__________________________________________________________________ Title: An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Additional Notes. Creator(s): Swete, Henry Barclay (1835-1917) (author) Rights: Public Domain CCEL Subjects: All; Bibles; Reference; Proofed; LC Call no: BS738.S8 LC Subjects: The Bible Old Testament Early Versions __________________________________________________________________ AN INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT IN GREEK BY HENRY BARCLAY SWETE D.D., F.B.A. REVISED BY RICHARD RUSDEN OTTLEY, M.A. WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS EDITED BY H. ST J. THACKERAY, M.A. HENDRICKSON PUBLISHERS PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01961-3473 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT IN GREEK Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. edition ISBN: 0-943575-21-4 reprinted from the edition originally published by Cambridge University Press, 1914 First printing - January 1989 Printed in the United States of America IN PIAM MEMORIAM EBERHARDI NESTLE PH. ET TH. D. VIRI, ST QVIS ALIVS, DE HIS STUDIIS OPTIME MERITI HVIVS OPERIS ADIVTORIS HVMANISSIMI . __________________________________________________________________ PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. WHEN some two years ago it became clear that a reprint of this Introduction would shortly be required, the Syndics of the Press at my request put the revision, which I was unable to undertake, into the hands of a scholar already known to students of the Greek Old Testament by his Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint. Mr Ottley, while leaving intact the form and even the pagination of the Introduction, has made every endeavour to bring the contents up to the present state of knowledge. This has been done partly by a careful revision of the text and the occasional rewriting of a paragraph, partly by writing new footnotes and a large number of valuable additional notes, and by expanding the bibliographical lists that follow each chapter, which after the lapse of so many years were necessarily defective. I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude to Mr Ottley for the unremitting labour which he has expended on my book, and I am confident that future readers will share my sense of obligation. I venture to hope that, thus revised, the Introduction may continue for some years to be of service to those who are entering on the study of the Greek Old Testament. H. B. S. Cambridge, May 11, 1914. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. THIS book is an endeavour to supply a want which has been felt by many readers of the Greek Old Testament. The literature of the subject is enormous, and its chief points have been compendiously treated in Biblical Dictionaries and similar publications. But hitherto no manual has placed within the student's reach all the information which he requires in the way of general introduction to the Greek versions. A first attempt is necessarily beset with uncertainties. Experience only can shew whether the help here provided is precisely such as the student needs, and whether the right proportion has been preserved in dealing with the successive divisions of the subject. But it is hoped that the present work may, at least meet the immediate wants of those who use The Old Testament in Greek, and serve as a forerunner to larger and more adequate treatises upon the same subject. Such as it is, this volume owes more than I can say to the kindness of friends, among whom may especially be mentioned Principal Bebb, of St David's College, Lampeter, and Grinfield Lecturer at Oxford; Mr Brooke and Mr McLean, editors of the Larger Cambridge Septuagint; Mr Forbes Robinson, and Dr W. E. Barnes. But my acknowledgements are principally due to Professor Eberhard Nestle, of Maulbronn, who has added to the obligations under which he had previously laid me by reading the whole of this Introduction in proof, and suggesting many corrections and additions. While Dr Nestle is not to be held responsible for the final form in which the book appears, the reader will owe to him in great measure such freedom from error or fulness in the minuter details as it may possess. Mr Thackeray's work in the Appendix speaks for itself. Both the prolegomena to Aristeas and the text of the letter are wholly due to his generous labours, and they will form a welcome gift to students of the Septuagint and of Hellenistic Greek. Free use has been made of all published works dealing with the various branches of learning which fall within the range of the subject. While direct quotations have been acknowledged where they occur, it has not been thought desirable to load the margin with references to all the sources from which information has been obtained. But the student will generally be able to discover these for himself from the bibliography which is appended to almost every chapter. In dismissing my work I desire to tender my sincere thanks to the readers and workmen of the Cambridge University Press, whose unremitting attention has brought the production of the book to a successful end. H. B. S. Cambridge, September 1, 1900. CONTENTS PART I. THE HISTORY OF THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT AND OF ITS TRANSMISSION pages CHAPTER I. The Alexandrian Greek Version. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1--28 CHAPTER II. Later Greek Versions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29--58 CHAPTER III. The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions of the Septuagint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59--86 CHAPTER IV. Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86--121 CHAPTER V. Manuscripts of the Septuagint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122--170 CHAPTER VI. Printed Texts of the Septuagint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171--194 PART II. THE CONTENTS OF THE ALEXANDRIAN OLD TESTAMENT pages CHAPTER I. Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of the Books. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197--230 CHAPTER II. Books of the Hebrew Canon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231--264 CHAPTER III. Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265--288 CHAPTER IV. The Greek of the Septuagint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289--314 CHAPTER V. The Septuagint as a Version. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315--341 CHAPTER VI. Text divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, Catenae, &c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342--366 PART III. LITERARY USE, VALUE, AND TEXTUAL CONDITION OF THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT pages CHAPTER I. Literary use of the Septuagint by non-Christian Hellenists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369--380 CHAPTER II. Quotations from the Septuagint in the New Testament. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381--405 CHAPTER III. Quotations from the Septuagint in early Christian writings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406--432 CHAPTER IV. The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433--461 CHAPTER V. Influence of the Septuagint on Christian Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462--477 CHAPTER VI. Textual condition of the Septugint, and problems arising out of it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478--497 ADDITION NOTES. pp. 498--530. APPENDIX The Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas. pages The Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533--550 Text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551--606 INDICES. i. Index of Biblical references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609--616 ii. Index of Subject-matter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617--626 __________________________________________________________________ PART I. THE HISTORY OF THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT AND OF ITS TRANSMISSION. PART I. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER I. THE ALEXANDRIAN GREEK VERSION. 1. A Greek version of any portion of the Old Testament presupposes intercourse between Israel and a Greek-speaking people. So long as the Hebrew race maintained its isolation, no occasion arose for the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into a foreign tongue. As far as regards the countries west of Palestine, this isolation continued until the age of Alexander [1] ; it is therefore improbable that any Greek version of the Scriptures existed there before that era. Among the Alexandrian Jews of the second century before Christ there was a vague belief that Plato and other Greek philosophical writers were indebted for some of their teaching to a source of this kind [2] . Thus Aristobulus (ap. Clem. Al. strom. i. 22; cf. Eus, praep. ev. xiii. 12) writes: katekoloutheke de kai ho Platon te kath' emas nomothesia, kai phaneros esti periergasamenos hekasta ton en aute legomenon. diermeneutai de pro Demetriou huph' heterou [3] , pro tes Alexandrou kai Person epikrateseos, ta te kata ten ex Aiguptou exagogen ton Ebraion ton emeteron politon kai he ton gegonoton hapanton autois epiphaneia kai kratesis tes choras kai tes holes nomothesias epexegesis--words which seem to imply the existence before B.C. 400 of a translation which included at least the Books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. A similar claim has been found in the statement attributed by Pseudo-Aristeas to Demetrius of Phalerum: tou nomou ton Ioudaion biblia. . .ouch hos huparchei sesemantai, kathos hupo ton eidoton prosanapheretai [4] . But no fragments of these early translations have been produced, and it is more than probable that the story arose out of a desire on the part of the Hellenistic Jews to find a Hebrew origin for the best products of Greek thought [5] . 2. The earliest and most important of the extant Greek versions of the Old Testament was an offspring of the 'Greek Dispersion' (he diaspora ton Hellenon, Jo. vii. 35), which began with the conquests of Alexander the Great [6] . The Hebrew Prophets foresaw that it was the destiny of their race to be scattered over the face of the world (Deut. xxviii. 25, xxx. 4, Jer. xv. 4, xxxiv. 17). The word diaspora (O.L. dispersio) employed by the Greek translators in these and similar passages (Cf. 2 Esdr. xi. 9, Ps. cxxxviii. (cxxxix.) tit. (codd. A^a T), cxlvi. (cxlvii.) 2, Judith v. 19, Isa. xlix. 6, Jer. xiii. 14 (cod. #*), Dan. xii. 2 (LXX.), 2 Macc. i. 27) became the technical Greek term for Jewish communities in foreign lands, whether planted there by forcible deportation, or by their own free agency (Jo. vii. 35, Jas. i. 1, 1 Pet. i. 1) [7] . Such settlements were at first compulsory, and limited to countries east of Palestine. Between the eighth and sixth centuries B.C. the bulk of the population of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms was swept away by Assyrian and Babylonian conquerors (2 Kings xvii. 6, xxiv. 14 ff., xxv. 11 f., 21 f.). A part of the Babylonian captivity returned (Ezra i, ii.), but Babylonia and Mesopotamia continued to be the home of a large body of Jewish settlers (Tob. i. 14 ff., 4 Esdr. xiii. 39 ff., Philo ad Cai. 36, Acts ii. 9, Joseph. Ant. xi. 5. 2, xv. 3. 1, xviii. 9. 1 ff.). This 'Eastern' Dispersion need not detain us here. No Biblical version in the stricter sense [8] had its origin in Babylonia; there, as in Palestine, the services of the synagogue interpreter (M+T+W+uR+G+uTjoN%) sufficed for the rendering of the lections into Aramaic, and no desire was manifested on the part of the Gentile population to make themselves acquainted with the Hebrew scriptures. It was among the Jews who were brought into relation with Hellenic culture that the necessity arose for a written translation of the books of the canon. Egypt was the earliest home of the Hellenistic Jew, and it was on Egyptian soil that the earliest Greek version of the Old Testament was begun. 3. Long before the time of Alexander Egypt possessed the nucleus of a Jewish colony. Shashanq, the Shishak of 1 K. xiv. 25 f., 2 Chr. xii. 2 f., who invaded Palestine [9] in the tenth century B.C., may have carried into Egypt captives or hostages from the conquered cities whose names still appear upon the walls of the temple at Karnak. Isaiah (xix. 19 f.) foresaw [10] that a time must come when the religious influence of Israel would make itself felt on the banks of the Nile, while he endeavoured to check the policy which led Judah to seek refuge from Assyrian aggression in an Egyptian alliance (xxx. 1 ff.). Jewish mercenaries are said to have fought in the expedition of Psammetichus I. against Ethiopia c. B.C. 650 (cf. Ps.-Arist.: heteron xummachion exapestalmenon pros ton ton Aithiopon basilea machesthai sun Psammiticho). The panic which followed the murder of Gedaliah drove a host of Jewish fugitives to Egypt, where they settled at Migdol (Magdolos), Tahpanhes (Taphnas = Daphne) [11] , Noph (Memphis), and Pathros (Pathoure) [12] , i.e. throughout the Delta, and even in Upper Egypt; and the descendants of those who survived were replenished, if we may believe Pseudo-Aristeas, by others who entered Egypt during the Persian period (ede men kai proteron hikanon eiseleluthoton sun to Perse). These earlier settlers were probably among the first to benefit by Alexander's policy, and may have been partly hellenised before his birth. 