(4.) Nevertheless, the opinion that the Pentateuch was translated a considerable time before the pro|i]iets is not warranted by the language of Justin, Clement of
SEPTUAGINT
541
SEPTUAGINT
Alexandria, Tcrtullian, Epiphanius, and Hilarj' of Poi- tiers; although we are aware that Aristeas, Joscplius, Philo, the Taliniidists, and Jerome mention the law only as having been interpreted b}' the seventy-two. Hod}' thinks that the Jews tirst resorted to the reading of the prophets in their synagogues when Antiochus Epipha- nes forbade the use of the law, and therefore that the prophetic portion was not translated till after the com- mencement of Philometor's reign. It is wholly im- probable, however, that Antiochus interdicted the Jews merely from reading the Pentateuch (comp. 1 Mace. i, 41, etc. ; and Josephus, .-1 nt. xii, 5 ; Frankel, p. 48, 49). The interval between the translating of the law and the prophets, of which many speak, was probably very short. Hody's proof that the book of Joshua was not translated till upwards of twenty years after the death of Ptolemy Lagi, founded upon the word yaiaoQ, is per- fectly nugatory, although the time assigned cannot be far from the truth. The epilogue to tlie book of Es- ther does not. state that this part of the Old Test, was translated under Ptolemy Pliilometor or that it was ded- icated to him. On the contrary it refers to a certain epistle containing apocryphal adtiitions to the canoni- cal book of Esther (Valckenaer, p. 33, 63). It is a fruit- less task to attempt to ascertain the precise times at which separate portions of the version were made. All that can be kntiwn with any degree of pr()bal)ility is that it was begun under Lagi and finished before the thirty-eighth year of Ptolemv Physcon.
It is obvious from internal evidence that there were several translators, but certaiidj' not seventy-two. Hody has endeavored to parcel out their version into small portions, assigning each part to a separate person, and affirming that they were put togetlier in one cento with- out revision ; but his notions of rigid uniformity in the translators are such as exclude perspicuity, freedom, variety, and elegance. There is no ground for believ- ing that the Pentateuch proceeded from more than one interpreter, who was unquestionably the most skilfid of all. The entire work was made by five or six individ- uals at least, and must, consequently, be of unequal val- ue. Comp. Amersfoordt, De Variis Lectio, llulmes. hoc. quorum}. Pent. Mos. (Lugd. 1815); Thiersch, De Pent. Vers. AL Libri III (Erlang. 1841); Frankel, Ueber d. Einjiuss d. palest. Exeg. auf d. alex. Uermen, (Leips. 1851) ; Kosenmiiller, op. cit. p. 435 sq.
(5.) In opposition to the Pseudo-Aristeas, we cannot but maintain that the translators were Aleaandrian, not Palestinian, Jews. The internal character of the en- tire version, particularly of the Pentateuch, sufficiently attests the fact. We find, accordingly, that proper names and terms peculiar to Egypt are rendered in such a manner as must have been unintelligible to a Greek -speaking population other than the Egyptian Jews. That the translators were Egyptians has been proved, to the satisfaction of all, by Hody ; although some of his examples are not appropriate or conclusive. Frankel supposes that the version was made not only at different times, but at different places. This is quite arbitrary. There is no reason for believing with him that different books originated after this fashion, the impidse having gone forth from Alexandria and spread- ing to localities where the Jews had settled, especially Cyrene, Leontopolis, and even Asia Minor.
(6.) The division into verses and chapters is much later than the age of the translators. Our present editions have been printed in conformity with the division into chapters made in the 12th century, though they are not uniform in this particular. Stili, however, many MSS. have separations in the text. The Alexandrine Codex is said by Grabe to have 140 divisions, or, as they may be called, chapters, in the book of Numbers alone {Prol- egomena, c. 1, § 7).
The titles given to the books, such as TkvtaiQ, etc., could hardly have been affixed by the translators, since often they do not harmonize with the version of the book itself to which they belong.
II. Textu(d Basis nf the Version.— 1. It has been in- quired whether tlie translator of the Pentateuch fol- lowed a Hebrew or a Samaritan codex. Tlic Sejit. and Samaritan harmonize in more than a thousand places, where they differ from the Hebrew. Hence it has been supposed that the Samaritan edition was the basis of the version. Various considerations have been adduced in favor of this opinion ; and the names of De Dieu, Selden, Whiston, Hottinger, Hassencamp, and Eichhorn are enlisted on its behalf^. But the irrecon- cilable enmity subsisting between the Jews and the Samaritans, both in Egypt and Palestine, effectually militates against it. Besides, in the prophets and Ha- giographa, the number of variations from the Masoretic text is even greater and more remarkable than those in the Pentateuch ; whereas the Samaritan extends no fur- ther than the Mosaic books. No solution, therefore, can be satisfactory which will not serve to explain at once the cause or causes both of the differences between the Seventy and the Hebrew in the Pentateuch, and those found in the remaining books. The problem can be fully solved only by such a hypothesis as will throw light on the remarkable form of the Sept. in Jere- miah and Esther, where it deviates most from the Mas- oretic MSS., presenting such transpositions and inter- polations as excite the surprise of the most sujjerficial reader. The above solution of the question must be rejected not only for the reasons assigned, but also for the following. (1.) It must be taken into account that if the discrepancies of the Samaritan and Jewish copies be estimated numerically, the Sept. will be found to agreey«/' more frequently with the latter than the for- mer. (2.) In the cases of considerable and marked pas- sages occurring in the Samaritan which are not in the Jewish, the Sept. docs not contain them. (3.) In the passages in which slight variations are fouiul, both in the Samaritan and Sept., from the Jewish text, they often differ among themselves, and the amplification of the Sept. is less than that of the Samaritan. (4.) Some of the small amplifications in which tlie Samaritan seems to accord with the Sept. are in such incorrect and non- idiomatic Hebrew that it is suggested that these must be translations, and, if so, probably from the Sept. (5.) The amplifications of the Sept. and Samaritan often resemble each other greatly in character, as if similar false criticism had been applied to the text in each case. But as, in spite of all similarities such as these, the Pentateuch of the Se)it. is more Jewish than Samaritan, we need not adopt the notion of translation from a Samaritan codex, which would involve the sub- ject in greater difficulties, and leave more points to be explained. (On some of the supposed agreements of the Sept. with the Samaritan, see bishop Fitzgerald in Kitfo's Journal oj' Sacred Literature, Oct. 1848, p. 324- 332.)