members in the Sanhedrim. This conjecture is, in some measure, confirmed by the statement of the Talmud, that five Jews were appointed to collect the Arulobulus fragmentary versions of the Law into one whole, to revise and complete the work." This was, perhaps, begun under Ptolemy Soter, and completed under Philadelphus.]

On the authority of some ancient writers, of Clement, Irenæus, and Eusebius, who date this version from the time of Ptolemy Soter,-Hody places it in the joint administration of Ptolemy Soter and Philadelphus, about 286 or 285 B. C.C

The opinion that there was an earlier fragmentary version, -made for the use of the synagogues, which

a

[Tract. Sopherim. i. § 7, cited in Bertholdt, § 157. Buddeus, Isagoge, p. 1321.]

b [See Eichhorn, § 163. Bertholdt, § 157.] Eichhorn, Jahn, Bertholdt, and Hävernik build too much on the account in Plutarch's Apothegms: Δημήτριος ὁ Φαληρεὺς Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ παρῄνει τὰ περὶ βασιλείας καὶ ἡγεμονίας βιβλία κτᾶσθαι καὶ ἀναγινώσκειν· ἃ γὰρ οἱ φίλοι τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν οὐ θαῤῥοῦσι παραινεῖν, ταῦτα ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις γέγραπται. Hug, De Pentat. Vers. Alex. 1818, 4to., relies mainly on the passage in Ælian, iii. 17: Δημήτριος ...... ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ συνὼν τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ νομοθεσίας ήρξε. Hody, 1. c. ii. 3, p. 97, is still more rigid, and denies that Demetrius has any claim to a share in producing this version. His decision has the more weight when we consider how little the Greeks knew of the Law of Moses. No conjecture like that of Eichhorn above can rest on the number seventytwo, for it was a common sacred number. Hody, 1. c. p. 123. Hottinger, 1. c. p. 290. Besides, the existence of a Sanhedrim in Egypt is doubtful. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Acts ix. [But he merely suggests a doubt without offering reasons for his opinion.] Attempts have sometimes been made to unite all these views. See Leusden, Philol. Heb. mixt. c. 15. R. Simon, Disquis. crit. ch. 15. Bertholdt, p. 525, sqq. Carpzov, Crit. sac. p. 491.

Hody, p. 97. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 341. Irenæus, Hæres. iii. 25. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 8. Hody's conclusion rests on different grounds from that of Bertholdt, (p. 524,) who follows Gerhard Voss, and attempts to unite the story of Aristeas with that of Hermippus in Diogenes Laertius. See Hody, p. 570, and Valckenaer, 1. c. p. 64. He thinks the claim of Aristobulus is an empty rhodomontade.

lay at the basis of the new version, is highly probable. [According to the story of Aristobulus, there was a Greek version of the Pentateuch before the time of the Persians. One writer thinks it was made in the time of Amasis, contemporary with Solon; another declares it is older than Homer and Hesiod; "for they drew from the Jewish Scriptures." Aristobulus, however, as well as later writers, had a special interest in proving the Greek philosophers were indebted to the Jews for all their divine wisdom, and therefore invents the fable." But this original version was unknown to Josephus, Philo, or even Aristeas. Walton cites the authorities' who believe in the earlier version. But most of them rely chiefly on the authority of Aristobulus, or adopt this opinion to account for the "divine wisdom" of the Greeks. Walton himself thinks the Seventy made the earliest version; but still there is good reason to believe in the existence of a previous fragmentary translation.

There is a fabulous story in Abul Phatach's Samaritan Chronicle respecting the Alexandrian version, as follows: "In the tenth year of his reign, Ptolemy Philadelphus directed his attention to the contradictions between the Samaritans and the Jews respecting the Law;

[It is not necessary to show, at this day, that the philosophers borrowed nothing from the writings of the Jews, though the old claim is now and then made by the ignorant. Augustine, Civitat. Dei, viii. 11, says that Plato, in his journey to Egypt, could not have seen Jeremiah, as some pretended, for he had been dead a long time; neither could he have read the Scriptures, for they were not translated into Greek. However, he thinks Plato may have learned something from conversing with the Jews, and Origen (cont. Cels. lib. vi.) is of the same opinion. See Justin Martyr, Cohort. ad Græcos, ch. 30, 29, 22. Apol. i. p. 70, a, p. 78, a, &c. Josephus, cont. Ap. 2. Compare Augustine, De Doctrina Christ. ii. 28, with Retract. ii. 4. See the numerous passages of the Fathers that derive the Greek wisdom from the Hebrews, collected in Fabricius, Bib. Græca, ed. Harles, vol. iii. p. 148, sqq.] b [Prolegg. lib. ix. c. 6.]

for the Samaritans refused to receive any of the pretended writings of the prophets, except the Law. To inform himself on this point, the king sent for the Jews and the Samaritans, and desired to hear the elders of both parties in this controversy. Osar came to Alexandria on the part of the Jews, Aaron on that of the Samaritans, each attended with several assistants. Quarters were assigned them, with directions to remain separate from one another; a Greek servant was appointed to each person, to write down the expected translation. In this way the Samaritans translated the Law and the other books. Ptolemy examined it, and

was satisfied that the Law, as the Samaritans possessed it, contained matter not to be found in the Jewish copy, and that their text was purer than that of the Jews." The Samaritans say the world was darkened for three days after the version was made.]"

§ 41.

ALEXANDRIAN VERSION CONTINUED.

It is probable in itself that this version was not made all at once, and by the same hand. The suspicion of different authors and times is confirmed by tradition, and by the unequal character of the version itself."

[See the account of this work in Paulus's New Rep. vol. ii. p. 117, sqq., and Eichhorn, Allg. Bib. vol. iii. p. 312, sqq.] On the origin of the Samaritan Alexandrian version, see Carpzov, 1. c. p. 483, sqq. Le Long, Bibliotheca, ed. Masch, pt. ii. p. 216. Fabricius, Bib. Græca, ed. Harles, vol. iii. p 658, sqq. Semler, Vorbereit. zur Hermeneut. vol. ii. p. 317. Mücke, De orig. Vers. septuagintaviralis; Züllich, 1789. Mori Acroases super Hermeneut. N. T. ed. Eichstädt, vol. ii. p. 50, sqq.

All the moderns after Hody are of this opinion. Valckenaer takes the other side, and relies on Josephus, Antiq. Proëm. § 3. See Amersfoordt, L c. p. 17.

The Pentateuch was first translated," and from time to time the other books of the Old Testament. But the date of the translation of particular books cannot be determined."

[It is plain this version was made at different times, and by several hands. Eichhorn thinks the book of Joshua was not translated earlier than 277 B. C., from the circumstance that a Gallic word (ratoós) occurs in Josh. viii. 18, and the Gauls did not make their irruption into Greece and Asia till the above date. From the use of the word in the Roman writers, its Gallic descent is apparent. After the defeat of Brennus, the Gauls were scattered in various directions; Ptolemy Philadelphus had a large body of them in his service, and thus the word may easily have become prevalent at Alexandria in his time. The book of Esther seems to have been translated in the reign of Philometer. Job was not translated by the same writer as the other books; for the epilogue informs us, "It is translated out of the Syriac," that is, the Hebrew. The diversity of authors

Valckenaer, p. 61, in explaining the words of Aristobulus, tôv dia Tov róuov zúrior, as referring to the whole of the O. T., may be nearer the truth than Hody, p. 168, who limits them to the Pentateuch. See A. L. Z. 1816, No. 3, p. 18.

See Usserius, De LXX. Interprett. p. 22. Hody, p. 178. Eichhorn, § 164. On the other side, Jahn, vol. i. p. 153. The epilogue to the book of Esther says nothing of the time of the translation, and as little of its delivery to the king, as Eichhorn supposes, 1. c. See Valckenaer, p. 63. Michaelis, Or. Bib. vol. iv. p. 30. And Bertholdt, Daniel, vol. i. p. 142, says, Daniel was first translated after the birth of Christ; but he gives no satisfactory proof.

[See this whole subject treated with a profusion of learning by Hody, L. c. p. 178, sqq.]

[See above, § 40, and the LXX. version of Esther, ch. x. 43—47.] [However, the epilogue itself is in part modern; at least one clause of it comes from a Christian hand; for, ver. 18, it reads, "And it is written that he (Job) shall rise again with those whom the Lord shall raise."]

appears from the different character of different parts of this version, and from the various expressions by which the same Hebrew word is translated in different places.]"

All we can determine with any certainty is this, that the whole, or the greater part of the Old Testament, was extant in the Greek language in the time of Jesus the Son of Sirach. [Sirach presupposes that "the Law and the Prophets, and the rest of the books," were already extant in his time; that is, in the 38th year, which is probably the 38th year of Evergetes II.,' about 130 B. C.]

§ 42.

CHARACTER OF THE ALEXANDRIAN VERSION.

The Egyptian origin of this version is proved by the use of expressions peculiar to Egypt, and by its departure from the accuracy of the Palestine Jews in criti

[The following are instances:- Names of persons, &c.: abp is rendered quotɛlu, in the Pentateuch and Joshua, but in all other places, &λλόφυλοι: Θεκο, Αναθωθι, &c. in Chronicles ; in Samuel, Θεκωίτης, Αναθω Olins, &c.: Pau in Job is Agau in Ruth and Chronicles: Adwvía, 1 Chronicles; Ogula, 2 Samuel; Adavla, Nehemiah; Adovias, 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles: Βηρσαβεέ is φρέας τοῦ ὅρκου. — Animals and plants: 120, Ερωδιος in Leviticus, πέλεκαν in Deuteronomy, έποψ in Zachariah: is rendered τερέβινθος, δοῦς, δένδρον σύσκιον, &c.: μην is rendered xvлαolσσos in Job, in Ezekiel, sometimes xidoos and sometimes κυπαρίσσος, while in the other books it is always κέδρος. Other words: 7, Silos in Exodus and Leviticus, do in Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Samuel, and qorizovτes in Ezra. Psalm xviii. occurs in 2 Samuel xxii., but the two have been translated by different hands. Genesis and Exodus did not proceed from the same pen with Deuteronomy. Perhaps some of these errors are the result of inaccurate transcription, but certainly not all. See a full account of the different renderings in the LXX. in Hody, ubi sup. p. 203—216.]

b Usher, l. c. p. 1. Hody, l. c. p. 192, sqq. Eichhorn, Einleit. in d. Apokryphen, p. 40, sqq.