modern the former were made immediately from the original languages by persons to whom they were familiar; and who, it may be reasonably supposed, had better opportunities for ascertaining the force and meaning of words, than more recent translators can possibly have. Modern versions are those made in later times, and chiefly since the Reformation; they are useful for explaining the sense of the inspired writers, while ancient versions are of the utmost importance both for the criticism and interpretation of the Scriptures. The present section will therefore be appropriated to giving an account of those which are most esteemed for their antiquity and excellence.' The principal ANCIENT VERSIONS, which illustrate the Scriptures, are the Chaldee Paraphrases, generally called Targums, the Septuagint, or Alexandrian Greek Version, the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and what are called the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions (of which latter translations fragments only are extant), together with the Syriac, and Latin or Vulgate versions. Although the authors of these versions did not flourish at the time when the Hebrew language was spoken, yet they enjoyed many advantages for understanding the Bible, especially the Old Testament, which are not possessed by the moderns: for, living near the time when that language was vernacular, they could learn by tradition the true signification of some Hebrew words, which is now forgotten. Many of them also being Jews, and from their childhood accustomed to hear the rabbins explain the Scriptures, the study of which they diligently cultivated, and likewise speaking a dialect allied to the Hebrew,-they could not but become well acquainted with the latter. Hence it may be safely inferred that the ancient versions generally give the true sense of Scripture, and not unfrequently in passages where it could scarcely be discovered by any other means. All the ancient versions, indeed, are of great importance both in the criticism, as well as in the interpretation, of the sacred writings, but they are not all witnesses of equal value; for the authority of the different versions depends partly on the age and country of their respective authors, partly on the text whence their translations were made, and partly on the ability and fidelity with which they were executed. It will therefore be not irrelevant to offer a short historical notice of the principal versions above mentioned, as well as of some other ancient versions of less celebrity perhaps, but which have been beneficially consulted by biblical critics. § 1. ON THE TARGUMS, OR CHALDEE PARAPHRASES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. I. Targum of Onkelos ;-II. Of the Pseudo-Jonathan ;-III. Targums prior to those of Onkelos and Jonathan, who are supposed to have lived about the time of our Saviour, it is highly probable that these paraphrases were at first merely oral; that, subsequently, the ordinary glosses on the more difficult passages were committed to writing; and that, as the Jews were bound by an ordinance of their elders to possess a copy of the law, these glosses were either afterwards collected together and deficiencies in them supplied, or new and connected paraphrases were formed. There are at present extant ten paraphrases on different parts of the Old Testament, three of which comprise the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses:-1. The Targum of Onkelos; 2. That falsely ascribed to Jonathan, and usually cited as the Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan; and, 3. The Jerusalem Targum; 4. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel (i. e. the son of Uzziel), on the Prophets; 5. The Targum of Rabbi Joseph the blind, or one-eyed, on the Hagiographa; 6. An anonymous Targum on the five Megilloth, or books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah; 7, 8, 9. Three Targums on the book of Esther; and, 10. A Targum or paraphrase on the two books of Chronicles. These Targums, taken together, form a continued paraphrase on the Old Testament, with the exception of the books of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah (anciently reputed to be part of Ezra); which being for the most part written in Chaldee, it has been conjectured that no paraphrases were written on them, as being unnecessary; though Dr. Prideaux is of opinion that Targums were composed on these books also, which have perished in the lapse of ages. The language, in which these paraphrases are composed, varies in purity according to the time when they were respectively written. Thus, the Targums of Onkelos and the Pseudo-Jonathan are much purer than the others, approximating very nearly to the Aramæan dialect in which some parts of Daniel and Ezra are written, except, indeed, that the orthography does not always correspond; while the language of the later Targums whence the rabbinical dialect derives its source is far more impure, and is intermixed with barbarous and foreign words. Originally, all the Chaldee paraphrases were written without vowel-points, like all other oriental manuscripts; but at length some persons ventured to add points to them, though very erroneously, and this irregular punctuation was retained in the Venice and other early editions of the Hebrew Bible. Some further imperfect attempts towards regular pointing were made both in the Complutensian and in the Antwerp Polyglotts, until at length the elder Buxtorf, in his edition of the Hebrew Bible published at Basil, undertook the thankless task3 of improving the punctuation of the Targums, according to such rules as he had formed from the pointing which he had found in the Chaldee parts of the books of Daniel and Ezra; and his method of punctuation is followed in Bishop Walton's Polyglott. 1. The TARGUM OF ONKELOS.