a Targum; and, when on the cross, it was perfectly natural its name either from the Jewish account of seventy-two perthat he should speak in the same language, rather than in the sons having been employed to make it, or from its having reBiblical Hebrew; which, we have already seen, was culti-ceived the approbation of the Sanhedrin, or great council of vated and studied by the priests and Levites as a learned the Jews, which consisted of seventy, or, more correctly, of language. The Targum of Rabbi Joseph the Blind, in which seventy-two persons.-Much uncertainty, however, has prethe words cited by our Lord are to be found, is so long vailed concerning the real history of this ancient version; posterior to the time of his crucifixion, that it cannot be re- and while some have strenuously advocated its miraculous ceived as evidence. So numerous, indeed, are the varia- and divine origin, other eminent philologists have laboured tions, and so arbitrary are the alterations occurring in the to prove that it must have been executed by several persons manuscripts of the Chaldee paraphrases, that Dr. Kennicott and at different times. has clearly proved them to have been designedly altered in 1. According to one account, Ptolemy Philadelphus, king compliment to the previously corrupted copies of the Hebrew of Egypt, caused this translation to be made for the use of text; or, in other words, that "alterations have been the library which he had founded at Alexandria, at the remade wilfully in the Chaldee paraphrase to render that para- quest and with the advice of the celebrated Demetrius Phaphrase, in some places, more conformable to the words of lereus, his principal librarian. For this purpose it is reported the Hebrew text, where those Hebrew words are supposed that he sent Aristeas and Andreas, two distinguished officers to be right, but had themselves been corrupted.' 991 But not- of his court, to Jerusalem, on an embassy to Eleazar, then withstanding all their deficiencies and interpolations, the high-priest of the Jews, to request of the latter a copy of the Targums, especially those of Onkelos and Jonathan, are of Hebrew Scriptures, and that there might also be sent to him considerable importance in the interpretation of the Scrip- seventy-two persons (six chosen out of each of the twelve tures, not only as they supply the meanings of words or tribes), who were equally well skilled in the Hebrew and phrases occurring but once in the Old Testament, but also Greek languages. These learned men were accordingly because they reflect considerable light on the Jewish rites, shut up in the island of Pharos: where, having agreed in ceremonies, laws, customs, usages, &c. mentioned or alluded the translation of each period after a mutual conference, Deto in both Testaments. But it is in establishing the genuine metrius wrote down their version as they dictated it to him; meaning of particular prophecies relative to the Messiah, in and thus, in the space of seventy-two days, the whole was opposition to the false explications, of the Jews and Anti- accomplished. This relation is derived from a letter ascribed trinitarians, that these Targums are pre-eminently useful. to Aristeas himself, the authenticity of which has been Bishop Walton, Dr. Prideaux, Pfeiffer, Carpzov, and Ram-greatly disputed. If, as there is every reason to believe is bach, have illustrated this remark by numerous examples. the case, this piece is a forgery, it was made at a very early Bishop Patrick, and Drs. Gill and Clarke, in their respective period; for it was in existence in the time of Josephus, who Commentaries on the Bible, have inserted many valuable has made use of it in his Jewish Antiquities. The veracity elucidations from the Chaldee paraphrasts. Leusden recom- of Aristeas's narrative was not questioned until the sevenmends that no one should attempt to read their writings, nor teenth or eighteenth century: at which time, indeed, biblical indeed to learn the Chaldee dialect, who is not previously criticism was, comparatively, in its infancy. Vives, Scawell-grounded in Hebrew: he advises the Chaldee text of liger, Van Dale, Dr. Prideaux, and, above all, Dr. Hody,' Daniel and Ezra to be first read either with his own Chaldee were the principal writers in the seventeenth and eighteenth Manual, or with Buxtorf's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon; centuries who attacked the genuineness of the pretended after which the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan may be narrative of Aristeas; and though it was ably vindicated by perused, with the help of Buxtorf's Chaldee and Syriac Bishop Walton, Isaac Vossius, Whiston,10 Brett," and Lexicon, and of De Lara's work, De Convenientia Vocabulo other modern writers, the majority of the learned in our own rum Rabbinicorum cum Græcis et quibusdam aliis linguis time are fully agreed in considering it as fictitious. Europæis. Amstelodami, 1648, 4to. Those, who may be able to procure it, may more advantageously study Mr. Riggs's Manual of the Chaldee Language. Boston, (Massachusetts), 1832. 