4. Alexander's victory at Issos in B.C. 333 opened the gate of Syria to the conqueror. In the next year he received the submission of Tyre and Gaza and, according to Josephus, was on the point of marching upon Jerusalem when the statesmanship of the High Priest turned him from his purpose [13] . Whether the main features of this story be accepted or not, it is certain that the subsequent policy of Alexander was favourable to the Jews. His genius discovered in the Jewish people an instrument well fitted to assist him in carrying out his purpose of drawing East and West together. Jews served in his army (Hecataeus ap. Joseph. c. Ap. i. 22 eti ge men hoti kai Alexandro to basilei sunestrateusanto kai meta tauta tois diadochois autou memartureken); and such was his sense of their loyalty and courage that when Alexandria was founded (B.C. 332), although the design of the conqueror was to erect a monument to himself which should be essentially Greek [14] , he not only assigned a place in his new city to Jewish colonists, but admitted them to full citizenship. Joseph. ant. xix. 5. 2 epignous anekathen tous en Alexandreia Ioudaious . . . ises politeias para ton basileon teteuchotas: c. Ap. ii. 4 ou gar aporia ge ton oikesonton ten meta spoudes hup' autou ktizomenen Alexandros ton hemeteron tinas ekei sunethroisen, alla pantas dokimazon epimelos aretes kai pisteos touto tois hemeterois to geras edoken. B. J. ii. 18. 7 chresamenos prothumotatois kata ton Aiguption Ioudaiois Alexandros geras tes summachias edoken to metoikein kata ten polin ex isou moiras pros tous Hellenas. Mommsen indeed (Provinces, E. T. ii. p. 162 n.) expresses a doubt whether the grant of citizenship [15] was made before the time of Ptolemy I., but in the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary the repeated statement of Josephus justifies the belief that it originated with Alexander [16] . 5. The premature death of Alexander (B.C. 323) wrecked his larger scheme, but the Jewish colony at Alexandria continued to flourish under the Ptolemies, who succeeded to the government of Egypt. It may be convenient to place here for reference the names and dates of the earlier Ptolemies. I. Lagi, or Soter (B.C. 322--285). II. Philadelphus (B.C. 285--247). III. Euergetes I. (B.C. 247--222). IV. Philopator I. (B.C. 222--205). V. Epiphanes (B.C. 205--182). VI. Eupator (B.C. 182). VII. Philometor (B.C. 182--146). VIII. Philopator II. (B.C. 146). IX. Euergetes II., also known as Physkon (B.C. 146--117). Of the brief reigns of Eupator and the younger Philopator nothing is known. The first Ptolemy added considerably to the Jewish population of Alexandria. His expeditions to Palestine and capture of Jerusalem placed in his hands a large number of Jewish and Samaritan captives, and these were conveyed to Alexandria, where many of them acquired civic rights. The report of the King's liberality towards his captives, and of their prosperity in Egypt, attracted other Palestinians to Alexandria, and many came thither as voluntary settlers. Joseph. ant. xii. 1. 1 ho de Ptolemaios pollous aichmalotous labon apo te tes oreines Ioudaias kai ton peri Ierosoluma topon kai tes Samareitidos kai ton en Garizein, katokisen hapantas eis Aigupton agagon; epegnokos de tous apo ton Ierosolumon peri ten ton horkon phulaken kai tas pisteis bebaiotatous huparchontas. pollous auton tois Makedosin en Alexandreia poiesas isopolitas; ouk oligoi de oude ton allon Ioudaion eis ten Aigupton paregignonto, tes te aretes ton topon autous kai tes tou Ptolemaiou philotimias prokaloumenes. A separate quarter of the city was assigned to the colony (Strabo ap. Joseph. ant. xiv. 7. 2 tes Alexandreias poleos aphoristai mega meros to ethnei touto [17] ); it lay in the north-east of Alexandria, along the shore, near the royal palace. Here the Jews lived under their own ethnarch [18] , who exercised judicial authority in all cases between Jew and Jew. They were permitted to follow their own religion and observe their national customs without molestation. Synagogues sprang up not only in the Jewish quarter, but at a later time in every part of the city (Philo ad Cai. 20, in Flacc. 6 [19] ). In the time of Philometor the Jews stood so high in the royal favour that they were suffered to convert a disused Egyptian temple at Leontopolis into a replica of the Temple at Jerusalem, and the Jewish rite was celebrated there until after the fall of the Holy City, when the Romans put a stop to it (Joseph. ant. xii. 9. 7, xiii. 3. 1, B. J. vii. 10. 4) [20] . Under these circumstances it is not surprising that shortly after the Christian era the Jewish colony in Egypt exceeded a million, constituting an eighth part of the population (Philo in Flacc. 6, Joseph. c. Ap. ii. 4). In the Fayum villages were founded by Jews, and they lived on equal terms with the Greeks [21] . Nor were the Jewish settlers on the African coast limited to the Delta or to Egypt. A daughter colony was planted in Cyrenaica by the first Ptolemy, and at Cyrene as at Alexandria the Jews formed an important section of the community. The Jew of Cyrene meets us already in the days of the Maccabees (1 Macc. xv. 23, 2 Macc. ii. 23), and he was a familiar figure at Jerusalem in the Apostolic age (Mt. xxvii. 32, Acts ii. 10, vi. 9 [22] , xi. 20, xiii. 1; cf Strabo ap. Joseph. ant. xiv. 7. 2). 6. The Jews of the Dispersion everywhere retained their religion and their loyalty to national institutions. In each of these settlements among Gentile peoples the Holy City possessed a daughter, whose attachment to her was not less strong than that of her children at home. "Jerusalem," in the words of Agrippa [23] , "was the mother city, not of a single country, but of most of the countries of the world, through the colonies which she sent forth at various times." No colony was more dutiful than the Alexandrian. The possession of a local sanctuary at Leontopolis did not weaken its devotion to the temple at Jerusalem [24] ; pilgrimages were still made to Jerusalem at the great festivals (Philo ap. Eus. praep. ev. viii. 14. 64; cf. Acts ii. 10); the Temple tribute was collected in Egypt with no less punctuality than in Palestine (Philo de monarch. ii. 3). But it was impossible for Jews who for generations spent their lives and carried on their business in Greek towns to retain their Semitic speech. In Palestine after the Return, Aramaic gradually took the place of Hebrew in ordinary intercourse, and after the time of Alexander Greek became to some extent a rival of Aramaic. In Alexandria a knowledge of Greek was not a mere luxury but a necessity of common life [25] . If it was not required by the State as a condition of citizenship [26] , yet self-interest compelled the inhabitants of a Greek capital to acquire the language of the markets and the Court. A generation or two may have sufficed to accustom the Alexandrian Jews to the use of the Greek tongue. The Jewish settlers in Lower Egypt who were there at the coming of Alexander had probably gained some knowledge of Greek before the founding of his new city [27] ; and the children of Alexander's mercenaries, as well as many of the immigrants from Palestine in the days of Soter, may well have been practically bilingual. Every year of residence in Alexandria would increase their familiarity with Greek and weaken their hold upon the sacred tongue [28] . Any prejudice which might have existed against the use of a foreign language would speedily disappear under a rule which secured full liberty in worship and faith. The adoption of the Greek tongue was a tribute gladly paid by the Alexandrian Jews to the great Gentile community which sheltered and cherished them. The Greek which they learnt was the koine as colloquially used in Alexandria: based on the less elevated kind of Attic, with some loss of the niceties; but less exclusive in its vocabulary, retaining many old Ionic and Homeric words, and adopting, but less freely, others of foreign origin. When the Jews employed this tongue, now common to the regions of Greek life and Greek conquest, to translate the Old Testament, they naturally used forms of expression which matched the original as closely as possible; though many of them were more or less prevalent, or paralleled, in the koine. Their ingrained habits of thought, and their native speech, even if partly forgotten, led them to give constant prominence to these expressions, which correspond with Semitisms, as well as, to some extent, with the current Greek speech and colloquial writings. 7. The 'Septuagint [29] ,' or the Greek version of the Old Testament which was on the whole the work of Alexandrian Jews, is, written in full, the Interpretatio septuaginta virorum or seniorum, i.e. the translation of which the first instalment was attributed by Alexandrian tradition to seventy or seventy-two Jewish elders. In the most ancient Greek MSS. of the Old Testament it is described as the version 'according to the LXX.' (kata tous hebdomekonta, para hebdomekonta, O. T. in Greek, i. p. 103, ii. p. 479), and quoted by the formula hoi o or hoi ob'. All forms of the name point back to a common source, the story of the origin of the version which is told in the pseudonymous letter entitled Aristeas Philokratei. See App. Literature. The text of the letter of Aristeas is printed in the Appendix to this volume. It will be found also in Hody de Bibl. text. orig. (Oxon. 1705), and in Constantinus Oeconomus peri ton o hermeneuton biblia d' (Athens, 1849); a better text was given by M. Schmidt in Merx, Archiv f. wissensch. Erforschung a. A. T. i. p. 241 ff.; the latest separate edition appeared in 1900 under the title: Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula cum ceteris de origine versionis LXX. interpretum testimoniis. Ludovici Mendelssohn schedis usus ed. Paulus Wendland. A trans. by Mr H. St J. Thackeray appeared in J. Q. R. Ap. 1903 (since reprinted). For the earlier editions see Fabricius-Harles, iii. 660 ff.; the editio princeps of the Greek text was published at Basle in 1561. The controversies raised by the letter may be studied in Hody or in Fabricius-Harles; cf. Rosenmueller, Handbuch f. d. Literatur d. bibl. Kritik u. Exegese; Daehne, gesch. Darstellung d. juedisch Alex. Religions-Philosophie, ii. p. 205 ff.; Papageorgius, Ueber den Aristeasbrief; Lumbroso, Recherches sur l'economie politigue de l'Egypte, p. 351 f. and in Atli di R. Accademia della Scienza di Torino, iv. (1868--9). Fuller lists will be found in Schuerer^3, iii. 472 f., and in Nestle (Real-encyklopaedie f. p. Th. u. K.^3 3, p. 2), and Hastings (D.B. iv. 438 f., where much interesting information is collected); cf. Van Ess, Epilegg. p. 29 f. 8. The writer professes to be a courtier in the service of Philadelphus, a Greek who is interested in the antiquities of the Jewish people [30] . Addressing his brother Philocrates, he relates the issue of a journey which he had recently made to Jerusalem. It appears that Demetrius Phalereus [31] , who is described as librarian of the royal library at Alexandria, had in conversation with the King represented the importance of procuring for the library a translation of the Jewish laws (ta ton Ioudaion nomima metagraphes axia kai tes para soi bibliothekes einai). Philadelphus fell in with the suggestion, and despatched an embassy to Jerusalem with a letter to the High Priest Eleazar, in which the latter was desired to send to Alexandria six elders learned in the law from each of the tribes of Israel to execute the work of translation. In due course the seventy-two elders, whose names are given, arrived in Egypt, bringing with them a copy of the Hebrew Law written in letters of gold on rolls [32] composed of skins (sun . . . tais diaphorois diphtherais en hais he nomothesia gegrammene chrusographia tois Ioudaikois grammasi). A banquet followed, at which the King tested the attainments of the Jewish elders with hard questions. Three days afterwards the work of translation began. The translators were conducted by Demetrius along the Heptastadion [33] to the island of Pharos, where a building conveniently furnished and remote from the distractions of the city was provided for their use. Here Demetrius, in the words of Aristeas, 'exhorted them to accomplish the work of translation, since they were well supplied with all that they could want. So they set to work, comparing their several results and making them agree; and whatever they agreed upon was suitably copied under the direction of Demetrius. . . . In this way the transcription was completed in seventy-two days, as it that period had been pre-arranged.' The completed work was read by Demetrius to the Jewish community, who received it with enthusiasm and begged that a copy might be placed in the hands of their leaders; and a curse was solemnly pronounced upon any who should presume to add to the version or to take from it. After this the Greek Pentateuch was read to the King, who expressed delight and surprise, greeted the book with a gesture of reverence proskunesas, and desired that it should be preserved with scrupulous care (ekeleuse megalen epimeleian poieisthai ton biblion kai sunterein hagnos). 9. The story of Aristeas is repeated more or less fully by the Alexandrian writers Aristobulus and Philo, and by Josephus. Aristobulus ap. Eus. praep. ev. xiii. 12. 2: he de hole hermeneia ton dia tou nomou panton epi tou prosagoreuthentos Philadelphou basileos sou de progonou [he is addressing Philometor] prosenenkamenou meizona philotimian, Demetriou tou Phalereos pragmateusamenou ta peri touton [34] . Philo, vit. Moys. ii. 5 ff.: Ptolemaios ho Philadelphos epikletheis . . . zelon kai pothon labon tes nomothesias hemon eis Hellada glottan ten Chaldaiken metharmozesthai dienoeito, kai presbeis euthus exepempe pros ton tes Ioudaias archierea. . ho de, hos eikos, hestheis kai nomisas ouk aneu theias epiphrosunes peri to toiouton ergon espoudakenai ton basilea . . . asmenos apostellei . . . kathisantes d' en apokrupho kai medenos parontos . . . kathaper enthousiontes epropheteuon, ouk alla alloi, ta de auta pantes onomata kai rhemata hosper hupoboleos hekastois aoratos enechountos ktl. Josephus, ant. i. prooem. 3: Ptolemaion men ho deuteros malista de basileus peri paideian kai biblion sunagogen spoudasas exairetos ephilotimethe ton hemeteron nomon kai ten kat' auton diataxin tes politeias eis ten Hellada phonen metalabein ktl. In ant. xii. 2. 1--15 Josephus gives a full account obviously based on Aristeas (whom he calls Aristaios, and to a great extent verbally identical with the letter. The testimony of Josephus establishes only the fact that the letter of Aristeas was current in Palestine during the first century A.D. Philo, on the other hand, represents an Alexandrian tradition which was perhaps originally independent of the letter, and is certainly not entirely consistent with it. He states (l.c.) that the completion of the work of the LXX. was celebrated at Alexandria down to his own time by a yearly festival at the Pharos (mechri n un ana pan etos heorte kai paneguris agetai kata ten Pharon neson, eis hen ouk Ioudaioi monon alla kai pampletheis hermeneias exelampse ktl.). A popular anniversary of this kind can scarcely have grown out of a literary work so artificial and so wanting in the elements which ensure popularity as the letter of Aristeas. The fragment of Aristobulus carries us much further back than the witness of Philo and Josephus. It was addressed to a Ptolemy who was a descendant of Philadelphus, and who is identified both by Eusebius (l.c.) and by Clement [35] (strom. 1. 22) with Philometor. Whether Aristobulus derived his information from Aristeas is uncertain, but his words, if we admit their genuineness, establish the fact that the main features of the story were believed by the literary Jews of Alexandria, and even at the Court, more than a century and a half before the Christian era and within a century of the date assigned by Aristeas to the translation of the Law. 10. From the second century A.D. the letter of Aristeas is quoted or its contents are summarised by the fathers of the Church, who in general receive the story without suspicion, and add certain fresh particulars. Cf. Justin, apol. i. 31, dial. 68, 71, 'cohort. ad Graecos' 13 ff.; Iren. iii. 21, 2 f.; Clem. Alex. strom. i. 22, 148 f.; Tertullian, apol. 18; Anatolius ap. Eus. H. E. vii. 32; Eusebius, praep. ev. viii. 1--9, ix. 38; Cyril of Jerusalem, catech. iv. 34; Hilary, prol. ad Psalmos, tract. in Pss. ii., cxviii.; Epiphanius, de mens. et pond. S:S: 3, 6; Philastrius de haer. 138; Jerome, praef. in Gen., praef. in libr. quaest. Hebr.; Augustine, de civ. Dei xvii. 42 f., de doctr. Chr. ii. 22: Theodore of Mopsuestia in Habakk. ii., in Zeph. i.; Chrysostom, or. i. adv. Jud., c. 6, hom. iv. in Gen., c. 4; Theodoret, praef. in Psalmos; Cyril of Alexandria, adv. Julian. or. 1; Pseudo-Athanasius, synops. scr. sacr. S: 77; the anonymous dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (ed. Conybeare, Oxford, 1898, p. 90 f.). Most of these Christian writers, in distinct contradiction to the statement of Aristeas, represent the Seventy as having worked separately, adding that when the results were compared at the end of the task they were found to be identical (so Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, &c.). The author of the Cohortatio ad Graecos [36] declares that at Alexandria he had been shewn the vestiges of the cells in which the translators had worked (autoi en te Alexandreia genomenoi kai ta ichne ton oikiskon en te Pharo heorakotes eti sozomena, kai para ton ekei hos ta patria pareilephoton akekootes tauta apangellomen). This story of the cells therefore was probably of Alexandrian origin, and had grown out of the local belief in the inspiration of the Seventy which appears already in the words of Philo quoted above [37] . The Fathers generally accept both the belief and the legend which it generated, though the latter sometimes undergoes slight modification, as when Epiphanius groups the LXXII. in pairs (zuge zuge kat' oikiskon). Jerome is an honourable exception; he realises that the tale of the cells is inconsistent with the earlier tradition (prol. in Gen. "nescio quis primus auctor LXX cellulas Alexandriae mendacio suo exstruxerit, quibus divisi eadem scriptitarint, quum Aristeas . . . et Josephus nihil tale retulerint"), and rightly protests against the doctrine which was at the root of the absurdity ("aliud est enim vatem, aliud est esse interpretem") [38] . 11. Doubts as to the genuineness of the Aristeas-letter were first expressed by Ludovicus de Vives in his commentary on Aug. de civ. Dei, xviii. 4 (published in 1522), and after him by Joseph Scaliger. Ussher and Voss defended the letter, but its claim to be the work of a contemporary of Philadelphus was finally demolished by Humphry Hody, Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford (1698-1706) [39] . A few later writers have pleaded in its favour (e.g. Grinfield Apology for the LXX., and Constantinus Oeconomus, op. cit.); but the great majority of modern scholars, and perhaps all living experts, recognise the unhistorical character of much of the story of Aristeas. Indeed it scarcely needed the massive learning of Hody to convict the letter of Aristeas of being pseudonymous, and to a large extent legendary. The selection of the elders from all the tribes of Israel awakens suspicions; their names are clearly imaginary; the recurrence of the number seventy-two seems to have struck even the writer as open to remark [40] ; the letters of Philadelphus and Eleazar are of the same stamp as the confessedly fictitious correspondence between the Egyptian and the Palestinian Jews in 2 Maccabees [41] . Above all, whereas the letter professes to have been written by a Greek and a pagan, its purpose proclaims it to be the work of a Jew; while it addresses itself to Gentile readers, its obvious aim is to glorify the Jewish race, and to diffuse information about their sacred books. On the other hand, though the story as 'Aristeas' tells it is doubtless a romance, it must not be hastily inferred that it has no historical basis. That the writer was a Jew who lived in Egypt under the Ptolemies seems to be demonstrated by the knowledge which he displays of life at the Alexandrian Court [42] . There is also reason to suppose that he wrote within fifty years of the death of Philadelphus, and his principal facts are endorsed, as we have seen, by a writer of the next generation [43] . It is difficult to believe that a document, which within a century of the events relates the history of a literary undertaking in which the Court and the scholars of Alexandria were concerned, can be altogether destitute of truth. Detailed criticism is impossible in this place, but it is necessary to examine the credibility of the chief features of the romance so far as they affect questions relating to the date and origin of the LXX. There are certain points in the letter of Aristeas which demand investigation, especially the statements (1) that the translation of the Law was made in the time of Philadelphus; (2) that it was undertaken at the desire of the King, and for the royal library; (3) that the translators and the Hebrew rolls which they used were brought from Jerusalem; and (4) that their translation when completed was welcomed both by Jews and Greeks [44] . 12. There is no improbability in the first of these statements. The personal tastes of Philadelphus, if by no means purely literary, included a fancy for the society of scholars and the accumulation of books [45] . He founded a second library at the Serapeion to receive the overflow of that which Soter had established near the Museum and the Palace [46] . His syncretistic temperament disposed him to listen to the representatives of various creeds. A Buddhist mission from the Ganges found a welcome at his court [47] ; and the reign which produced Manetho's Greek history of Egyptian institutions may well have yielded also a translation into Greek of the Hebrew sacred books. The presence of a large Jewish colony at Alexandria could hardly have failed to awaken in the King and his scholars of the Museum an interest in the ancient laws and literature of the Jewish race. For these reasons modern scholars have for the most part shewn no desire to disturb the tradition which assigns the Alexandrian version of the Law to the days of Philadelphus. One exception must be noted. The late Professor Graetz maintained with much ingenuity that the Greek Pentateuch was a work of the reign of Philometor, thus transferring the inception of the LXX. from the middle of the third century to the middle of the second [48] . His opinion was based partly on the fact that the Jewish colony at Alexandria touched the zenith of its influence under Philometor, partly on internal grounds. Under the latter head he insisted on the translation in Lev. xxiii. 11 of the phrase X+aShuaB+uoT+ M+iM+uoH+R+aT+ by te epaurion tes proes. The Pharisees understood the word ShaB+uoT+ in that context to refer to the day after the Paschal Sabbath i.e. Nisan 15, while the Sadducees adhered to the usual meaning. Graetz argued with much force that, since the rendering of the LXX. shews evident signs of Pharisaic influence, the version itself must have been later than the rise of the Pharisees [49] . But v. 15 renders the same words by apo tes epaurion tou sabbatou, and as it is not likely that a translator who had of set purpose written tes protes in v. 11 would have let tou sabbatou escape him a little further down, we must suppose that tou s. stood originally in both verses and that tes pr. is due to a Pharisaic corrector who left his work incomplete. But a partial correction of the passage in the interests of Pharisaism points to the version being pre-Maccabean, a conclusion quite opposite to that which Dr Graetz desired to draw [50] . There is, moreover, positive evidence that the Alexandrian version of Genesis at least was in existence considerably before the beginning of Philometor's reign. It was used by the Hellenist Demetrius, fragments of whose treatise Peri ton en te Ioudaia basileon are preserved by Clement (strom. i 21) and Eusebius (praep. ev. ix. 21, 29). The following specimens may suffice to prove this assertion. Demetrius Genesis (LXX.) anti ton melon tou mandragorou. heuren mela mandragorou . . . anti ton mandragoron (XXX. 14 f.). angelon tou theou palaisai kai hapsasthai tou platous tou merou tou Iakob. epalaien . . . kai hepsato tou platous ou merou Iakob (xxxii. 25). legein ktenotrophous autous einai. ereite Andres ktenotrophoi esmen (xlvi. 34). As Demetrius carries his chronology no further than the reign of Philopator, it may be assumed that he lived under the fourth Ptolemy [51] . He is thus the earliest of the Alexandrian Hellenistic writers; yet equally with the latest he draws his quotations of the Book of Genesis from the LXX. It may fairly be argued that a version, which at the end of the third century B.C. had won its way to acceptance among the literary Jews of Alexandria, probably saw the light not later than the reign of Philadelphus. 13. Both 'Aristeas' and Aristobulus associate with the inception of the LXX. the name of Demetrius Phalereus [52] . Aristobulus merely represents Demetrius as having 'negociated the matter' (pragmateusamenou ta peri touton), but Aristeas states that he did so (1) in the capacity of head of the royal library (katastatheis epi tes tou basileos bibliothekes), and (2) in the days of Philadelphus, with whom he appears to be on intimate terms. Both these particulars are certainly unhistorical. Busch [53] has shewn that the office of librarian was filled under Philadelphus by Zenodotus of Ephesus, and on the decease of Zenodotus by Eratosthenes. Moreover Demetrius, so far from being intimate with Philadelphus, was sent into exile soon after the accession of that monarch, and died a little later on from the bite of an asp, probably administered at the King's instigation (c. B.C. 283) [54] . Thus, if Demetrius took part in the inception of the LXX., he must have done so during the reign of Soter. This is not in itself improbable. He had taken refuge in Egypt as early as B.C. 307, and for many years had been a trusted adviser of the first Ptolemy; and it is not unlikely that the project of translating the Jewish Law was discussed between him and the royal founder of the Alexandrian library, and that the work was really due to his suggestion [55] , though his words did not bear fruit until after his death. The point is of importance to the student of the LXX. only in so far as it has to do with the question whether the version was made under official guidance. The breakdown of the chronology of this part of the story of Aristeas leaves us free to abandon the hypothesis of direct intervention on the part of the King, and internal evidence certainly justifies us in doing so. An official version would assuredly have avoided such barbarisms as geioras, hein, sabbata [56] , when such Greek equivalents as proselutos, dichoun, anapausis, were available. The whole style of the version is alien from the purpose of a book intended for literary use, nor is it conceivable that under such circumstances Jewish translators, Palestinian or Alexandrian, would have been left without the advice and help of experts in the Greek tongue. Thus everything points to the conclusion that the version arose out of the needs of the Alexandrian Jews. Whilst in Palestine the Aramaic-speaking Jews were content with the interpretation of the Methurgeman, at Alexandria the Hebrew lesson was gladly exchanged for a lesson read from a Greek translation, and the work of the interpreter was limited to exegesis [57] . In the closing paragraphs of the letter of Aristeas which describe the joy with which the work of the LXXII. was welcomed by the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, the writer unconsciously reveals the true history of the version, when he represents the Jews as having heard and welcomed the Greek Pentateuch before it was presented to the King [58] . But it is not improbable that the King encouraged the work of translation with the view of promoting the use of the Greek language by the settlers [59] as well as for the purpose of gratifying his own curiosity. 