Some suppose that the one was interpolated from the other — a conjecture not at all probable. Jahn and Bauer imagine that the Hebrew ]\IS. used by tlie P^gyptian Jews agreed much more closely with the Samaritan in the text and forms of its letters than the present Maso- retic copies. This hypothesis, however, even if it were otherwise correct, would not account for the great har- mony existing between tlie Samaritan and Sii)t.
Another hypothesis has been put forth by (icscnius (Commentatio de Pent. ISumur. Orig. Indole, el A uctor.), viz. that both the Samaritan and Sept. flowed from a common recension (t/cf^orrif) <'f the Hebrew Scriptures, one older than either, and different in many places from the recension of the Jlasoretes w>\v in common use. "This supposition," says Prof. Stuart, by whom it is adopted, "will account for tlie differences and for the agreements of the Sept. and Samaritan." The follow- ing objections have been maile to this ingenious and plansiljle hypothesis, (a.) It assumes that before the whole of the Old Test, was written there had been a re- cension or revision of several books. But there is no record or tradition in favor of the idea that inspired
SEPTUAGINT
542
SEPTUAGINT
men applied a correcting hand in this manner till the close of the canon. To say that others did so is not in unison with right notions of the inspiration of Scripture, unless it be equally affirmed that they corrupted, under the idea of correcting, the holy books, (b.) This hypoth- esis implies that a recension took place at a period com- paratively early, before any books had been written ex- cept the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and the writings of David and Solomon. If it be improbable that a revised edition was made before the completion of the canon, it is much more improbable that it was undertaken when few books were written, {c.) It supposes that an older recension was still current after Ezra had revised the whole collection and closed the canon. In making the Sept. version, it is very improbable that the Jews, who were the translators, followed a recension far infe- rior in their estimation to the copy of the sacred books corrected by Ezra. This objection rests on the assump- tion that Ezra completed the canon of the Old Test., having been prompted, as well as inspired, to arrange and revise the books of Scripture. Such is the .Jewish tradition ; and although a majority of the German crit- ics disallow its truth, yet it is held by very able and ac- complished men.
Prof Lee {Prolegomena to Bagsfer^s Polyglot') ac- counts for the agreement between the Sept, and Samar- itan in another way. He conjectures that the early Christians interspersed their copies with Samaritan glosses, which ignorant transcribers afterwards inserted in the text. But he has not shown that Christians in general were acquainted with the Samaritan Pentateuch and its additions to the Hebrew copy ; neither has he taken into account the reverence entertained by the early Christians for the sacred books. We cannot, there- fore, attribute the least probability to this hypothesis.
Another hypothesis has been mentioned by Frankel, viz. that the Sept. flowed from a Chaldee version, which was used before and after the time of Ezra — a version inexact and paraphrastic, which had undergone many alterations and corruptions. This was first proposed by K. Asaria di Rossi, in the midst of other conjectures. Frankel admits that the assumption of such a version is superfluous, except in relation to the Samaritan Penta- teuch, where much is gained by it. This Chaldee ver- sion circulated in various transcripts here and there; and as the same care was not applied in preserving its integrity as was exercised with respect to the original Hebrew, the copies of it presented considerable differ- ences among themselves. Both the Greek version and the Samaritan Pentateuch were taken from it, Fran- kel concedes that this hypothesis is not satisfactory with regard to the Sept., because the mistakes found in that version must have frequently originated in misunder- standing the Hebrew text. There is no evidence, how- ever, that any Targum or Chaldee version had been made before Ezra's time, or soon after. Explanations of the lessons publicly read by the Jews were given in Chaldee, not regularly perhaps, or iniiformly; but it can scarcely be assumed that a Chaldee version had been made out in writing, and circulated in difl^irent copies. Glosses, or short expositions of words and sen- tences, were furnished by the public readers for the ben- efit of the people; and it is by no means improbable that several of these traditional comments wore incor- porated with the version by the Jewish translators, to whom they were familiar.
In short, no hypothesis yet proposed commends itself to general reception, altliough the Vorxtudien of Fraidtel have probaljly opened up the way towards a correct so- lution. The great source from which the striking pe- culiarities in the Sept, and the Samaritan Howed appears to us to have been early traditional inter|)retations cur- rent among the Jews, ttirgiims, or paraph ntsex — not written, perhaps, but orally circulated. Such glossarial versions, which must have circulated chiefly in Pales- tine, require to be traced back to an early epoch — to the period of the second Temple. They existed, in substance
at least, in ancient times, at once indicating and modi- fying the Jewish mode of interpretation. The Alexan- drian mode of interpretation stood in close connection with the Palestinian ; for the Jews of Egypt looked upon Jerusalem as their chief city, and the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem as their ecclesiastical rulers. If, therefore, we can ascertain the traditional paraphrases of the one. those of the other must have been substantiallv the same (see Gieseler's Eccles. Hist., transl. b}' Cunning- ham, i, 30).