8vo. §2. ON THE ANCIENT GREEK VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. I. The SEPTUAGINT;-1. History of it ;-2. A critical account of its execution;-3. What manuscripts were used by its authors ;--4. Account of the biblical labours of Origen ;-5. Notice of the recensions or editions of Eusebius and Pamphilus, of Lucian, and of Hesychius ;6. Peculiar importance of the Septuagint Version in the criticism and interpretation of the New Testament.-II. Account of other Greek versions of the Old Testament; -1. Version of AQUILA;-2. Of THEODOTION;—3. Of SYMMACHUS ;-4, 5, 6. Anonymous versions.-III. References in ancient manuscripts to other versions. I. AMONG the Greek versions of the Old Testament, the ALEXANDRIAN OF SEPTUAGINT, as it is generally termed, is the most ancient and valuable; and was held in so much esteem both by the Jews and by the first Christians, as to be constantly read in the synagogues and churches. Hence it is uniformly cited by the early fathers, whether Greek or Latin, and from this version all the translations into other languages, which were anciently approved by the Christian church, were executed (with the exception of the Syriac), as the Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothic, and Old Italic or the Latin Version in use before the time of Jerome; and to this day the Septuagint is exclusively read in the Greek and most other Oriental churches. This version has derived 1 Dr. Kennicott's Second Dissertation, pp. 167–193. * See a notice of the principal editions of the Chaldee Paraphrases in the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX to VOL. II. PART I. CHAP. I. SECT. V. § 1. 3 Walton, Prol. c. ix. (pp. 333-469.); from which, and from the following authorities, our account of the Septuagint is derived, viz. Bauer, Critica Sacra, pp. 243-273. who has chiefly followed Hody's book, hereafter noticed, in the history of the Septuagint version: Dr. Prideaux, Connection, part ii. book i. sub anno 277. (vol. ii. pp. 27–49.); Masch's Preface to part ii. of his edition of Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, in which the history of the Septuagint version is minutely examined; Morus, in Ernesti, vol. ii. pp. 50-81. 101-119.; Carpzov, Critica Sacra, pp. 481-551.; Masch and Boer Philo, the Jew, who also notices the Septuagint version, was ignorant of most of the circumstances narrated by Aristeas; but he relates others which appear nct less extraordinary. According to him, Ptolemy Philadelphus sent to Palestine for some learned Jews, whose number he does not Specify and these going over to the island of Pharos, there and uniformly agreed in sense, phrases, and words, as proved executed so many distinct versions, all of which so exactly them to have been not common interpreters; but men prophetically inspired and divinely directed, who had every word dictated to them by the Spirit of God throughout the entire translation. He adds that an annual festival was celebrated by the Alexandrian Jews in the Isle of Pharos, where the version was made, until his time, to preserve the memory of it, and to thank God for so great a benefit.12 Justin Martyr, who flourished in the middle of the second century, about one hundred years after Philo, relates1s a similar story, with the addition of the seventy interpreters being erected for that purpose by order of Ptolemy Philadelphus); shut up each in his own separate cell (which had been and that here they composed so many distinct versions, word for word, in the very same expressions, to the great admiration of the king; who, not doubting that this version was divinely inspired, loaded the interpreters with honours, ner's edition of Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, part ii. vol. ii. pp. 216–220. 256-301.; Thomas, Introductio in Hermeneuticam Sacrum utriusque Testamenti, pp. 228-23.; Harles, Brevior Notitia Litteraturæ Græcæ, pp. 633 643.; and Renouard, Annales de l'Imprimerie des Aldes, tom. i. p. 140. See also Origenis Hexapla, a Montfaucon, tom. i. Prælim. Diss. pp. 17-35. A full account of the manuscripts and editions of the Greek Scriptures is given in the preface to vol. i. of the edition of the Septuagint commenced by the late Rev. Dr. Holmes, of which an account is given in the Appendix In a note on Augustine de Civitate Dei, lib. viii. c. 42. In a note on Eusebius's Chronicle, no. MDCCXXXIV. to Vol. II. • Dissertatio super Aristea, de LXX interpretibus, &c. Amst. 1705, 4to. De LXX. Interpretibus, Hag. Com. 1661, 4to. 10 In the Appendix to his work on "The Literal Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies," London, 1724. 8vo. 11 Dissertation on the Septuagint, in Bishop Watson's Collection of Theo logical Tracts, vol. iii. p. 20. et seq. 12 De Vita Mosis, lib. ii, 13 Cohort. ad Gentes. 4.1371 and dismissed them to their own country, with magnificent | their approbation, and introducing it into the synagogues. In presents. The good father adds, that the ruins of these cells either case the translation would, probably, be denominated were visible in his time. But this narrative of Justin's is the Septuagint, because the Sanhedrin was composed of directly at variance with several circumstances recorded by seventy or seventy-two members. It is even possible that Aristeas; such, for instance, as the previous conference or the Sanhedrin, in order to ascertain the fidelity of the work, deliberation of the translators, and, above all, the very im- might have sent to Palestine for some learned men, of whose portant point of the version being dictated to Demetrius Pha- assistance and advice they would have availed themselves in fereus. Epiphanius, a writer of the fourth century, attempts examining the version. This fact, if it could be proved (for to harmonize all these accounts by shutting up the translators it is offered as a mere conjecture), would account for the story two and two, in thirty-six cells, where they might consider of the king of Egypt's sending an embassy to Jerusalem. or deliberate, and by stationing a copyist in each cell, to There is, however, one circumstance which proves that, in whom the translators dictated their labours: the result of all executing this translation, the synagogues were originally in which was the production of thirty-six inspired versions, contemplation, viz. that all the ancient writers unanimously agreeing most uniformly together. concur in saying that the Pentateuch was first translated. The five books of Moses, indeed, were the only books read in the synagogues until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria; who having forbidden that practice in Palestine, the Jews evaded his commands by substituting for the Pentateuch the reading of the prophetic books. When, afterwards, the Jews were delivered from the tyranny of the kings of Syria, they read the law and the prophets alternately in their synagogues; and the same custom was adopted by the Hellenistic or Græcizing Jews. It is not a little remarkable that the Samaritans have traditions in favour of their version of the Pentateuc equally extravagant with those preserved by the Jews. In the Samaritan Chronicle of Abul Phatach, which was compiled in the fourteenth century from ancient and modern authors both Hebrew and Arabic, there is a story to the following effect:That Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the tenth year of his reign, directed his attention to the difference subsisting between the Samaritans and Jews concerning the law; the former receiving only the Pentateuch, and rejecting every other work ascribed to the prophets by the Jews. In order to determine this difference, he commanded the two nations to send deputies to Alexandria. The Jews intrusted this mission to Usar, the Samaritans to Aaron, to whom several other associates were added. Separate apartments, in a particular quarter of Alexandria, were assigned to each of these strangers; who were prohibited from having any personal intercourse, and each of them had a Greek scribe to write his version. Thus were the law and other Scriptures translated by the Samaritans; whose version being most carefully examined, the king was convinced that their text was more complete than that of the Jews. Such is the narrative of Abul Phatach, divested however of numerous marvellous circumstances, with which it has been decorated by the Samaritans; who are not surpassed even by the Jews in their partiality for idle legends. 2. But whatever was the real number of the authors of the version, their introduction of Coptic words, (such as up, axı, pupar, &c.) as well as their rendering of ideas purely Hebrew altogether in the Egyptian manner, clearly prove that they were natives of Egypt. Thus they express the creation of the world, not by the proper Greek word KTIZIZ, but by TENEZIE, a term employed by the philosophers of Alexandria to express the origin of the universe. The Hebrew word Thummim (Exod. xxviii. 30.), which signifies perfections, they render AAHOEJA, truth. The difference of style also indicates the version to have been the work not of one but of several translators, and to have been executed at different times. The best qualified and most able among them was the translator of the Pentateuch, who was evidently master of both Greek and Hebrew: he has for the most part religiously followed the Hebrew text, and has in various instances introduced the most suitable and best chosen extween the text of the Greek version and the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Louis de Dieu, Selden, Whiston, Hassencamp, and Bauer, are of opinion that the author of the Alexandrian version made it from the Samaritan Pentateuch. And in A