14. The Greek of the Alexandrian Pentateuch is Egyptian, and, as far as we can judge, not such as Palestinian translators would have written. Instances are not indeed wanting of translations executed in Egypt by Palestinians; the most noteworthy [60] is the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, which, as the prologue tells us, was turned into Greek by the grandson of the writer after a prolonged visit to the banks of the Nile (paragenetheis eis Haigupton kai sunchronisas); but the clumsy Greek of the prologue, and the stiff artificiality of the book, offer a marked contrast to the simple style of the Pentateuch. That the latter is mainly the work of Alexandrian Jews appears from more than one consideration. An older generation of Biblical scholars pointed to the occurrence in the LXX., and especially in the Pentateuch, of such words of Egyptian origin as achei (Gen. xli. 2 ff.), kondu (Gen. xliv. 2 ff.), ibis (Lev. xi. 17; Deut. xiv. 16), bussos (Exod. xxv.-xxxix. passim) and such characteristically Egyptian terms as didrachmon, aletheia (= T+uTjuiJ+M%), archimageiros, archioinochoos and the like. The argument is not conclusive, since after the time of Alexander the koine contained elements drawn from various localities [61] . But recent discoveries in Egypt have yielded a criterion of Egyptian Greek which has been applied to the LXX. with definite results. In 1892 Prof. Mahaffy was able to write: "in the vocabulary of the papyri we find a closer likeness to the Greek of the LXX. than to any other book I could name [62] ." This statement has been abundantly justified by the publication of Deissmann's Bibelstudien (Marburg, 1895), and Neue Bibelstudien (1897), where a number of the peculiar or characteristic words and forms of the LXX. are shewn to have been in common use among Egyptian Greeks of the third and second centuries B.C. [63] The vocabulary and style of the LXX. will be treated in a later chapter; for the present it is enough to say that they are such as to discredit the attribution of the Greek Pentateuch to a company consisting exclusively or chiefly of Palestinian Jews. The LXX. as a whole, or at any rate the earlier part of the collection, is a monument of Alexandrian Greek as it was spoken by the Jewish colony in the Delta under the rule of the Ptolemies [64] . The story of the rolls being written in letters of gold and sent to the King by the High Priest may be dismissed at once; it belongs to the picturesque setting of the romance. But there is nothing improbable in the statement that the Hebrew rolls were freshly brought from Jerusalem [65] , for communication between Jerusalem and Alexandria was frequent during the reigns of the earlier Ptolemies. Yet the legend may be intended to represent the loyalty of the colony towards the metropolis, and the conviction of the Alexandrian Jews that in their Greek version they possessed the same sacred texts which their brethren in Judaea read in Hebrew. Nothing was further from their intention than to create an Alexandrian canon, or an Alexandrian type of text. The point is one which it is important to remember. The welcome accorded to the Greek version by the Jews of Alexandria was doubtless, as Aristeas represents, both cordial and permanent; nor need we doubt that Philadelphus and his scholars approved what had been done. Insignificant and even intolerable as a literary work, the version promised to supply the Greek scholars of Alexandria with a trustworthy account of Hebrew origins. There is however little or no trace of the use of the LXX. by pagan writers [66] ; the style was probably enough to deter them from studying it, and the Hellenistic Jews of a somewhat later date rendered the task unnecessary by presenting the history of their country in more attractive forms. As to the preservation of the original in the Alexandrian libraries, we have no evidence beyond Tertullian's scarcely trustworthy statement, "Hodie apud Serapeum Ptolemaei bibliothecae cum ipsis Hebraicis litteris exhibentur [67] ." 15. It has been stated (p. 11) that the letter of Aristeas does not profess to describe the origin of any part of the Alexandrian Bible except the Pentateuch [68] . This was evident to Josephus: ant. 1. prooem. 3 oude gar pasan ekeinos (sc. Ptolemaios ho deuteros) ephthe labein ten anagraphen, alla mona ta tou nomou paredosan hoi pemphthentes epi ten exegesin eis Alexandreian. Christian writers, however, failed to notice this limitation; the whole Greek Bible was familiarly known as the version of the LXX., and no misgivings were felt upon the matter except by Jerome, whose intercourse with the Rabbis had opened his eyes on this and other matters about which the Jews were better informed: "tota schola Judaeorum (he writes) quinque tantum libros Moysis a LXX. translatos asserunt [69] ." Epiphanius goes so far as to apportion the books of the Hebrew canon among thirty-six pairs of translators [70] . Nevertheless the Jews were unquestionably right; Aristeas has nothing to say about the translation of any books beyond the first five. His silence as to the Prophets and the Hagiographa is entirely consistent with the conditions of the period in which he fixes his story. The canon of the Prophets seems to have scarcely reached completion before the High-Priesthood of Simon II. (219--199 B.C.) [71] . If this was so in Palestine, at Alexandria certainly there would be no recognised body of Prophetic writings in the reign of the second Ptolemy. The Torah alone was ready for translation, for it was complete, and its position as a collection of sacred books was absolutely secure. 16. But when the example had once been set of rendering sacred books into Greek, it would assuredly be followed as often as fresh rolls arrived from Jerusalem which bore the stamp of Palestinian recognition, if a bilingual Jew was found ready to undertake the task. A happy accident enables us to estimate roughly the extent to which this process had gone by the sixth or seventh decade of the second century. The writer of the prologue to Sirach, who arrived in Egypt in the 38th year of Euergetes--i.e. in the year 132 B.C. if, as is probable, the Euergetes intended was the second of that name--incidentally uses words which imply that "the Law, the Prophets, and the rest of the books" were already current in a translation (ou gar isodunamei auta en heautois Ebraisti legomena, kai hotan metachthe eis heteran glossan; ou monon de tauta, alla kai autos ho nomos kai hai propheteiai kai ta loipa ton biblion ou mikran ten diaphoran echei en heautois legomena). This sentence reveals the progress which had been made in the work of translation between the second Ptolemy and the ninth. Under Euergetes II. the Alexandrian Jews possessed, in addition to the original Greek Pentateuch, a collection of prophetic books, and a number of other writings belonging to their national literature [72] which had not as yet formed themselves into a complete group. The latter are doubtless the books which are known as K+uT+W+uB+iJ+M% or Hagiographa. Since the author of the prologue was a Palestinian Jew, we may perhaps assume that under hai propheteiai and ta loipa ton biblion he includes such books of both classes as were already in circulation in Palestine. If this inference is a safe one, it will follow that all the 'Prophets' of the Hebrew canon, 'former' and 'latter,' had been translated before B.C. 132. With regard to the Hagiographa, in some cases we have data which lead to a more definite conclusion. Eupolemus, who, if identical with the person of that name mentioned in 1 Macc. viii. 17, wrote about the middle of the second century, makes use of the Greek Chronicles, as Freudenthal has clearly shewn [73] . Ezra-Nehemiah, originally continuous with Chronicles, was probably translated at the same time as that book. Aristeas (not the pseudonymous author of the letter, but the writer of a treatise peri Ioudaion quotes the book of Job according to the LXX., and has been suspected [74] of being the author of the remarkable codicil attached to it (Job xlii. 17 b--e). The footnote to the Greek Esther, which states that that book was brought to Egypt in the 4th year of "Ptolemy and Cleopatra" (probably i.e. of Ptolemy Philometor), may have been written with the purpose of giving Palestinian sanction to the Greek version of that book; but it vouches for the fact that the version was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C. [75] The Psalter of the LXX. appears to be quoted in 1 Macc. vii. 17 (Ps. lxxviii. = lxxix. 2), and the Greek version of 1 Maccabees probably belongs to the first century B.C. At what time the Greek Psalter assumed its present form there is no evidence to shew, but it is reasonable to suppose that the great Palestinian collections of sacred song did not long remain unknown to the Alexandrian Jews [76] ; and even on the hypothesis of certain Psalms being Maccabean, the later books of the Greek Psalter may be assigned to the second half of the second century. 17. On the whole, though the direct evidence is fragmentary, it is probable that before the Christian era Alexandria possessed the whole, or nearly the whole, of the Hebrew Scriptures in a Greek translation. For the first century A.D. we have the very important evidence of Philo, who uses the LXX. and quotes largely from many of the books. There are indeed some books of the Hebrew canon to which he does not seem to refer, i.e. Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel [77] . But, as Professor Ryle points out, "it may be safely assumed that Ruth and Lamentations were, in Philo's time, already united to Judges and Jeremiah in the Greek Scriptures"; and Ezekiel, as one of the greater Prophets, had assuredly found its way to Alexandria before A.D. 1. Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Daniel, which "seem to have been among the latest books to be received into the Sacred Canon [78] ," may have been purposely neglected by Philo, as not possessing canonical authority. But it would be precarious to conclude that they had not been as yet translated into Greek; the Book of Esther, as we have seen, was probably current at Alexandria during the second century B.C. Two other Jewish, but not Alexandrian, authorities assist us to ascertain the contents of the Greek Bible in the first century A.D. (a) The New Testament shews a knowledge of the LXX. version in most of the books which it quotes, and it quotes all the books of the Old Testament except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and certain of the Minor Prophets [79] . As in the case of Philo, it is possible, though scarcely probable, that Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song were passed by as not having received the stamp of canonicity; but the silence of the Apostolic writers about them does not in any case prove that Greek translations of these books were not yet in circulation among Palestinian Jews. (b) Josephus, who knew and used the LXX., unfortunately has no explicit statement as to the extent of the Greek version; but his list of the Hebrew books is practically identical with our own, and, as it occurs in a treatise intended for Gentile readers, it is perhaps safe to assume that he speaks of books accessible in a translation; "in other words, that he writes with the LXX. version before him [80] ." Thus while the testimony of the first century A.D. does not absolutely require us to believe that all the books of the Hebrew canon had been translated and were circulated in a Greek version during the Apostolic age, such a view is not improbable; and it is confirmed by the fact that they are all contained in the canon of the Greek Bible which the Christian Church received from its Jewish predecessors. It is another question whether the versions were all of Alexandrian origin, or the only Greek translations which claimed to represent the corresponding Hebrew books. In a few cases there were certainly rival interpretations or recensions of the same book (e.g. in Judges, Daniel, Tobit). But as a whole the work of translation was doubtless carried out at Alexandria, where it was begun; and the Greek Bible of the Hellenistic Jews and the Catholic Church may rightly be styled the Alexandrian Greek version of the Old Testament. LITERATURE. The following list embraces a mere fraction of the vast literature of the Alexandrian Version. The selection has been made with the purpose of representing the progress of knowledge since the middle of the seventeenth century. L. Cappellus, critica sacra, 1651; J. Pearson, praefatto paraenetica, 1655; Ussher, Syntagma, 1655; Walton, prolegomena, 1657; Hottinger, disertationum fasciculus, 1660; I. Voss, de LXX. interpretibus, 1661--1663; J. Morinus, Exercitationes, 1669; R. Simon, histoire critique du Vieux Testament^2, 1685; H. Hody, de Bibl. textibus originalibus, 1705; H. Owen, Enquiry into the text of the LXX., 1769; Brief account of the LXX., 1787; Stroth, in Eichhorn's Repertorium, v. ff., 1779 ff.; White, Letter to the Bp of London, 1779; Fabricius-Harles, iii. 658 ff., 1793; R. Holmes, Episcopo Dunelm. epistola, 1795; praefatio ad Pentateuchum, 1798; Schleusner, opuscula critica, 1812; Toepler, de Pentateuchi interpretat. Alex. indole, 1830; Daehne, jued.-alexandr. Philosophie, 1834; Grinfield, Apology for the LXX., 1850; Frankel, Vorstudien zu der LXX., 1841; ueber den Einfluss d. palaest. Exegese auf die alexandr. Hermeneutik, 1851; do., ueber palaest. u. alexandr. Schriftforschung, 1854; Thiersch, de Pentateuchi vers. Alexandr., 1841; Constantinus Oeconomus, peri ton o hermeneuton, 1849; Churton, The Influence of the LXX. upon the progress of Christianity, 1861; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel^3, 1868; E. Nestle, Septuaginta-Studien, i. 1886, ii. 1896, iii. 1899, iv. 1903, v. 1907; S. R. Driver, Notes on Samuel (Introd. S: 3f.), 1890; P. de Lagarde, Septuaginta-Studien, i. 1891, ii. 1892; A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, i. 1904, ii. 1907, iii. 1911; Buhl, Kanon u. Text der A. T., 1891; A. Loisy, histoire critique du texte et des versions de la Bible, 1892; Hatch, Essays on Biblical Greek, 1892; W. Robertson Smith, O. T. in the Jewish Church^2, 1892; E. Klostermann, Analecta zur LXX^ta, 1895; Nestle, Urtext u. Uebersezungen der Bibel, 1897. Monographs on special books or particular aspects of the subject will be enumerated elsewhere. The student should also consult the best Introductions to the O.T., especially those of Eichhorn (1777 ff.), De Wette-Schrader (1869), Bleek-Wellhausen^6 (1893), Koenig (1893); and the Encyclopedias and Bible Dictionaries, especially the articles on the Septuagint in Smith's D. B. iii. (Selwyn), the Encyclopaedia Britannica^2 (Wellhausen), the Real-Encykl. f. prot. Theologie u. Kirche^3 (Nestle; also published in a separate form, under the title Urtext u. Uebersetzungen, &c.), and Nestle's art. Septuagint in Hastings' D.B. iv.; the arts. Septuaginta (Hoberg) in Wetzer-Welte's Encyklopaedie^2 xi. (1899), 147--159, and Text and Versions (Burkitt) in Cheyne and Black's Encyclop. Biblica. __________________________________________________________________ [1] Individual cases, such as that of the Jew mentioned by Clearchus (ap. Jos. c. Ap. 1, 22), who was Ellenikos ou te diakekto monon alla kai te psuche, are exceptions to a general rule. How numerous and prosperous were the Jewish colonies in Asia Minor at a later period appears from the Acts of the Apostles; see also Ramsay, Phrygia 1. ii. p. 667 ff. [2] This belief was inherited by the Christian school of Alexandria; see Clem. strom. v. 29, Orig. c. Cels. iv. 39, vi. 19; and cf. Lact. inst. IV. 2. [3] di heteron, Eus. [4] See Tischendorf, V. T. Gr. (1879) prolegg. p. xiii. n. [5] Cf. Walton (ed. Wrangham), p. 18; Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 14f.; Buhl, Kanon u. Text, p. 108 f. [6] See art. Diaspora in suppl. vol. of Hastings' D.B. [7] The later Hebrew term was G+uW+L+oH+, 'exile'; see Dr Hort on 1 Pet. l. c. [8] The 'Babylonian' Targum is of Palestinian origin (Buhl, p. 173). On early Aramaic translations arising out of the synagogue interpretations, see ib., p. 168 f.; and for the traditional account of the origin of the Syriac O. T. see Nestle, Urtext u. Uebersetzungen der Bibel (Leipzig, 1897), p. 229. [9] Professor Driver in D. G. Hogarth's Authority and Archaeology, p. 87 f. [10] The passage is thought by some scholars to belong to the Ptolemaean age; see Cheyne, Intr. to Isaiah, p. 105. [11] Cf. Authority and Archaeology, p. 117. [12] Jer. li. = xliv. 1 ff. hapasin tois Ioudaiois tois katoikousin en ge Aiguptou ktl. Many of these refugees, however, were afterwards taken prisoners by Nebuchadnezzar and transported to Babylon (Joseph. ant. x. 9. 7). [13] Ant. xi. 8. 4 f. The story is rejected by Ewald and Graetz, and the details are doubtless unhistorical: cf. Droysen, l'histoire du l'Hellenisme, i. p. 300. [14] Plutarch Alex. 26 ebouleto polin megalen kai poluanthropon Hellenida sunoikisas eponumon heautou katalipein. [15] See Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 86. [16] On the relations in which the Jews stood to Alexander and his successors see Wellhausen, Isr. u. jued. Geschichte, c. xvi. [17] In Philo's time the Jews occupied two districts out of five (in Flacc. 8). Droysen, iii. p. 59. [18] Strabo ap. Jos. ant. xiv. 7. 2; cf. Schuerer Gesch. d. jued. Volkes^3, iii. 40; Lumbroso, Recharches, p. 218; Droysen, iii. p. 40 n. On the alabarches (arabarches) who is sometimes identified with the ethnarch see Schuerer iii. 88. [19] On the magnificence of the principal synagogue see Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation (ed. White), p. 67. [20] Temporary checks seem to have been sustained by the Alexandrian Jews under Philopator I. and Physcon; see 3 Macc. ii. 31, and cf. Mahaffy, pp. 267 ff., 381, 390. [21] See Mahaffy, Empire, &c., p. 86 n.; cf. Philo de sept. 6. [22] Where Blass (Philology of the Gospels, p. 69 f.) proposes to read Libustinon for Libertinon. [23] Philo ad Cai. 36. [24] See Schuerer^3, iii. 97 ff. [25] Droyson, iii. p. 35. [26] Mommsen, Provinces, ii. p. 163 f. On the whole question see Hody, de Bibl. textibus, p. 224 f.; Caspari, Quellen zur Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, iii. p. 268 ff.; Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 61 ff.; Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Gk., p. 21 ff. [27] There was a large Greek settlement on the Pelusiac arm of the Nile at an early period; see Herod. ii. 163. [28] Cf. Streane, Double Text of Jeremiah, p. 11 f. [29] Irenaeus (iii. 21. 3) speaks of the seniorum interpretatio; Tertullian (Apol. 18) of the septuaginta et duo interpretes; Jerome, of the LXX. interpretes, or translatores (praeff. in Esdr., Isai.), LXX. editio (praef. in Job, ep. ad Pammach.), editio LXX. (praef. in Paralipp.). Augustine, de civ. Dei, xviii. 42, remarks: "quorum interpretatio ut Septuaginta vocetur iam obtinuit consuetudo." [30] From the mention of Cyprus as 'the island' (S: 5) it has been inferred that Aristeas was a Cypriot. The name occurs freely in inscriptions from the islands of the Aegean and the coast of Caria (C. I. G. 2262, 2266, 2349, 2399, 2404, 2655, 2693, 2694, 2723, 2727, 2781, 2892), and was borne by a Cyprian sculptor (see D. G. and R. B., i. 293). Wendland, however, thinks 'the island' is Pharos, as certainly in S: 301. The Aristeas who wrote peri Ioudaion (Euseb. praep. ev. ix. 25) was doubtless an Alexandrian Jew who, as a Hellenist, assumed a Greek name. [31] See Ostermann, de Demetrii Ph. vita (1857); Susemihl, Gesch. d. gr. Litt. in d. Alexandrinerzeit, i. p. 135 ff. On the royal library at Alexandria see Susemihl, i. p. 335 ff. and the art. Bibliotheken in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopaedie, v. 409 f. [32] See See Birt, Die Buchrolle in der Kunst (Leipzig 1907), p. 21 f. [33] The mole which connected the Pharos with the city: see art. Alexandria in Smith's Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geography, pp. 96 f. [34] In defence of the genuineness of this testimony see Schuerer, G. J. V.^3 iii. 384--392. On the other hand cf. L. Cohn in Neue Jahrbuecher f. d. Klass. Alterthum i. 8 (1895), and Wendland in Byzantinische Zeitschrift vii. (1898), 447--449. For Aristobulus see Susemihl, p. 630 f. [35] Clement of Alexandria identifies this Aristobulus with the person named in 2 Macc. i. 10 Aristoboulo didaskalo Ptolemaiou tou basileos. See Valckenaer diatribe de Aristobulo (printed at the end of Gaisford's edition of Eus. praep. ev. iv.). [36] On the date of this treatise, which is commonly ascribed to Justin, see Krueger, Hist. of Chr. Literature (E. T.), p. 112 f., and cf. Harnack-Preuschen, p. 107. [37] Cf. ib. ouch hermeneis ekeinous all' hierophantas kai prophetas prosagoreuontes. [38] The story of the cells is not peculiar to Christian writers; it is echoed by the Talmud (Bab. Talm. Megillah 9a, Jerus. Talm. Meg. c. i.; cf. Sopherim, c. i.). [39] In his Contra historiam LXX. interpretum Aristeae nomine inscriptam dissertatio, originally published in 1684, and afterwards included in De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, versionibus Graecis, et Latina vulgata libri iv. (Oxon. 1705). For other writers on both sides cf. Buhl, p. 117 (E. T. p. 115). [40] On the Rabbinical partiality for this number, cf. Ewald, Hist. of Israel, v. 252 n. (E. T.); Schuerer 11. i. p. 174; Buhl, p. 117 (=116, E. T.). [41] Or the letters of Philopator in 3 Maccabees. [42] See the remarks of Wilcken in Philologus liii. (1894), p. 111 f., and cf. Lumbroso, p. xiii. [43] See Schuerer^3, iii, p. 468 f. [44] See Mr I. Abrahams in J.Q.R. xiv. 2, pp. 321 ff., Recent Criticisms of the Letter of Aristeas. [45] Tertullian exaggerates his literary merits (apol. 18 Ptolemaeorum eruditissimus . . . et omnis litteraturae sagacissimus). [46] Cf. Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 164 ff. On the character of Philadelphus see also Droysen, iii., p. 254 f. [47] Mahaffy, pp. 163 f., 170. [48] Gesch. Juden^3, iii. p. 615 ff. [49] He also notes the rendering archon in Deut. xvii. 14--20. [50] See Expository Times, ii. pp. 209, 227 f. [51] Cf. Freudenthal, hellen. Studien, p. 41. [52] The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila strangely says: en de houtos ho Demetrios to genei Ebraios. [53] De bibliothecariis Alexandrinis (1884), p. 1 ff.; cf. Droysen, iii. p. 256; Mahaffy, p. 115. [54] Diog. Laert. v. 78. The statement rests on the authority of Hermippus Callimachus (temp. Ptolemy III.). [55] Cf. Plutarch, Apophthegm. viii. Demetrios ho Phalereus Ptolemaio to basilei parenei ta peri basileias kai hegemonias biblia ktasthai kai anaginoskein. [56] Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 8 f. [57] Cf. Philo ap. Eus. praep. ev. viii. 7 ton hiereon de tis paron, e ton geronton eis, anaginoskei tous hierous nomous autois kai kath' hekaston exegeitai. But exegeitai is ambiguous. [58] The hope of winning converts may have been among the motives which inspired the translators and gained a ready welcome for their work; cf. the prol. to Sirach: ou monon autous tous anaginoskontas deon estin epistemonas ginesthai, alla kai tois ektos dunasthai tous philomathountas chresimeus einai kai legontas kai graphontas--where however the influence of the Jewish Scriptures on pagans is regarded as indirect, and not immediate. [59] Cf. Mommsen, Provinces, ii. p. 164. [60] Another example is offered by the Greek Esther, if the note at the end of the book is to be trusted (ephasan . . . ermeneukenai Lusimachon Ptolemaiou ton en Ierousalem). [61] See Hody, ii. 4; Eichhorn, p. 472; H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 24 f.; on the other hand, cf. Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 40 ff. [62] Exp. Times, iii. p. 291; cf. Mahaffy, Greek life, p. 198 f. [63] Evidence of this kind will doubtless accumulate as new volumes of papyri are issued. The verbal indices which usually accompany such collections offer a rich field for the Biblical student who will be at the pains to explore them. [64] See however Buhl, p. 124. [65] According to Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 10 f.) the rolls only were sent in the first instance, and the interpreters followed in consequence of a second application from Philadelphus. This form of the story suggests that the desire for a translation may have been stimulated by the arrival of MSS. from Jerusalem. [66] See, however, Mahaffy, Hist. of Gk. class. literature, 1. ii. p. 195. [67] Apol. 18; cf. Justin, apol. i. 31, Chrys. or. 1 adv. Jud., and Epiph. de mens. et pond. S: 11. The library in the Brucheion perished in the time of Julius Caesar; that of the Serapeion is said to have been destroyed by Omar, A.D. 640. [68] See, e.g., S:S: 3, 10, 46, 171, 176. [69] In Ezech. v.; cf. in Gen. xxxi., in Mich. ii. See the Talmudical passages cited by Hody, p. 296. [70] de mens. et pond. 3 sq. [71] Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 113. Cf. Buhl, p. 12. [72] Cf. prol. supra: tou nomou kai ton propheton kai ton allon patrion biblion. [73] Pp. 108, 119; cf. p. 185. [74] Ib. p. 138f. [75] Ib. p. 138f. [76] Cf. Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, pp. 12, 83. [77] Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xxxi. f. [78] Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xxxiii. [79] Ryle, Canon, p. 151. [80] Ib. p. 163. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER II. LATER GREEK VERSIONS. 1. At Alexandria and in Egypt generally the Alexandrian version was regarded, as Philo plainly says, with a reverence scarcely less than that which belonged to the original. It was the Bible of the Egyptian Jews, even of those who belonged to the educated and literary class. This feeling was shared by the rest of the Hellenistic world. In Palestine indeed the version seems to have been received with less enthusiasm, and whether it was used in the synagogues is still uncertain. But elsewhere its acceptance by Greek-speaking Jews was universal during the Apostolic age and in the next generation. On the question of the use of the LXX. in the synagogues see Hody iii. 1. 1, Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 56 ff., Koenig, Einleitung, p. 105ff.; the negative is stoutly maintained by J. Lightfoot, hor. Hebr. (add. to 1 Cor. xiv.). If the Ep. to the Hebrews was addressed to the Church of Jerusalem, the preponderating use of the LXX. in its quotations from the O. T. is strong evidence, so far as it goes, for the acceptance of the LXX. by Palestinian Hellenists. Its use by St Paul vouches for the practice of the Hellenists of Asia Minor and Europe; no rival version had gained circulation at Antioch, Ephesus, or Rome. In the next century we have the evidence of Justin (apol. i. 31 emeinan hai bibloi [the translated books] kai par' Aiguptiois mechri tou deuro kai pantachou para pasin eisin Ioudaiois: dial. 72 haute he perikope he ek ton logon tou Ieremiou eti estin engegrammene en tisin antigraphois ton en sunagogais Ioudaion), Tertullian (apol. 18 "Judaea palam lectitant"), Pseudo-Justin (cohort. ad Gr. 13 to de par' Ioudaiois eti kai nun tas te hemetera theosebeia diapherousas sozesthai biblous, theias pronoias ergon huper hemon gegonen . . . apo tes ton Ioudaion sunagoges tautas axioumen prokomizesthai). 2. When the LXX. passed into the hands of the Church and was used in controversy with Jewish antagonists, the Jews not unnaturally began to doubt the accuracy of the Alexandrian version (Justin, dial. 68 tolmosi legein ten exegesin hen exegesanto hoi hebdomekonta humon presbuteroi para Ptolemaio to ton Aiguption basilei genomenoi me einai en tisin alethe). The crucial instance was the rendering of ZJaL+TjoH+ by parthenos in Isa. vii. 14, where neanis, it was contended, would have given the true meaning of the Hebrew word (ib. 71, 84; Iren. iii. 21. 1). But the dissatisfaction with which the LXX. was regarded by the Jewish leaders of the second century was perhaps not altogether due to polemical causes. The LXX. "did not suit the newer school of [Jewish] interpretation, it did not correspond with the received text [81] ." An official text differing considerably from the text accepted in earlier times had received the approval of the Rabbis, and the Alexandrian version, which represented the older text, began to be suspected and to pass into disuse. Attempts were made to provide something better for Greek-speaking Israelites (Justin, dial. 71 autoi exegeisthai peirontai). Of two such fresh translations Irenaeus speaks in terms of reprehension (l.c. ouch hos enioi phasin ton nun methermeneuein tolmonton ten graphen . . . hos Theodotion . . . ho Ephesios kai Akulas ho Pontikos, amphoteroi Ioudaioi proselutoi). Origen, who realised the importance of these translations, was able to add to those of Aquila and Theodotion the version of Symmachus and three others which were anonymous [82] . Of the anonymous versions little remains, but Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus are represented by numerous and in some cases important fragments. 3. Aquila. The name had been borne in the Apostolic age by a native of Pontus who was of Jewish birth (Acts xviii. 2 Ioudaion onomati Akulan, Pontikon to genei). Aquila the translator was also of Pontus, from the famous sea-port [83] Sinope, which had been constituted by Julius Caesar a Roman colony; but he was of Gentile origin. He lived in the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117--138), and was a connexion of the Emperor (pentherides, Epiph., Dial. of Timothy and Aquila; pentheros, Ps.-Ath., Chron. Pasch.). Hadrian employed his relative to superintend the building of Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem, and while there Aquila was converted to Christianity by Christians who had returned from Pella. Refusing, however, to abandon the pagan practice of astrology, he was excommunicated; upon which he shewed his resentment by submitting to circumcision and attaching himself to the teaching of the Jewish Rabbis. The purpose of his translation was to set aside the interpretation of the LXX., in so far as it appeared to support the views of the Christian Church. This is the story of Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 14 sq.: labon [sc. ho Hadrianos] ton Akulan touton . . . Hellena onta kai hautou pentheriden, apo Sinopes de tes Pontou hormomenon, kathistesin auton ekeise epistatein tois ergois ktl. . . . pikrantheis de . . . proseluteuei kai peritemnetai Ioudaios; kai epiponos philotimesamenos exedoken heauton mathein ten Ebraion dialekton kai ta auton stoicheia. tauten de akrotata paideutheis hermeneusen ouk ortho logismo chresamenos, all' hopos diastrepse tina ton rheton, enskepsas te ton ob' hermeneia hina ta peri Christou en tais graphais memarturemena allos ekdosei). The same tale is told in substance by the Pseudo-Athanasian author of Synopsis script. sacr., c. 77, and in the Dialogue between Timothy and Aquila printed in Anecdota Oxon., class. ser. pt viii. According to the writer of the Dialogue Aquila learned Hebrew in his 40th year, and there are other features peculiar to this form of the story which have led the editor, Mr F. C. Conybeare, to conjecture that it is independent of the Epiphanian narrative, though derived from the same source, which he believes to have been ultimately the history of Ariston of Pella (op. cit. p. xxvi. ff.). An Aquila figures in the Clementine romance (hom. ii. sqq., recogn. ii. sqq.); the name and character were perhaps suggested by some floating memories of the translator. Cf. Lagarde, Clementina, p. 12 f. That Aquila was a proselyte to Judaism is attested by the Jewish tradition (Jer. Talm. Meg. 1. 11, Kidush. 1. 1), in which he appears as H+aG+uR+, ho proselutos [84] . After his conversion to Judaism, Aquila became a pupil of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua (Meg. f. 71 c) or, according to another authority, of R. Akiba (Kiddush. f. 59 a). The latter statement seems to have been current among the Jews of Palestine in Jerome's time (Hieron. in Isa. viii, 14 "scribae et Pharisaei quorum suscepit scholam Akybas, quem magistrum Aquilae proselyti autumant"), and it derives some confirmation from the character of the version. According to Epiphanius the floruit of Aquila is to be placed in the 12th year of Hadrian (Epiph. de mens. et pond. 13 Hadrianos ete ka, houtinos to dodekato etei Akulas egnorizeto . . . hos einai apo tou chronou tes hermeneias ton ob' hermeneuton heos Akula tou hermeneutou, egoun heos dodekatou etous Hadrianou, ete ul' kai menas d'. The 12th year of Hadrian was A.D. 128--9, the year in which the Emperor began to rebuild Aelia. This date is doubtless approximately correct, if Aquila was a pupil of R. Akiba, who taught from A.D. 95 to A.D. 135 [85] , or even of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, who immediately preceded Akiba. It must have taken the Greek proselyte many years to acquire an adequate knowledge of Hebrew and of the Rabbinical methods of interpretation, and under these circumstances his great work could hardly have been completed before the fourth decade of the second century. When Irenaeus wrote his third book, in the ninth decade, Aquila's translation might still be regarded as comparatively recent (ton nun methermeneuein tolmonton ten graphen . . . hos . . . Akulas). 4. It was natural that the version of Aquila should be received with acclamation by his co-religionists. His teachers congratulated him in the words of Ps. xlv. 3, J+oP+J+oP+iJ+T+o M+iB+uN+J+ #oD+oM% [86] . The Talmud quotes or refers to his translation of not a few passages (Gen. xvii. 1; Lev. xix. 20, 23, 40; Esth. i. 6; Prov. xviii. 21, xxv. 11; Isa. iii. 20; Ezek. xvi. 10, xxiii. 43; Dan. v. 5, viii. 13). In Origen's time he was trusted implicitly in Jewish circles, and used by all Jews who did not understand Hebrew (ep. ad African. 2 philotimoteron pepisteumenos para Ioudaiois . . . o malista eiothasin hoi agnoountes ten Ebraion dialekton chresthai, hos panton mallon epiteteugmeno); and the same preference for Aquila seems to have been characteristic of the Jews in the fourth and fifth centuries (cf. Jerome on Ezek. iii. 5, and Augustine de civ. Dei xv. z3), and at a still later period, for even Justinian, when regulating the public reading of the Scriptures in the synagogues, thought it expedient to permit the use of Aquila (novell. 146: "at vero ii qui Graeca lingua legunt LXX. interpretum utentur translatione . . . verum . . . licentiam concedimus etiam Aquilae versione utendi"). It was equally natural that the proselyte's version should be regarded with distrust by Christians, who saw in it the work of a champion of Rabbinism as well as a bold attempt to displace the Septuagint [87] . Yet the few Christian writers who were students of the Hebrew Bible learnt to recognise the fidelity of Aquila's work. He was 'a slave to the letter' (douleuon te Ebraike lexei; whatever was wanting in the Hebrew text was not to be found in Aquila ou keitai para tois Ebraiois, dioper oude para to Akula). So Origen confesses [88] ; and Jerome, though when in a censorious mood he does not spare the proselyte (e.g. praef. in Job, ep. ad Pammach.), elsewhere admits his honesty and diligence (ep. ad Damas. 12 "non contentiosius, ut quidam putant, sed studiosius verbum interpretatur ad verbum"; ep. ad Marcell. "iamdudum cum voluminibus Hebraeorum editionem Aquilae confero, ne quid forsitan propter odium Christi synagoga mutaverit, et--ut amicae menti fatear--quae ad nostram fidem pertineant roborandam plura reperio"). After these testimonies from the two most competent witnesses in the ancient Church, we need not stop to consider the invective of Epiphanius [89] . 5. Until the summer of 1897 Aquila's version was known to students only from the description of ancient writers, chiefly Christian, and the fragments of the Hexapla (c. iii.), which when complete contained the entire work. These sources were used with admirable skill by Dr Field (prolegomena in Hexapla, p. xix, ff.) and Dr C. Taylor (D. C. B. art. Hexapla) to illustrate the purpose and style of Aquila's work. But an unexpected discovery has since placed at our disposal several larger fragments of the version, emanating from a Jewish source. Among the debris of the Genizah of the Cairo synagogue brought to Cambridge in 1897 through the efforts of Dr Taylor and Dr Schechter, Professor Burkitt was so fortunate as to discover some palimpsest scraps which under later Hebrew writing contain in a good uncial hand of the sixth century Aquila's translation of 1 Kings xx. 9--17 and 2 Kings xxiii. 12--27 [90] . From the same treasure Dr Taylor recovered portions of Pss. xc.-ciii., and a Hexaplar fragment of Ps. xxii. [91] The student will find below specimens of these discoveries, placed for the purpose of comparison in parallel columns with the version of the LXX. 3 Regn. xxi. (1 Kings xx.) 10--13. LXX. (Cod. B [92] ) Aquila. ^10kai apesteilen pros auton uios Hader legon Tade poiesai moi ho theos kai tade prostheie, ei ekpoiesei ho chous Samareias tais alopexin panti to lao tois pezois mou. ^11kai apekrithe basileus Israel kai eipen Hikanoustho; me kauchastho ho kurtos hos ho orthos. ^12kai egeneto hote apekrithe auto ton logon touton, pinon en autos kai pantes basileis met' autou en skenais; kai eipen tois paisin autou Oikodomesate charaka; kai ethento charaka epi ten polin. ^13kai idou prophetes heis proselthen to basilei Israel kai eipen Tade legei Kurios Ei heorakas ton ochlon ton megan touton; idou ego didomi auton semeron eis cheiras sas, kai gnose hoti ego Kurios. ^10kai apesteilen pros auton uios Hadad kai eipen Tade poiesaisan moi theoi kai tade prostheiesan, ei exarkesei chous Samarias tois lichasin [93] tou pantos tou laou hos en posin mou. ^11kai apekrithe basileus Israel kai eipen Lalesate Me kauchastho zonnumenos hos ho periluomenos. ^12kai egeneto hos ekousen sun to rhema touto, kai autos epinnen autos kai hoi basileis en suskiasmois; kai eipen pros doulous autou Thete; kai ethekan epi ten polin.^ 13kai idou prophetes heis prosengisen pros Aab basilea Israel kai eipen Tade legei Eides sun panta ton ochlon ton megan touton; idou ego didomi auton eis cheira sou semeron, kai gnose hoti ego . 4 Regn. (2 Kings) xxiii. 21--24. LXX. (Cod. B [94] ). Aquila. ^21kai eneteilato ho baseleus panti to lao legon Poiesate pascha to kurio theo hemon, kathos gegraptai epi bibliou tes diathekes tautes. ^22hoti ouk egenethe to pascha touto aph' hemeron ton kriton ohi ekrinon ton Israel, kai pasas tas hemeras basileon Israel kai basileon Iouda; ^23hoti all' e to oktokaidekato etei tou basileos Ioseia egenethe to pascha to kurio en Ierousalem. ^24kai ge tous theletas kai tous gnoristas kai ta theraphein kai ta eidola kai panta ta prosochthismata ta gegonota en ge Iouda kai en Ierousalem exeren Ioseias, hina stese tous logous tou nomou tous gegrammenous epi to biblio hou heuren Chelkeias ho hiereus en oiko Kuriou. ^21kai eneteilapo ho basileus sun panti to lao to legein Poiesate phesa to theo humon kata to gegrammenon epi bibliou tes sunthekes tautes. ^22hoti ouk epoiethe kata to phesa touto apo hemeron ton kriton ohi ekrinan ton Israel kai pason hemeron basileon Israel kai basileon Iouda; ^23hoti alla en oktokaidekato etei tou basileos Iosiaou epoiethe to phesa touto to en Ierousalem. ^24kai kai ge sun tous magous kai sun tous gnoristas kai sun ta morphomata kai sun ta katharmata kai sun panta prosochthismata ha horathesan en ge Iouda kai en Ierousalem epelexen Iosiaou, hopos anastese ta rhemata tou nomou ta gegrammena epi tou bibliou [hou heuren] Helkiaou ho hiereus oiko Kuriou [95] Ps. xc. (xci.) 6b--13. LXX. (Cod. B). Aquila. apo sumptomatos kai daimoniou mesembrinou. apo degmou daim[onizontos mesembrias]. ^7peseitai ek tou klitous sou chilias, ^7peseitai apo plagiou s[ouchilias], kai murias ek dexion sou, kai murias apo dexi[on sou]; pros se de ouk engiei; pros se ou proseng[isei]; ^8plen tois ophthalmois sou katanoeseis, ^8ektos en ophthalmois [sou epible]pseis, kai antapodosin hamartolon opse. kai apotisin asebon opse. ^9hoti su, Kurie, he elpis mou; ^9hoti su, , elpis mou; ton hupsiston ethou kataphugen sou. hupsiston ethekas oiketerion sou. ^10ou proseleusetai pros se kaka, ^10ou metachthesetai pros se kakia, kai mastix ouk engiei to skenomati sou; kai haphe ouk engisei en skepe sou; ^11hoti tois angelois autou enteleitai peri sou, ^11hoti angelois autou enteleitai se, tou diaphulaxai se en tais hodois [96] sou. tou phulaxai se en pasais hodois sou; ^12epi cheiron arousin se, ^12epi tarson arousin se, me pote proskopses pros lithon ton poda sou; mepote proskopse en litho [pous sou]; ^13ep' aspida kai basiliskon epibese. ^13epi leaina[n] [97] kai aspida pateseis. Ps. xci. (xcii.) 5--10. LXX. (Cod. B [98] ). Aquila. ^5hoti euphranas me, Kurie, en to poiemati sou, ^5[hoti euphranas me, ] , en katergo sou, kai en tois ergois ton cheiron sou agalliasomai. [en poiemasi] cheiron sou aineso. ^6hos emegalunthe ta erga sou, Kurie, ^6[hos emegalunthe] poiemata sou, sphodra ebarunthesan hoi dialogismoi sou. sphodra [ebathunth]esan logismoi sou. ^7aner aphron ou gnosetai, ^7[aner] asunetos ou geosetai, kai asunetos ou sunesei tauta. kai anoetos ou sunesei sui tauten. ^8en to anateilai tous hamartolous hos chorton ^8en to blastesai asebeis homoios chloe kai diekupsan pantes hoi ergathomenoi ten anomian, kai enthesan pantes katergazomenoi anopheles, hopos an exolethreuthosin eis ton aiona tou aionos. ektribenai autous heos eti; ^9su de Hupsistos eis ton aiona, ^9kai su Hupsistos eis aiona, Kurie. . ^10hoti idou oi echthroi sou apolountai, ^10idou oi echthroi sou, , idou hoi echthroi sou apolountai, kai diaskorpisthesontai pantes hoi ergathomenoi ten anomian. [skorpi]sthesontai pantes katergazo[menoi anopheles]. 6. If the student examines these specimens of Aquila's work and compares them with the Hebrew and LXX., the greater literalness of the later version and several of its most striking peculiarities will at once be apparent. He will notice especially the following. (1) There are frequent instances of an absolutely literal rendering of the original, e.g. 1 Kings xx. 10 hos en posin mou = #ShR+ B+uR+aG+L+oJ+ (LXX. tois pezois mou); 12 thete;kai ethekan = Sh:iJ+M+W+u W+aJ+oSh:iJ+M+W+u (LXX. oikodomesate charaka, kai ethento charaka); 2 Kings xxiii. 21 to legein = L+#M+:R+ (LXX. legon); 24 ha horathesan = #ShR+ N+iR+#W+u (LXX. ta gegonota). (2) Under certain circumstances [99] sun is employed to represent the Hebrew #T+, when it is the sign of the accusative [100] ; e.g. 1 Kings xx. 12 sun to rhema = #T+H+aD+uoB+oR+, 13 sun panta ton ochlon = #T+K+uoL+H+H+oM+N%, 2 Kings xxiii. 21 sun panti to lao (where the dat. is governed by the preceding verb), 24 sun tous magous ktl. (3) The same Hebrew words are scrupulously rendered by the same Greek, e.g. kai kaige = W+G+aM% occurs thrice in one context (2 Kings xxiii. 15, 19, 24); and in Ps. xcii. 8, 10 katergazomenoi anopheles twice represents P+uE+L+J+ #oW+N% (4) The transliterations adhere with greater closeness to the Hebrew than in the LXX. [101] ; thus P+uM%aX+ becomes phesa, J+#ShiJ+uoH+W+u Iosiaou, X+iL+Q+iJ+uoH+W+u Helkiaou. (5) The Tetragrammaton is not transliterated, but written in Hebrew letters, and the characters are of the archaic type ( , not J+H+W+H+); cf. Orig. in Ps. ii., kai en tois akribestatois de ton antigraphon Ebraiois charaktersin keitai to onoma, Ebraikois de ou tois nun alla tois archaiotatois--where the 'most exact copies' are doubtless those of Aquila's version, for there is no reason to suppose that any copyists of the Alexandrian version hesitated to write o ks or ke for J+H+W+H+ [102] . (6) That the crudities of Aquila's style are not due to an insufficient vocabulary [103] is clear from his ready use of words belonging to the classical or the literary type when they appear to him to correspond to the Hebrew more closely than the colloquialisms of the LXX. The following are specimens; 1 Kings xx. 10 LXX. ekpoiesei, Aq. exarkesei; LXX. alopexin, Aq. lichasin [104] ; 12 LXX. skenais, Aq. suskiasmois; 2 Kings xxiii. 21 LXX. diathekes, Aq. sunthekes; 24 LXX. theraphein, Aq. morphomata; LXX. eidola, Aq. katharmata; Ps. xc. 8 LXX. antapodosin, Aq. apotisin; ib. 10 LXX. proseleusetai, Aq. metachthesetai; LXX. mastix, Aq. haphe; xci. 5 LXX. poiemati, Aq. katergo. From the fragments which survive in the margins of hexaplaric MSS. it is possible to illustrate certain other characteristic features of Aquila which arise out of his extreme loyalty to the letter of his Hebrew text. (1) Jerome remarks upon his endeavour to represent even the etymological meaning of the Hebrew words (ad Pammach. 11 "non solum verba sed etymologias quoque verborum transferre conatus est)," and by way of example he cites the rendering of Deut. vii. 13, where Aquila substituted cheuma, oporismon, stilpnoteta for siton, oinon, elaion in order to reflect more exactly the Hebrew J+iZJH+oR+ ,T+uiJ+R+Sh ,D+uoG+oN%--as though, adds Jerome humorously, we were to use in Latin fusio, pomatio, splendentia. Similarly, Aquila represented E+iZJuM% by osteoun, and H+iSh:K+uiJ+L+ by epistemonizein or epistemonoun, and even coined the impossible form haphemenos to correspond with N+oG+W+uE+a. (2) An attempt is made to represent Hebrew particles, even such as defy translation; thus H+ local becomes the enclitic de (e. g. notonde = H+aN+uoG+B+uoH+, Gen. xii. 9, Kurenende = Q+iJ+R+oH+, 2 Kings xvi. 9); and similarly prepositions are accumulated in a manner quite alien from Greek usage (e.g. eis apo makrothen = L+M+R+oX+Q+, 2 Kings xix. 25). (3) Other devices are adopted for the purpose of bringing the version into close conformity with the original; a word of complex meaning or form is represented by two Greek words (e.g. E+Z+o#Z+L+ is converted into tragos apoluomenos and ZJiL+ZJaL+u into skia skia; a Hebrew word is replaced by a Greek word somewhat similar in sound, e.g. for #L+N% (Deut. xi. 30) Aquila gives aulon, and for T+uR+oP+iJ+M% (1 Sam. xv. 23) therapeia [105] . Enough has been said to shew the absurdity of Aquila's method when it is regarded from the standpoint of the modern translator. Even in ancient times such a translation could never have attained to the popularity which belonged to the LXX.; that it was widely accepted by the Greek synagogues of the Empire can only have been due to the prejudice created in its favour by its known adherence to the standard text and the traditional exegesis [106] . The version of Aquila emanated from a famous school of Jewish teachers; it was issued with the full approval of the Synagogue, and its affectation of preserving at all costs the idiom of the original recommended it to orthodox Jews whose loyalty to their faith was stronger than their sense of the niceties of the Greek tongue. For ourselves the work of Aquila possesses a value which arises from another consideration. His "high standard of exactitude and rigid consistency give his translation, with all its imperfections, unique worth for the critic [107] ." Its importance for the criticism of the Old Testament was fully recognised by the two greatest scholars of ancient Christendom, and there are few things more to be desired by the modern student of Scripture than the complete recovery of this monument of the text and methods of interpretation approved by the chief Jewish teachers of the generation which followed the close of the Apostolic age. 7. Theodotion. With Aquila Irenaeus couples Theodotion of Ephesus, as another Jewish proselyte who translated the Old Testament into Greek (Theodotion hermecheusen ho Ephesios kai Akulas . . . amphoteroi Ioudaioi proselutoi). Himself of Asiatic origin, and probably a junior contemporary of Theodotion, Irenaeus may be trusted when he assigns this translator to Ephesus, and describes him as a convert to Judaism. Later writers, however, depart more or less widely from this statement. According to Epiphanius, Theodotion was a native of Pontus, who had been a disciple of Marcion of Sinope before he espoused Judaism. According to Jerome, he was an Ebionite, probably a Jew who had embraced Ebionitic Christianity. His floruit is fixed by Epiphanius in the reign of the second Commodus, i.e. of the Emperor Commodes, so called to distinguish him from L. Ceionius Commodus, better known as L. Aurelius Verus. Epiph. de mens. et pond. 17 peri ten tou deuterou Komodou basileian tou basileusantos meta ton proeiremenon Komodon Loukion Aurelion ete ig', Theodotion tis Pontikos apo tes diadoches Markionos tou hairesiarchou tou Sinopitou, menion kai autos te autou hairesei kai eis Ioudaismon apoklinas kai peritmetheis kai ten ton Ebraion phonen kai ta auton stoicheia paideutheis, idios kai autos exedoke. Hieron. ep. ad Augustin.: "hominis Judaei atque blasphemi"; praef. in Job: "Iudaeus Aquila, et Symmachus et Theodotio Judaizantes haeretici"; de virr. ill. 54 "editiones . . . Aquilae . . . Pontici proselyti et Theodotionis Hebionaei"; praef. ad Daniel.: "Theodotionem, qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit, licet eum quidam dicant Hebionitam qui altero genere Iudaeus est [108] ." The date assigned to Theodotion by Epiphanius is obviously too late, in view of the statement of Irenaeus, and the whole account suspiciously resembles the story of Aquila. That within the same century two natives of Pontus learnt Hebrew as adults, and used their knowledge to produce independent translations of the Hebrew Bible, is scarcely credible. But it is not unlikely that Theodotion was an Ephesian Jew or Jewish Ebionite. The attitude of a Hellenist towards the Alexandrian version would naturally be one of respectful consideration, and his view of the office of a translator widely different from that of Aquila, who had been trained by the strictest Rabbis of the Palestinian school. And these expectations are justified by what we know of Theodotion's work. "Inter veteres medius incedit" (Hieron. praef. ad evang.); "simplicitate sermonis a LXX. interpretibus non discordat" (praef. in Pss.); "Septuaginta et Theodotio . . . in plurimis locis concordant" (in Eccl. ii.)--such is Jerome's judgement; and Epiphanius agrees with this estimate (de mens. et pond. 17: ta pleista tois ob' sunadontos exedoken). Theodotion seems to have produced a free revision of the LXX. rather than an independent version. The revision was made on the whole upon the basis of the standard Hebrew text; thus the Job of Theodotion was longer than the Job of the LXX. by a sixth part of the whole (Orig. ep. ad Afric. 3 sqq., Hieron. praef. ad Job) [109] , and in Daniel, on the other hand, the Midrashic expansions which characterise the LXX. version disappear in Theodotion. His practice with regard to apocryphal books or additional matter appears not to have been uniform; he followed the LXX. in accepting the additions to Daniel and the supplementary verses in Job [110] , but there is no evidence that he admitted the non-canonical books in general [111] . 8. Specimens of Theodotion's style and manner may be obtained from the large and important fragments of his work which were used by Origen to fill up the lacunae in Jeremiah (LXX.). The following passage, preserved in the margin of Codex Marchalianus, will serve as an example [112] . Jeremiah xl. (xxxiii.) 