-It is not known with certainty at what time Onkelos flourished, nor of what nation he was: Professor Eichhorn conjectures that he was a native THE Chaldee word D (TaRGUM) signifies, in general, Talmud; secondly, because his dialect is not the Chaldee of Babylon, first, because he is mentioned in the Babylonish any version or explanation; but this appellation is more particularly restricted to the versions or paraphrases of the spoken in Palestine, but much purer, and more closely reOld Testament, executed in the East-Aramaan or Chaldee sembling the style of Daniel and Ezra; and, lastly, because dialect, as it is usually called. These Targums are termed which the Jews of Palestine were so much attached, and he has not interwoven any of those fabulous narratives to paraphrases or expositions, because they are rather com from which they could with difficulty refrain. The genements and explications, than literal translations of the text: they are written in the Chaldee tongue, which became fami- rally received opinion is, that he was a proselyte to Judaism, liar to the Jews after the time of their captivity in Babylon, about fifty years before the Christian æra; and consequently and a disciple of the celebrated Rabbi Hillel, who flourished and was more known to them than the Hebrew itself: so that, when the law was "read in the synagogue every Sab-and Jahn, however, place him in the second century. The that Onkelos was contemporary with our Saviour: Bauer bath-day," in pure biblical Hebrew, an explanation was subjoined to it in Chaldee; in order to render it intelligible of Moses, and is justly preferred to all the others both by Targum of Onkelos comprises the Pentateuch of five books to the people, who had but an imperfect knowledge of the Jews and Christians, on account of the purity of its style, Hebrew language. This practice, as already observed, and its general freedom from idle legends. It is rather a originated with Ezra :2 as there are no traces of any written version than a paraphrase, and renders the Hebrew text word 1 For an account of the principal MODERN VERSIONS, the reader is re- for word, with so much accuracy and exactness, that being ferred to the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX to Vol. II. Part I. Chap. I. Sect. VI. set to the same musical notes, with the original Hebrew, it 2 See p. 190. supra. Our account of the Chaldee paraphrases is drawn up could be read or cantillated in the same tone as the latter in from a careful consideration of what has been written on them, by Carpzov, the public assemblies of the Jews. And this we find was in his Critica Sacra, part ii. c. i. pp. 430-481.; Bishop Walton, Prol. c. 12. sect. ii. pp. 568-592; Leusden, in Philolog. Hebræo-Mixt. Diss. v. vi. and the practice of the Jews up to the time of Rabbi Elias Levii. pp. 36-58.; Dr. Prideaux, Connection, part ii. book viii. sub anno 37. vita; who flourished in the early part of the sixteenth cenB. C. vol. iii. pp. 531-555. (edit. 1718.) Kortholt, De variis Scripturæ Editionibus, c. iii. pp. 34-51.; Pfeiffer, Critica Sacra, cap. viii. sect. ii. (Op. tury, and expressly states that the Jews read the law in their tom. ii. pp. 750-771.) and in his Treatise de Theologia Judaicâ, &c. Exer. cit. ii. (Ibid. tom. ii. pp. 862-889.); Bauer, Critica Sacra, tract. iii. pp. 288308.; Rambach, Inst. Herm. Sacræ, pp. 606-611.; Pictet, Théologie Chrétienne, tom. i. p. 145. et seq.; Jahn, Introductio ad Libros Veteris Fœderis, pp. 69-75.; and Wæhner's Antiquitates Ebræorum, tom. i. pp. 156-170. a Père Simon, Hist. Crit. du Vieux Test. liv. ii. c. viii. has censured Buxtorf's mode of pointing the Chaldee paraphrases with great severity; observing, that he would have done much better if he had more diligently examined manuscripts that were more correctly pointed. which abound in the latter Targums. Both the language and method of interpretation, however, are irregular: in the exposition of the former prophets, the text is more closely rendered than in that on the latter, which is less accurate, as well as more paraphrastical, and interspersed with some traditions and fabulous legends. In order to attach the greater authority to the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the Jews, not satisfied with making him contemporary with the prophets Malachi, Zachariah, and Haggai, and asserting that he received it from their lips, have related, that while Jonathan was composing his paraphrase, there was an earthquake for forty leagues around him; and that if any bird happened to pass over him, or a fly alighted on his paper while writing, they were immediately consumed by fire from heaven, without any injury being sustained either by his person or his paper!! The whole of this Targum was translated into Latin by Alfonzo de Zamora, Andrea de Leon, and Conrad Pellican; and the paraphrase on the twelve minor prophets, by Immanuel Tremellius. II. The second Targum, which is a more liberal paraphrase of the Pentateuch than the preceding, is usually called the TARGUM OF THE PSEUDO-JONATHAN, being ascribed by many to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, who wrote the much esteemed paraphrase on the prophets. But the difference in the style and diction of this Targum, which is very impure, as well as in the method of paraphrasing adopted in it, clearly proves that it could not have been written by Jonathan Ben Uzziel, who indeed sometimes indulges in allegories, and has introduced a few barbarisms; but this Targum on the law abounds with the most idle Jewish legends that can well be conceived: which, together with the barbarous and foreign words it contains, render it of very little utility. From its mentioning the six parts of the Talmud (on Exod. xxvi. 9.), which compilation was not written till two centuries after the birth of Christ;-Constantinople (on Num. xxiv. 19.), which city V. The TARGUM ON THE CETUBIM, HAGIOGRAPHA, or Holy was always called Byzantium until it received its name from Writings, is ascribed by some Jewish writers to Raf Jose, or Constantine the Great, in the beginning of the fourth cen- Rabbi Joseph, surnamed the one-eyed or blind, who is said tury; the Lombards (on Num. xxiv. 24.), whose first irrup- to have been at the head of the academy at Sora, in the third tion into Italy did not take place until the year 570; and the century; though others affirm that its author is unknown. Turks (on Gen. x. 2.), who did not become conspicuous till The style is barbarous, impure, and very unequal, interspersed the middle of the sixth century,-learned men are unani- with numerous digressions and legendary narratives: on mously of opinion that this Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan which account the younger Buxtorf, and after him Bauer could not have been written before the seventh, or even the and Jahn, are of opinion that the whole is a compilation of eighth century. It was probably compiled from older inter-later times; and this sentiment appears to be the most corpretations. This Chaldee paraphrase was translated into rect. Dr. Prideaux characterizes its language as the most Latin by Anthony Ralph de Chevalier, an eminent French corrupt Chaldee of the Jerusalem dialect. The translators of Protestant divine, in the sixteenth century. the preceding Targum, together with Arias Montanus, have given a Latin version of this Targum. III. The JERUSALEM TARGUM, which also paraphrases the five books of Moses, derives its name from the dialect in which it is composed. It is by no means a connected paraphrase, sometimes omitting whole verses, or even chapters; at other times explaining only a single word of a verse, of which it sometimes gives a twofold interpretation; and at others, Hebrew words are inserted without any explanation whatever. In many respects it corresponds with the paraphrase of the Pseudo-Jonathan, whose legendary tales are here frequently repeated, abridged, or expanded. From the impurity of its style, and the number of Greek, Latin, and Persian words which it contains, Bishop Walton, Carpzov, Wolfius, and many other eminent philologers, are of opinion, that it is a compilation by several authors, and consists of extracts and collections. From these internal evidences, the commencement of the seventh century has been assigned as its probable date; but it is more likely not to have been written before the eighth or perhaps the ninth century. This Targum was also translated into Latin by Chevalier and by Francis Taylor. VI. The TARGUM ON THE MEGILLOTH, or five books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ruth, and Esther, is evidently a compilation by several persons: the barbarism of its style, numerous digressions, and idle legends which are inserted, all concur to prove it to be of late date, and certainly not earlier than the sixth century. The paraphrase on the book of Ruth and the Lamentations of Jeremiah is the best executed portion: Ecclesiastes is more freely paraphrased; but the text of the Song of Solomon is absolutely lost amidst the diffuse circumscription of its author, and his dull glosses and fabulous additions. VII. VIII. IX. The THREE TARGUMS ON THE BOOK OF ESTHER.-This book has always been held in the highest estimation by the Jews; which circumstance induced them to translate it repeatedly into the Chaldee dialect. Three paraphrases on it have been printed: one in the Antwerp Polyglott, which is much shorter and contains fewer digres sions than the others; another in Bishop Walton's Polyglott, which is more diffuse, and comprises more numerous Jewish fables and traditions; and a third, of which a Latin version was published by Francis Taylor; and which, according to Carpzov, is more stupid and diffuse than either of the preceding. They are all three of very late date. X. A TARGUM ON THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES, which for a long time was unknown both to Jews and Christians, was discovered in the library at Erfurt, belonging to the ministers of the Augsburg confession, by Matthias Frederick Beck; who published it in 1680, 3, 4, in two quarto volumes. Another edition was published at Amsterdam by the learned David Wilkins (1715, 4to.), from a manuscript in the university library at Cambridge. It is more complete than Beck's edition, and supplies many of its deficiences. This Targum, however, is of very little value; like all the other Chaldee paraphrases, it blends legendary tales with the narrative, and introduces numerous Greek words, such as IV. The TARGUM OF JONATHAN BEN UZZIEL-According The fullest information, concerning the Targum of Onkelos, is to be XI. Of all the Chaldee paraphrases above noticed, the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel are most highly valued by the Jews, who implicitly receive their expositions of doubtful passages. Shickhard, Mayer, Helvicus, Leusden, Hottinger, and Dr. Prideaux, have conjectured that some Chaldee Targum was in use in the synagogue where our Lord read Isa. Ixi. 1, 2. (Luke iv. 17-19.); and that he quoted Psal. xxii. 1. when on the cross (Matt. xvii. 46.), not out of the Hebrew text, but out of a Chaldee paraphrase. But there does not appear to be sufficient ground for this hypothesis: for as the Chaldee or East Aramæan dialect was spoken at Jerusalem, it is at least as probable that Jesus Christ interpreted the Hebrew into the vernacular dialect in the first instance, as that he should have read from 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." 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.2 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.3 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. 