The Septuagint is that which must bear the weight of the whole. And good reason there is, indeed, that it should answer for the most of the rest, they being evidently taken out of it, and so they are often- times worse; yet they are now better than that is. But here again all things are exceedingly uncertain ; nothing almost is manifest con- cerning it but that it is wofully corrupt. Its rise is uncertain. Some call the whole story of that translation into question as though there had never been any such persons in rerum natura. The circumstances that are reported about them and their works are certainly fabulous. That they should be sent for upon the advice of Demetrius Phalereus, who was dead before, that they should be put into seventy-two cells or private chambers, that there should be twelve of each tribe fit for that work, are all of them incredible.^ See Seal, ad Euseb. fol. 123; Wouwer Syntag. cap. xi.
Some of the Jews say that they made the translation out of a corrupt Chaldee paraphrase; and to me this seems not unlikely. Josephus, Austin, Philo, Jerome, Zonaras, affirm that they trans- lated the Law or Pentateuch only. Josephus affirms this expressly : Ovbs yap, saith he, •rracsav ixuvog i(p67] KaQiTv tyjv avaypafriv, dXX' aura /jt^ova TO, rou v6/icou vapsdoaav o'l '!rs/j.<p6'-vTig s-tti rriv s^rjyriaiVj Prooem. ad An- tiquit. And this is a received opinion; whence we have the rest is unknown. Take to this purpose the ensuing chapter out of Drusius, Observat. lib. vi. cap. ix. : —
" Vulgatam translationem Grsecam non esse LXX. interpretum, contra, quam olim existimatum fuit.
" Translatio ea quse vulgo apud Grcecos habetur, quin LXX. inter- pretum non sit, nemini hodie dubium esse arbitror nam si nihil aliud, innumeri in ea loci sunt, qui arguunt magnam imperitiam sermonis Ebraici; sed et negligentiam singularem in legendo, et oscitantiam tantis viris indignam qui in ea editione non videt, nihil videt; etsi Eusebius, Hieronymus passim in monumentis suis eam Septuaginta interpretibus attribuere videtur. Nos quoque cum aliquid inde pro- ferimus usitato magis quam vero nomine utimur, exemplo videlicet Hieronymi, quem suspicamur, licet crederet interpretationem eam a viris illis elaboratam minime fuisse, ne offenderet Grsecos voluisse
1 On this point the good sense of Owen had fairly the better of the learning of Wal- ton, who believed and defended the whole fable of Aristeas in regard to the origin of the Septuagint: see Proleg. ix. 18, — Ed,
OF LECTIONS GATHERED OUT OF TRANSLATIONS. 41 7
tamen recepto nomine semper appellare. Certe quin dubitaverit super iisdem authoribus, nihil dubitamus, nam vel hoc nos in ea opinione confirmat, quod scribit Josephum, omnemque adeo scholam Judaeorum quinque tantum libros Mosis a Septuaginta interpretibus translates esse asserere, scribit autem hoc non semel, sed ssepius, ut Ezech. V. pag. 843, et pag. 301 et 372 et Mich. ii. pag. 150. Li- bris Antwerpise vulgatis."
Let it be granted that such a translation was made, and that of the whole Bible, by some Alexandrian Jews, as is most probable, yet it is certain that the avT(iypa(pov of it, if left in the library of Alex- andria, was consumed to ashes in Caesar's wars ; though Chrysostoni tells us that the Prophets were placed in the temple of Serapis : Mi^P' vvv spisT raiv '7rpo(pyiro^v a'l spfMrjvsuduffai (SiQXoi fihoxjeiv, Ad Judaeos; "and they abide there," saith he, " unto this day." How unlikely this is any man may guess, by what Jerome, who made another manner of inquiry after those things than Chrysostoni, affirms con- cerning the incurable various copies of that translation wanting an umpire of their differences. We know also what little exactness men in those days, before the use of grammar, attained in the know- ledge of languages in their relation to one another: and some learned men do much- question even the skill of those interpreters. So Munster. Prsefat. ad Biblia, " Videbat Hieronymus vir pius et doctus, Latinos vera et genuina legis atque prophetarum destitutes lectione, nam LXX. interpretum editio, quae tunc ubique locorum receptis- sima erat apud Graecos et Latinos nedum perperam plerisque in locis versa fuit, verum per scriptores atque scribas plurimum corrupta, id quod et hodie facile patet conferenti editionem illam juxta Hebrai- cam veritatem, ut interim fatear illos non adraodum peritos fuisse linguae Hebraicae id vel quod inviti cogimur fateri, alioquin in plu- rimis locis non tarn foede lapsi fuissent."
If, moreover, the ability be granted, what security have we of their principles and honesty ? Cardinal Ximenes, in his preface to the edition of the Complutensian Bibles, tells us (that which is most true, if the translation we have be theirs) that on sundry accounts they took liberty in translating according to their own mind; and thence concludes, " Unde translatio Septuaginta duum, quandoque est superflua quandoque dimiuuta;" — "it is sometimes superfluous, sometimes wanting." But suppose all these uncertainties might be overlooked, yet the intolerable corruptions that (as is on all hands confessed) have crept into the translation make it altogether useless as to the end we are inquiring after. This Jerome in his Epistle to Chromatins at large declares, and shows from thence the necessity of a new translation. Yea, Bellarmine himself says, that though he believes the translation of the LXX. to be still extant, yet it is so
VOL. XVL 27
418 INTEGRITY AND PURITY OF THE HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT.