entire books of the Old sacred text; that of Symmachus occupies the fourth column; the thus Aquila's version, being the most faithful, is placed next to the ness and fidelity, determined its rank in the order of the columns: work, the proximity of each translation to the text, in point of closeThe original Hebrew being considered as the basis of the whole The other three Testament, were placed, in the last three columns of the Enneapla, according to the order of time in which they were discovered by Origen. Where the same words occurred in all the other Greek versions, without being particularly specified, Origen designated them by A or AO, AoTol, the rest: Oir, or the three, denoted Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion: Oi A, or the four, signified Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion; and II, IIávres, all the interpreters. The object of Origen being to correct the differences found in the then existing copies of the Old Testament, he carefully noted the alterations made by him; and, for the information of those who might consult his works, he made use of the following marks :— (1.) Where any passages appeared in the Septuagint, that were not found in the Hebrew, he designated them by an obelus,, with two bold points,:, also annexed, to show how far the passage extended. This mark was also used to denote words not extant in the Hebrew, but added by the Septuagint translators, either for the sake of elegance, or for the purpose of illustrating the sense. (2.) To passages wanting in the copies of the Septuagint, and supplied by himself from the other Greek versions, he prefixed an asterisk, x, with two bold points, :, also annexed, in order that his additions might be immediately perceived. These supplementary passages, we are informed by Jerome, were for the most part taken from Theodotion's translation; not unfrequently from that of Aquila; sometimes, though rarely, from the version of Symmachus; and sometimes from two or three together. But, in every case, the initial letter of each translator's name was placed immediately after the asterisk, to indicate the source whence such supplementary passage was taken. And, in lieu of the very erroneous Septuagint version of Daniel, Theodotion's translation of that book was inserted entire. (3.) Further, not only the passages wanting in the Septuagint were supplied by Origen with the asterisks, as above noticed, but also, where that version does not appear accurately to express the Hebrew original, having noted the former reading with an obelus,, he added the correct rendering from one of the other translators, with an asterisk subjoined. Concerning the shape and uses of the lemniscus and hypolemniscus, two other marks used by Origen, there is so great a difference of opinion among learned men, that it is difficult to determine what they were. Dr. Owen, after Montfaucon, supposes them to have been marks of better and more accurate renderings. In the Pentateuch, Origen compared the Samaritan text with the Hebrew as received by the Jews, and noted their differences. To each of the translations inserted in his Hexapla was prefixed an account of the author: each had its separate prolegomena; and the ample margins were filled with notes. A few fragments of these Origenis Hexapla, Præl. Diss., tom. i. pp. 36-42.; Holmes, Vetus Testamentum Græcum, tom. i. Præfat. cap. i. sects. i.-vii. The first book of Dr. Holmes's erudite preface is translated into English in the Christian Observer for 1821, vol. xx. pp. 544-548, 610-615, 676-683, 746 -750. |