fact, buried under such a mass of fables as the translation of the Septuagint has been by the historians who have pre-pressions. From the very close resemblance subsisting betended to record it, necessarily loses all its historical character, which indeed we are fully justified in disregarding altogether. Although there is no doubt but that some truth is concealed under this load of fables, yet it is by no means an easy task to discern the truth from what is false: the follow-proportion as these two correspond, the Greek differs from ing, however, is the result of our researches concerning this celebrated version: the Hebrew. This opinion is further supported by the declarations of Origen and Jerome, that the translator found the venerable name of Jehovah not in the letters in common use, but in very ancient characters; and also by the fact that those consonants in the Septuagint are frequently confounded together, the shapes of which are similar in the Samaritan, but not in the Hebrew alphabet. This hypothesis, however ingenious and plausible, is by no means determinate; and what militates most against it is, the inveterate enmity subsisting between the Jews and Samaritans, added to the constant and unvarying testimony of antiquity that the Greek version of the Pentateuch was executed by Jews. There is no other way by which to reconcile these conflicting opinions, than by supposing either that the manuscripts used by the Egyptian Jews approximated towards the letters and text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, or that the translators of the Septuagint made use of manuscripts written in ancient characters.2 It is probable that the seventy interpreters, as they are called, executed their version of the Pentateuch during the joint reigns of Ptolemy Lagus, and his son Philadelphus. The Pseudo-Aristeas, Josephus, Philo, and many other writers, whom it were tedious to enumerate, relate that this version was made during the reign of Ptolemy II. or Philadelphus: Joseph Ben Gorion, however, among the rabbins, Theodoret, and many other Christian writers, refer its date to the time of Ptolemy Lagus. Now these two traditions can be reconciled only by supposing the version to have been performed during the two years when Ptolemy Philadelphus shared the throne with his father; which date coincides with the third and fourth years of the hundred and twenty-third olympiad, that is, about the years 286 and 285 before the vulgar Christian æra. Further, this version was made neither by the command of Ptolemy, nor at the request nor under the superintendence of Demetrius Phalereus; but was voluntarily Next to the Pentateuch, for ability and fidelity of execu undertaken by the Jews for the use of their countrymen. It tion, ranks the translation of the book of Proverbs, the author is well known, that, at the period above noticed, there was a of which was well skilled in the two languages: Michaelis great multitude of Jews settled in Egypt, particularly at is of opinion that, of all the books of the Septuagint, the Alexandria: these, being most strictly observant of the reli- style of the Proverbs is the best, the translators having gious institutions and usages of their forefathers, had their clothed the most ingenious thoughts in as neat and elegant Sanhedrin, or grand council, composed of seventy or seventy-language as was ever used by a Pythagorean sage, to express two members, and very numerous synagogues, in which the his philosophic maxims. The translator of the book of Job law was read to them on every Sabbath; and as the bulk of the common people were no longer acquainted with biblical Hebrew (the Greek language alone being used in their ordinary intercourse), it became necessary to translate the Pentateuch into Greek for their use. This is a far more probable account of the origin of the Alexandrian version than the traditions above stated. If this translation had been made by public authority, it would unquestionably have been performed under the direction of the Sanhedrin; who would have examined, and perhaps corrected it, if it had been the work ɔf a single individual, previously to giving it the stamp of 1 The reason of this appears from Diodorus Siculus, who informs us that the president of the Egyptian courts of justice wore round his neck a golden chain, at which was suspended an image set round with precious stones, which was called TRUTH, ò #psσng opevov, AxЯstav lib. i. c. 75. tom. i. pp. 225. (edit. Bipont.) Bauer, (Crit. Sacr. pp. 244, 245), and Morus (Acroases in Ernesti, tom. ii. pp. 67–81.), have given several examples, proving from internal evidence that the authors of the Septuagint version were Egyptian. The value of the Greek version of the Pentateuch, for criticism and interpretation, is minutely investigated by Dr. Toepler, in his Dissertation De Pentateuchi Interpretationis Alexandring Indole, Halis Saxonum, 1830, 8vo. Michaelis, Introd. to