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 not 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 executed so many distinct versions, all of which so exactly and uniformly agreed in sense, phrases, and words, as proved 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. 256-304.; Thomas, Introductio in Hermeneuticam Sacrum utriusque Testamenti, pp. 228–253. ; Harles, Brevior Notitia Litteraturæ Græcæ, pp. 638 643.; 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. ii. p. 20. et seq. 12 De Vita Mosis, lib. ii. 13 Cohort. ad Gentes. 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. It is not a little remarkable that the Samaritans have tradi- The five books of Moses, indeed, were the only books read in tions in favour of their version of the Pentateuc equally the synagogues until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, king extravagant with those preserved by the Jews. In the Sa- of Syria; who having forbidden that practice in Palestine, maritan Chronicle of Abul Phatach, which was compiled in the Jews evaded his commands by substituting for the Penthe fourteenth century from ancient and modern authors both tateuch the reading of the prophetic books. When, afterHebrew and Arabic, there is a story to the following effect:wards, the Jews were delivered from the tyranny of the kings That Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the tenth year of his reign, of Syria, they read the law and the prophets alternately in directed his attention to the difference subsisting between the their synagogues; and the same custom was adopted by the Samaritans and Jews concerning the law; the former receiving Hellenistic or Græcizing Jews. only the Pentateuch, and rejecting every other work ascribed to the prophets by the Jews. In order to determine this differ- version, their introduction of Coptic words, (such as up, axı, ence, he commanded the two nations to send deputies to pepar, &c.) as well as their rendering of ideas purely Hebrew Alexandria. The Jews intrusted this mission to Usar, the altogether in the Egyptian manner, clearly prove that they Samaritans to Aaron, to whom several other associates were were natives of Egypt. Thus they express the creation of added. Separate apartments, in a particular quarter of Alex- the world, not by the proper Greek word KTIZIZ, but by andria, were assigned to each of these strangers; who were TENEZIE, a term employed by the philosophers of Alexanprohibited from having any personal intercourse, and each of dria to express the origin of the universe. The Hebrew them had a Greek scribe to write his version. Thus were word Thummim (Exod. xxviii. 30.), which signifies perfecthe law and other Scriptures translated by the Samaritans; tions, they render AAHCEIA, truth. The difference of style whose version being most carefully examined, the king was also indicates the version to have been the work not of one convinced that their text was more complete than that of the but of several translators, and to have been executed at difJews. Such is the narrative of Abul Phatach, divested how-ferent times. The best qualified and most able among them ever 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 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 A fact, buried under such a mass of fables as the translation instances introduced the most suitable and best chosen exof 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 charac- tween the text of the Greek version and the text of the Samater, which indeed we are fully justified in disregarding alto-ritan Pentateuch, Louis de Dieu, Selden, Whiston, Hassengether. Although there is no doubt but that some truth is camp, and Bauer, are of opinion that the author of the Alexanconcealed under this load of fables, yet it is by no means an drian version made it from the Samaritan Pentateuch. And in 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 charac 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 ters.2 superintendence of Demetrius Phalereus; but was voluntarily undertaken by the Jews for the use of their countrymen. It is well known, that, at the period above noticed, there was a great multitude of Jews settled in Egypt, particularly at Alexandria: these, being most strictly observant of the religious institutions and usages of their forefathers, had their Sanhedrin, or grand council, composed of seventy or seventytwo members, and very numerous synagogues, in which the 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 of a single individual, previously to giving it the stamp of VOL. I. 2 L ༄ Next to the Pentateuch, for ability and fidelity of execu tion, ranks the translation of the book of Proverbs, the author of which was well skilled in the two languages: Michaelis is of opinion that, of all the books of the Septuagint, the style of the Proverbs is the best, the translators having clothed the most ingenious thoughts in as neat and elegant language as was ever used by a Pythagorean sage, to express his philosophic maxims.3 The translator of the book of Job 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, & poong opevov, Aanbev 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 Alexandrina Indole, Halis Saxonuni, 1830, 8vo. 3 Michaelis, Introd. to New Test. vol. i. p. 113. being acquainted with the Greek poets, his style is more 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; 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 1 Tentamen de variis Codicum Hebraicorum Vet. Test. MSS. Generibus Rostock, 1772, 8vo pp. 48-64. 81-124. 2 Published at Halle, in 1790, in 8vo. source of authentic text: insomuch that the comparative merit 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 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 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. "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.' 995 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 |