2. Cotijirmation hij Later Authorities. — (1.) Of Jewish writers, Josephus (.l?^^ xii, 2) agrees in the main with Aristeas; but Philo's account (7Je Vita Alosis, lib. ii) differs in a number of circumstances.
(2.) Among the Greek Church fathers Irenseus (lib. iii, c. 24) relates that Ptolemy Lagi, wishing to adorn his Alexandrian librar)- with the writings of all nations, requested from the Jews of Jerusalem a Greek version of their Scriptures; that they sent seventy' elders well skilled in the Scriptures and in later languages; that the king separated them from one another and bade them all translate the several books. When they came to- gether before Ptolemy and showed their versions, God was glorified, for they all agreed exactly, from beginning to end, in every phrase and word, so that all men may know that the IScriptures are translated by the iiisjnru- tion of God.
Justin Martyr (Cohort, ad Grcecos, p. 34) gives the same account, and adds that he was taken to see the cells in which the interpreters worked.
Epiphanius says that the translators were divided into pairs, in thirty-six cells, each pair being provided with two scribes; and that thirty-six versions agree- ing in everv point were produced, by the gift of the Holy Spirit {De Pond, et Mens. c. iii-vi).
(3.) Among the Latin fathers Augustine adheres to the inspiration of the translators — " Non autem secun- dum LXX intorpretes, qui etiam ipsi divino Spiritu in- terpretati, ob hoc aliter videntur nonnulla dixisse, ut ad spiritualem sensum scrutandum magis admoneretur lec- toris iutentio" (De Doctr. Christ, iv, 15).
But .lerome boldly throws aside the whole story of the cells and tlie inspiration — "Et nescio quis primus auctor Septuaginta cellulas Alexandria; mendacio suo extruxerit, quibus divisi eadem scriptitarcnt, cum Aris- taeus ejusdem Ptolemiei inripa<nTi(rTi)c, et multo post tempore Josephus, nihil tale retulerint: sed in una. ba- silica congregatos, contulisse scribant, non prophotasse. Aliud est enim vatem, aliud esse interpretem. Ibi Spir- itus Ventura priedicit; hie eruditio et verl)orum copia ea (pm- intelligit trausfert"' (I'nef. ad J'ent.).
3. Minlern Opinions (1.) Until the latter half of the
17th century tlie origin of the Sept. as given by Aris- teas was firmly believed; while the numerous additions that had been made to the original story in the i>rog-
ress of centuries were unhesitatingly received as equal- ly genuine. The story was first reckoned improbable by L. Vives (in a note to Augustine's J>e Civitate Dei) ; then Scaliger asserted that it was written by a Jew; and Richard Simon was too acute a critic not to per- ceive the truth of Scaliger's assertion. Hodj' was the first who demonstrated with great learning, skill, and discrimination that the narrative could not be authen- tic (De Bibl. Text. Orig. Vers. Grmc. et Lat. Vulg. [Ox- ford, 1705] lib. iv). It is now universally pronounced fabulous.
(2.) But the Pseudo-Aristeas had a basis of fact for his fiction ; on three points of his story there is no ma- terial difference of opinion, and they are confirmed by the study of the version itself: (</.) The version was made at Alexandria. (6.) It was begun in the time of the earlier Ptolemies, about B.C. 280. (c.) The law (i. e. the Pentateuch) alone was translated at first. It is also very possible that there is some truth in the statement that a copy was placed in the royal library. (The em- peror Akbar caused the New Test, to be translated into Persian.)
(3.) But bj' whom was the version made? As Hody justlj' remarks, "It is of little moment whether it was made at the command of the king or spontaneously by the Jews; but it is a question of great importance whether the Hebrew copy of the law and the interpret- ers (as Pseudo-Aristeas and his followers relate) were summoned from Jerusalem and sent by the high-priest to Alexandria." On this question no testimony can be so conclusive as the evidence of the version itself, which bears upon its face the marks of imperfect knowl- edge of Hebrew, and exhibits the forms and phrases of the Macedonic Greek prevalent in Alexandria, with a plentiful sprinkling of Egyptian words. The forms ■i'jXBocTav, Trafiei'tj-idXaaav, betray the fellow -citizens of L3'cophron, the Alexandrian poet, who closes his iam- bic line with Kcnro y/")e iaxdZocrav. Hody (II, iv) gives several examples of Egyjjfian renderings of names and coins and measures; among them the hippodrome of Alexandria for the Hebrew Cihi-ath (Gen. xlviii, 7), and the papyrus of the Nile for the rush of Job (viii, 11). The reader of the Sept. will readily agree with his conclusion, "Sive regis jussu, sive sponte a Judffiis, a Judajis Alexandrinis fuisse lactam." The question as to the moving cause which gave birth to tlie version is one which cannot be so decisively answered either by internal evidence or by historical testimony. The balance of probability must be struck between the tra- dition, so widely and permanently prevalent, of the king's intervention, and the simpler account suggested bj' the facts of history and the phenomena of the ver- sion itself. It is well known that after the Jews re- turned from the captivity of Babylon, having lost in great measure the familiar knowledge of the ancient Helirew, the readings from the books of Moses in the synagogues of Palestine were explained to them in the Chaldaic tongue in Targums or paraphrases; and the same was done with the books of the prophets when, at a later time, they also were read in the synagogues. The Jews of Alexandria had probably still less knowl- edge of Hebrew ; their familiar language was Alexan- drian Greek. They had settled in Alexandria in large numbers soon after the time of Alexander and under the earlier Ptolemies. They would naturally follow the same practice as their brethren in Palestine; the law first, and afterwards the projihets, would be explained in Greek, and from this practice would arise in time an entire Greek version. All the phenomena of the ver- sion seem to confirm this view; the Pentateuch is the best part of the version ; the other books are more de- fective, betraying ]iroliably the increasing degeneracy of the Hebrew jMSS. and the decay of Hebrew learning with the lapse of time.