New Test. vol. i. p. 113. being acquainted with the Greek poets, his style is more | source of authentic text: insomuch that the comparative merit elegant and studied; but he was not sufficiently master of the Hebrew language and literature, and consequently his version is very often erroneous. Many of the historical passages are interpolated; and in the poetical parts there are several passages wanting: Jerome, in his preface to the book of Job, specifies as many as seventy or eighty verses. These omissions were supplied by Origen from Theodotion's translation. The book of Joshua could not have been translated till upwards of twenty years after the death of Ptolemy Lagus: for, in chapter viii. verse 18., the translator has introduced the words, a word of Gallic origin, denoting a short dart or javelin peculiar to the Gauls, who made an irruption into Greece in the third year of the 125th olympiad, or B. C. 278.; and it was not until some time after that event that the Egyptian kings took Gallic mercenaries into their pay and service. During the reign of Ptolemy Philometer, the book of Esther, together with the Psalms and Prophets, was translated. The subscription annexed to the version of Esther expressly states it to have been finished on the fourth year of that sovereign's reign, or about the year 177 before the Christian æra: the Psalms and Prophets, in all probability, were translated still later, because the Jews did not begin to read them in their synagogues till about the year 170 before Christ. The Psalms and Prophets were translated by men every way unequal to the task: Jeremiah is the best executed among the Prophets; and next to this the books of Amos and Ezekiel are placed: the important prophecies of Isaiah were translated, according to Bishop Lowth, upwards of one hundred years after the Pentateuch, and by a person by no means adequate to the undertaking; there being hardly any book of the Old Testament so ill rendered in the Septuagint as this of Isaiah, which (together with other parts of the Greek version) has come down to us in a bad condition, incorrect, and with frequent omissions and interpolations: and so very erroneous was the version of Daniel, that it was totally rejected by the ancient church, and Theodotion's translation was substituted for it. The Septuagint version of Daniel, which for a long time was supposed to have been lost, was discovered and published at Rome in 1772, from which it appears that its author had but an imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew language. No date has been assigned for the translation of the books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings, which appear to have been executed by one and the same anthor; who, though he does not make use of so many Hebraisms as the translators of the other books, is yet not without his peculiarities. 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 MANUSCRIPTS did the seventy interpreters execute their translation? Professor Tyschen' has offered an hypothesis that they did not translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, but that it was transcribed in Hebræo-Greek characters, and that from this transcript their version was made: this hypothesis has been examined by several German critics, and by none with more acumen than by Dathe, in the preface to his Latin version of the minor prophets;2 but as the arguments are not of a nature to admit of abridgment, this notice may perhaps suffice. The late eminently learned Bishop Horsley doubts whether the manuscripts 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. "There is," he observes, "certainly much reason to believe, that after the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps from a somewhat earlier period, the Hebrew text was in a much worse state of corruption in the copies which were in private hands, than it has ever been since the revision of the sacred books by Ezra. These inaccurate copies would be multiplied during the whole period of the captivity, and widely scattered in Assyria, Persia, and Egypt; in short, through all the regions of the dispersion. The text, as revised by Ezra, was certainly of much higher credit than any of these copies, notwithstanding their greater antiquity. His edition succeeded, as it were, to the privileges of an autograph (the autographs of the inspired writers themselves being totally lost), and was henceforth to be considered as the only of any text now extant will depend upon the probable degree of its approximation to, or distance from, the Esdrine edition. Nay, if the translation of the LXX. was made from some of those old manuscripts which the dispersed Jews had carried into Egypt, or from any other of those unauthenticated copies (which is the prevailing tradition among the Jews, and is very probable, at least it cannot be confuted), it will be likely that the faultiest manuscript now extant differs less from the genuine Esdrine text than those more ancient, which the version of the LXX. represents. But, much as this consideration lowers the credit of the LXX. separately, for any various reading, it adds great weight to the consent of the LXX. with later versions, and greater still to the consent of the old versions with manuscripts of the Hebrew, which still survive. And, as it is certainly possible that a true reading may be preserved in one solitary manuscript, it will follow, that a true reading may be preserved in one version: for the manuscript which contained the true reading at the time when the version was made, may have perished since; so that no evidence of the reading shall now remain, but the version."3 The Septuagint version, though o:iginally 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 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 represen tation of them; judging it, no doubt, to be fully sufficient for all the purposes of their pious labours. The Greek Scriptures were the only Scriptures known to or valued by the Greeks. This was the text commented by Chrysostom and Theodoret; it was this which furnished topics to Athanasius, Nazianzen, and Basil. From this fountain the stream was derived to the Latin church, first, by the Italic or Vulgate translation of the Scriptures, which was made from the Septuagint, and not from the Hebrew; and, secondly, by the study of the Greek fathers. It was by this borrowed light, that the Latin fathers illuminated the western hemisphere; and, when the age of Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory successively passed away, this was the light put into the hands of the next dynasty of theologists, the schoolmen, who carried on the work of theological disquisition by the aid of this luminary, and none other. So that, either in Greek or in Latin, it was still the Septuagint Scriptures that were read, explained, and quoted as authority, for a period of fifteen hundred years."5 66 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 Septuagint; and abandoning this, adopted the version of Aquila, a proselyte Jew Bishop Horsley's Translation of Hosea, Pref. pp. xxxvi. xxxvii. 2d On the quotations from the Old Testament in the New, see Chapter IV. Reeves's Collation of the Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Psalms, pp. 22, 23. edit. Tentamen de variis Codicum Hebraicorum Vet. Test. MSS. Generibus infra. Rostock, 1772, Svo pp. 48-64. 81-124. • Published at Halle, in 1790, in 8vo. of Sinope, a city of Pontus; this is the translation mentioned in the Talmud, and not the Septuagint, with which it has been confounded.2 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 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 he 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, 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 edi tions 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.4 Bauer, after Montfaucon, is of opinion, that Origen edited only the Tetrapla and Hexapla; and this appears to be the real fact. The following specimens from Montfaucon will convey an idea of the construction of these two laborious works:5 ΑΚΥΛΑΣ. TETRAPLA. ΣΥΜΜΑΧΟΣ. ΘΕΟΔΟΤΙΩΝ. Εν αρχή εκτισεν Εν αρχή εποίησεν. Εν αρχή εκτισεν ὁ the fifth being denoted by E, and the sixth by s; and when the seventh designated by Z), it comprised nine columns. was added (which was version The original Hebrew being considered as the basis of the whole work, the proximity of each translation to the text, in point of closeness and fidelity, determined its rank in the order of the columns: thus Aquila's version, being the most faithful, is placed next to the sacred text; that of Symmachus occupies the fourth column; the Septuagint, the fifth; and Theodotion's, the sixth. The other three anonymous translations, not containing the entire books of the Old 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 In this specimen the version of Aquila holds the first all the other Greek versions, without being particularly speplace, as being most literal; the second is occupied by that cified, Origen designated them by A or AO, Ara, the rest; of Symmachus, as rendering ad sensum rather than ad lite- -OT, or the three, denoted Aquila, Symmachus, and Theoram; the third by the Septuagint, and the fourth by Theodo-dotion;-O, A, or the four, signified Aquila, Symmachus, Εν κεφαλαίω εκτι σεν ὁ θεος συν τον ouparov xai GUY THY yev. tion's translation. και την γην. και την γην. 1 On this subject the reader is referred to Dr. Owen's Inquiry into the resent State of the Septuagint Version, pp. 29-87. (8vo. London, 1769.) In pp. 126-133. he has proved the falsification of the Septuagint, from the versions of Aquila and Symmachus. 2 Prideaux, Connection, vol. ii. p. 50. Lightfoot's Works, vol. ii. pp. The late Rev. Dr. Holmes, who commenced the splendid edition of 806, 807. the Septuagint noticed in the Bibliographical Appendix to the second volume, was of opinion that the first column of the Tetrapla contained the Kon, or Septuagint text commonly in use, collated with Hebrew manuscripts by Origen, and that the other three columns were occupied by the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Dr. Holines thinks that the text of the Septuagint in the Hexapla was not the K as then in use, but as corrected in the Tetrapla, and perhaps improved by further collations. * Origenis Hexapla, Præl. Diss. tom. i. p. 16. the Septuagint, and Theodotion; and II, Пavres, all the in- in the then existing copies of the Old Testament, he care- (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. 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 with two bold points: also annexed, and now it may almost be considered as a hopeless task tc in order that his additions might be immediately perceived. distinguish between them. Contemporary with the edition These supplementary passages, we are informed by Jerome, of Eusebius and Pamphilus was the recension of the Kena, were for the most part taken from Theodotion's translation; or vulgate text of the Septuagint, conducted by Lucian, a not unfrequently from that of Aquila; sometimes, though presbyter of the church at Antioch, who suffered martyrdom rarely, from the version of Symmachus; and sometimes A. D. 311. He took the Hebrew text for the basis of his edition, from two or three together. But, in every case, the initial which was received in all the eastern churches from Constantiletter of each translator's name was placed immediately after nople to Antioch. While Lucian was prosecuting his biblical the asterisk, to indicate the source whence such supplement- labours, Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, undertook a similar ary passage was taken. And in lieu of the very erroneous work, which was generally received in the churches of Septuagint version of Daniel, Theodotion's translation of Egypt. He is supposed to have introduced fewer alterathat book was inserted entire. tions than Lucian; and his edition is cited by Jerome as the Exemplar Alexandrinum. Syncellus mentions another revisal of the Septuagint text by Basil bishop of Cæsarea: but this, we have every reason to believe, has long since perished. All the manuscripts of the Septuagint now extant, as well as the printed editions, are derived from the three recensions above mentioned, although biblical critics are by no means agreed what particular recension each manuscript has followed." (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 prolegomena and marginal annotations have been preserved; but nothing remains of his history of the Greek versions.2 Since Origen's time, biblical critics have distinguished two editions or exemplars of the Septuagint-the Kown or common text, with all its errors and imperfections, as it existed previously to his collation; and the Hexaplar text, or that corrected by Origen himself. For nearly fifty years was this great man's stupendous work buried in a corner of the city of Tyre, probably on account of the very great expense of transcribing forty or fifty volumes, which far exceeded the means of private individuals; and here, perhaps, it might have perished in oblivion, if Eusebius and Pamphilus had not discovered it, and deposited it in the library of Pamphilus the martyr at Cæsarea, where Jerome saw it about the middle of the fourth century. As we have no account whatever of Origen's autograph after this time, it is most probable that it perished in the year 653, on the capture of that city by the Arabs; and a few imperfect fragments, collected from manuscripts of the Septuagint and the Catena of the Greek fathers, are all that now remain of a work, which in the present improved state of sacred literature would most eminently have assisted in the interpretation and criticism of the Old Testament. 5. As the Septuagint version had been read in the church from the commencement of Christianity, so it continued to be used in most of the Greek churches; and the text, as corrected by Origen, was transcribed for their use, together with his critical marks. Hence, in the progress of time, from the negligence or inaccuracy of copyists, numerous errors were introduced into this version, which rendered a new revisal necessary; and, as all the Greek churches did not receive Origen's biblical labours with equal deference, three principal recensions were undertaken nearly at the same time, of which we are now to offer a brief notice. The first was the edition, undertaken by Eusebius and Pamphilus about the year 300, from the Hexaplar text, with the whole of Origen's critical marks; it was not only adopted by the churches of Palestine, but was also deposited in almost every library. By frequent transcriptions, however, Origen's marks or notes became, in the course of a few years, so much changed, as to be of little use, and were finally omitted: this omission only augmented the evil, since even in the time of Jerome it was no longer possible to know what belonged to the translators, or what were Origen's own corrections; Montfaucon, Prælim. ad Hexapla, tom. i. pp. 36-42. Holmes, Vetus Testamentum Græcum, tom. i. Præfat. cap. i. sect. 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. The best edition of the remains of Origen's Hexapla is that of Mont fancon, in two volumes, folio, Paris, 1713. On the character and value of this great work, some excellent observations may be found in a dissertation, by Ernesti, entitled "Origen the Father of Grammatical Interpreta. tion," translated in Hodge's Biblical Repertory, vol. iii. pp. 245-260. New York, 1827. 6. The importance of the Septuagint version for the right understanding of the sacred text has been variously esti mated by different learned men; while some have elevated to an equality with the original Hebrew, others have rated it far below its real value. The great authority which it formerly enjoyed, certainly gives it a claim to a high degree of consideration. It was executed long before the Jews were prejudiced against Jesus Christ as the Messiah; and it was the means of preparing the world at large for his appearance, by making known the types and prophecies concerning him. With all its faults and imperfections, therefore, this version is of more use in correcting the Hebrew text than any other that is extant; because its authors had better opportunities of knowing the propriety and extent of the Hebrew language than we can possibly have at this distance of time. The Septuagint, likewise, being written in the same dialect as the New Testament (the formation of whose style was influenced by it), it becomes a very important source of interpretation: for not only does it frequently serve to determine the genuine reading, but also to ascertain the meaning of particular idiomatic expressions and passages in the New Testament, the true import of which could not be known but from their use in the Septuagint. Grotius, Keuchenius, Biel, and Schleusner, are the critics who have most successfully applied this version to the interpretation of the New Testament. II. The importance of the Septuagint, in the criticism and interpretation of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, will justify the length of the preceding account of that celebrated version: it now remains that we briefly notice the other ancient Greek translations, which have already been incidentally mentioned; viz. those of Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and the three anonymous versions, usually cited as the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions, from which Origen compiled his Tetrapla and Hexapla. 1. The Version of AQUILA.-The author of this translation was a native of Sinope in Pontus, who flourished in the second century of the Christian æra he was of Jewish descent; and having renounced Christianity, he undertook his version, with the intention of exhibiting to the Hellenistic Jews an accurate representation of the Hebrew text, for their assistance in their disputes with the Christians. Yet he did not on this account pervert passages which relate to Christ by unfaithful translations, as some of the ancient Chronographia ab adamo usque ad Dioclesianum, p. 203. i. sect. viii. et seq. Dr. Holmes has given a copious and interesting account of the editions of Lucian and Hesychius, and of the sources of the Septuagint text in the manuscripts of the Pentateuch, which are now extant. Tom. i. Præf. cap. In the Eclectic Review for 1806 (vol. ii. part. i. pp. 337-347.) the reader will find many examples adduced, confirming the remarks above offered, concerning the value and importance of the Septuagint version. be read and understood by every man who studies the New Testament, is "The Book," says the profound critic Michaelis, "most necessary to without doubt, the Septuagint; which alone has been of tnore service be read in the public schools by those who are destined for the church; than all the passages from the profane authors collected together. It should should form the subject of a course of lectures at the university, and be the constant companion of an expositor of the New Testament." Introduction to the New Test. vol. i. p. 177.-"About the year 1785," says Dr. A. Clarke (speaking of his biblical labours), "I began to read the Septua gint regularly, in order to acquaint myself more fully with the phraseology of the New Testament. The study of this version served more to expand and illuminate my mind than all the theological works I had ever consulted. I had proceeded but a short way in it, before I was convinced that the prejudices against it were utterly unfounded; and that it was of incalculable advantage towards a proper understanding of the literal sense of Scripture." Dr. Clarke's Commentary, vol. i. General Preface, p. xv. |