14--26. ^14 Idou hemerai erchontai, phesi Kurios, kai anasteso ton logon mou ton agathon hon elalesa epi ton oikon Israel kai epi ton oikon Iouda. ^15 en tais hemerais ekeinais kai en to kairo ekeino anatelo to Dauid anatolen dikaian, poion krima kai dikaiosunen en te ge. ^16 en tais hemerais ekeinais sothesetai he Ioudaia kai Ierousalem kataskenosei pepoithuia; kai touto to onoma ho kalesei auten ^17 hoti tade legei Kurios, Ouk exolothreuthesetai to Dauid aner kathemenos epi thronon oikou Israel; ^18 kai tois hiereusi tois Leuitais ouk exolothreuthesetai aner ek prosopou mou, anapheron holokautomata kai thuon thusian. ^19 kai egeneto logos Kuriou pros Ieremian legon ^20 Tade legei Kurios Ei diaskedasete ten diatheken mou ten hemeran kai ten diatheken mou ten nukta, tou me einai hemeran kai nukta en kairo auton; ^21 kaige he diatheke mou diaskedasthesetai meta Dauid tou doulou mou, tou me einai auto huion basileuonta epi ton thronon autou, kai e pros tous Leuitas tous iereis tous leitourgountas moi. ^22 hos ouk exarithmethesetai he dunamis tou ouranou, oude ekmetrethesetai he ammos tes thalasses, houtos plethuno to sperma Dauid tou doulou mou kai tous Leuitas tous leitourgountas moi. ^23 kai egeneto logos Kuriou pros Ieremian legon ^24 Ara ge ouk ides ti ho laos elalesan legontes Hai duo patriai has exelexato Kurios en autais, kai idou aposato autous;; kai ton laon mou paroxunan tou me einai eti ethnos enopion mou. ^25 tade legei Kurios Ei me ten diatheken mou hemeras kai nuktos, akribasmata ouranou kai ges, ouk etaxa, ^26 kaige to sperma Iakob kai Dauid tou doulou mou apodokimo, tou me labein ek tou spermatos autou archonta pros to sperma Abraam kai Isaak kai Iakob; hoti epistrepso ten epistrophen auton, kai oikteireso autous [113] . Unfortunately there is no other Greek version which can be compared with Theodotion in this passage, for the LXX. is wanting, and only a few shreds of Aquila and Symmachus have reached us. But the student will probably agree with Field that the style is on the whole not wanting in simple dignity, and that it is scarcely to be distinguished from the best manner of the LXX. [114] With his Hebrew Bible open at the place, he will observe that the rendering is faithful to the original, while it escapes the crudities and absurdities which beset the excessive fidelity of Aquila. Now and again we meet with a word unknown to the LXX. (e.g. akribasmata = X+Q+uT+) [115] , or a reminiscence of Aquila; on the other hand Theodotion agrees with the LXX. against Aquila in translating B+uR+iJ+T+ by diatheke. If in one place Theodotion is more obscure than Aquila ten diatheken ten hemeran . . . ten nukta, Aq. tes hemeras . . . tes nuktos), yet the passage as a whole is a singularly clear and unaffected rendering. His chief defect does not reveal itself in this context; it is a habit of transliterating Hebrew words which could have presented no difficulty to a person moderately acquainted with both languages. Field gives a list of 90 words which are treated by Theodotion in this way without any apparent cause [116] . When among these we find such a word as #L+ (which is represented by el in Mal. ii. 11), we are compelled to absolve him from the charge of incompetence, for, as has been pertinently asked, how could a man who was unacquainted with so ordinary a word or with its Greek equivalent have produced a version at all? Probably an explanation should be sought in the cautious and conservative temperament of this translator [117] . Field's judgement is here sounder than Montfaucon's; Theodotion is not to be pronounced indoctior, or indiligentior, but only "scrupulosior quam operis sui instituto fortasse conveniret [118] ." 9. The relation of the two extant Greek versions of Daniel is a perplexing problem which calls for further consideration. In his lost Stromata Origen, it appears [119] , announced his intention of using Theodotion's version of Daniel; and an examination of Origen's extant works shews that his citations of Daniel "agree almost verbatim with the text of Theodotion now current [120] ." The action of Origen in this matter was generally endorsed by the Church, as we learn from Jerome (praef. in Dan.: "Danielem prophetam iuxta LXX. interpretes ecclesiae non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione"; cf. c. Rufin. ii. 33). Jerome did not know how this happened, but his own words supply a sufficient explanation: "hoc unum affirmare possum quod multum a veritate discordet et recto iudicio repudiata sit." So universal was the rejection of the LXX. version of Daniel that, though Origen loyally gave it a place in his Hexapla, only one Greek copy has survived [121] , Theodotion's version having been substituted in all other extant Greek MSS. of Daniel. But the use of Theodotion's Daniel in preference to the version which was attributed to the LXX. did not begin with Origen. Clement of Alexandria (as edited) uses Theodotion, with a sprinkling of LXX. readings, in the few places where he quotes Daniel (paed. ii. 8, iii. 3, strom. i. 4, 21). In North Africa both versions seem to have influenced the Latin text of Daniel. The subject has been carefully investigated by Prof. F. C. Burkitt [122] , who shews that Tertullian used "a form of the LXX. differing slightly from Origen's edition," whilst Cyprian quotes from a mixed text, in which Theodotion sometimes predominates. Irenaeus, notwithstanding his reverence for the LXX. and distrust of the later versions, cites Daniel after Theodotion's version [123] . Further, Theodotion's Daniel appears to be used by writers anterior to the date usually assigned to this translator. Thus Hermas (vis. iv. 2, 4) has a clear reference to Theodotion's rendering of Dan. vi. 22 [124] . Justin (dial. 31) gives a long extract from Dan. vii. in which characteristic readings from the two versions occur in almost equal proportions [125] . Clement of Rome (1 Cor. 34) cites a part of the same context, with a Theodotionic reading (eleitourgoun, LXX. etheraeuon). Barnabas (ep. iv. 5) also refers to Dan. vii., and, though his citation is too loose to be pressed, the words exanastesontai opisthen auton are more likely to be a reminiscence of opiso auton anastesetai (Th.) than of meta toutous stesetai (LXX.). The Greek version of Baruch (i. 15--18, ii. 11--19) undoubtedly supports Theodotion against the LXX. Still more remarkable is the appearance of Theodotionic renderings in the New Testament. A writer so faithful to the LXX. as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in his only reference to Daniel Heb. xi. 33 = Dan. vi. 23) agrees with Theodotion against the Chigi version [126] . The Apocalypse, which makes frequent use of Daniel, supports Theodotion on the whole; cf. Apoc. ix. 20 (Dan. v. 23), x. 6 (Dan. xii. 7), xii. 7 (Dan. x. 20), xiii. 7 (Dan. vii. 21), xix. 6 (Dan. x. 6), xx. 4 (Dan. vii. 9), xx. 11 (Dan. ii. 35) [127] . Even in the Synoptic Gospels Theodotion's rendering in Dan. vii. 13 (meta ton nephelon) occurs as well as the LXX. epi ton n. comp. Mc. xiv. 62 with Mt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64 [128] . From these premisses the inference has been drawn that there were two pre-Christian versions of Daniel, both passing as 'LXX.', one of which is preserved in the Chigi MS., whilst the other formed the basis of Theodotion's revision [129] . It has been urged by Dr Gwynn with much acuteness that the two Septuagintal Books of Esdras offer an analogy to the two versions of Daniel, and the appearance of the phrase apereisato auta en to eidolio autou in 1 Esdr. ii. 9 and Dan. i. 2 (LXX.) has been regarded as an indication that the Greek Esdras and the Chigi Daniel were the work of the same translator [130] . An obvious objection to the hypothesis of two Septuagintal or Alexandrian versions is the entire disappearance of the version which was used ex hypothesi not only by the authors of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse, but by Theodotion and other writers of the second century. But Theodotion's revision of Daniel may have differed so little from the stricter Alexandrian version as to have taken its place without remark [131] . 10. Symmachus. Of this translator Irenaeus says nothing, and it has been inferred, perhaps too hastily, that he was unknown to the Bishop of Lyons, and of later date. Origen knew and used Symmachus, and had received a copy of his commentary on St Matthew from a wealthy Christian woman named Juliana, to whom it had been given by the author. According to Eusebius, Symmachus was an Ebionite, and this is confirmed by Jerome; a less probable tradition in Epiphanius represents him as a Samaritan who had become a convert to Judaism [132] . Eus. H. E. vi. 17 ton ge men hermeneuuon auton de touton isteon Ebionaion ton Summachon gegonenai . . . kai hupomnemata de tou Summachou eiseti nun pheretai en hois dokei pros to kata Matthaion apoteinomenos euangelion ten dedelomenen hairesin kratunein. tauta de ho Origenes meta kai allon eis tas graphas hermeneion tou Summachou semainei para Ioulianes tinos eilephenai, hen kai phesi par autou Summachou tas biblous diadexasthai. Hieron. de virr. ill. 54 "Theodotionis Hebionaei et Symmachi eiusdem dogmatis" (cf. in Hab. iii. 13); praef. in Job: "Symmachus et Theodotion Iudaizantes haeretici." Epiph. de mens. et pond. 15 en tois tou Seuerou chronois Summachos tis Samareites ton par autois sophon me timetheis hupo tou oikeiou ethnous . . . proseluteuei kai peritemnetai deuteran peritomen . . . houtos toinun ho Summachos pros diastrophen ton para Samareitais hermeneion hermeneusas ten triten exedoken hermeneian. That Symmachus, even if of Jewish or Samaritan birth, became an Ebionite leader is scarcely doubtful, since an Ebionitic commentary on St Matthew bearing his name was still extant in the fourth century [133] ; the Symmachians, an Ebionite sect probably named after him, are mentioned by Ambrosiaster (comm. in Gal., prolegg.) and Augustine (c. Faust. xix. 4, c. Crescon. i. 36) [134] . His floruit is open to some question. Dr Gwynn has shewn [135] that Epiphanius, who makes Theodotion follow Symmachus, probably placed Symmachus in the reign of Verus, i.e. Marcus Aurelius. Now in the Historia Lausiaca, c. 147, Palladius says that Juliana sheltered Origen during a persecution, i.e. probably during the persecution of the Emperor Maximius (A.D. 238--241). If this was so, the literary activity of Symmachus must have belonged, at the earliest, to the last years of M. Aurelius, and it may be questioned whether Epiphanius has not inverted the order of the two translators, i.e. whether Theodotion ought not to be placed under M. Aurelius and Symmachus under Commodus (A.D. 180--192) [136] . The version of Symmachus was in the hands of Origen when he wrote his earliest commentaries, i.e. about A.D. 228 [137] ; but the interval is long enough to admit of its having reached Alexandria. 11. The aim of Symmachus, as Jerome perceived, was to express the sense of his Hebrew text rather than to attempt a verbal rendering: "non solet verborum kakozelian sed intellegentiae ordinem sequi" (in Am. iii. 11). While Aquila endeavoured "verbum de verbo exprimere," Symmachus made it his business "sensum potius sequi" (praef. in Chron. Eus., cf. praef. in Job). Epiphanius, who believed Symmachus to have been a Samaritan proselyte to Judaism, jumped to the conclusion that his purpose was polemical (pros diastrophen ton para Samareitais hermeneion hermeneusas). But if Symmachus had any antagonist in view, it was probably the literalism and violation of the Greek idiom which made the work of Aquila unacceptable to non-Jewish readers. So far as we can judge from the fragments of his version which survive in Hexaplaric MSS., he wrote with Aquila's version before him, and in his efforts to recast it made free use of both the LXX. and Theodotion. The following extracts will serve to illustrate this view of his relation to his predecessors. MALACHI II. 13 [138] LXX. Aq. kai tauta ha emisoun epoieite; ekaluptete dakrusin to thusiasterion Kuriou kai klauthmo kai stenagmo ek kopon. eti axion epiblepsai eis thusian e labein dekton ek ton cheiron humon kai touto deuteron epoieite; ekaluptete dakruo to thusiasterion klauthmo kai oimoge, apo tou me einai eti neusai pros to doron kai labein eudokian apo cheiros humon. Th. Symm. kai touto deuteron epoiesate; ekaluptete dakrusin to thusiasterion, klaiontes kai stenontes, apo tou me einai eti prosengizonta to holokautoma kai labein teleion ek cheiron humon. kai tauta deuteron epoieite, kaluptontes en dakrusin to thusiasterion, klaiontes kai oimossontes, apo tou me einai eti neuonta pros to doron kai dexasthai to eudokemenon apo cheiros humon. But it must not be supposed that Symmachus is a mere reviser of earlier versions, or that he follows the lead of Aquila as Theodotion follows the LXX. Again and again he goes his own way in absolute independence of earlier versions, and sometimes at least, it must be confessed, of the original. This is due partly to his desire to produce a good Greek rendering, more or less after the current literary style; partly, as it seems, to dogmatic reasons. The following may serve as specimens of the Greek style of Symmachus when he breaks loose from the influence of his predecessors: Gen. xviii. 25 ho panta anthropon apaiton dikaiopragein, alritos me poieses touto; Job xxvi. 14 ti de psithurisma ton logon autou akousomen, hopou bronten dunasteias autou oudeis ennoesei; Ps. xliii. 16 di holes hemeras he aschemonesis mou antikrus mou, kai ho kataischummos tou prosopou mou kaluptei me. Ps. lxviii. 3 ebaptisthen eis aperantous kataduseis, kai ouk estin stasis; eiselthon eis ta bathe ton hudaton, kai rheithron epeklusen me. Eccl. iv. 9 eisin ameinous duo henos; echousin gar kerdos agathon. Isa. xxix. 4 upo gen edaphisthesetai he lalia sou, kai estai hos engastrimuthos he phone pou kai apo tes ges he lalia sou rhoisetai. It cannot be said that these renderings approach to excellence, but a comparison with the corresponding LXX. will shew that Symmachus has at least attempted to set himself free from the trammels of the Hebrew idiom and to clothe the thoughts of the Old Testament in the richer drapery of the Greek tongue. It is his custom to use compounds to represent ideas which in Hebrew can be expressed only by two or more words (e.g. B+uL+J+P+ShaE+, Symm. anaitios, E+aJ+iN% sbB+uE+aJ+iN%, Symm. hophthalmophanos, L+R+#Sh P+uiN+uoH+ Symm. akrogoniaios); he converts into a participle the first of two finite verbs connected by a copula (Exod. v. 7 Symm. aperchomenoi kalamasthosan, 4 Regn. i. 2 sphalentes epeson); he has at his command a large supply of Greek particles (e.g. he renders #aK% by ara, ontos, isos, di holou, monon, houtos, all' homos) [139] . More interesting and important is the tendency which Symmachus manifests to soften the anthropomorphic expressions of the Old Testament; e.g. Gen. i. 27, ektisen ho theos ton anthropon en eikoni diaphoro [140] ; orthion ho theos ektisen auton. Exod. xxiv. 10, eidon horamati ton theon Israel. Jud. ix. 13 ton oinon . . . ten euphrosunen ton anthropon. Ps. xliii. 24 hina ti hos hupnon ei, Despota; In these and other instances Symmachus seems to shew a knowledge of current Jewish exegesis [141] which agrees with the story of his Jewish origin or training. Literature. On Aquila the student may consult R. Anger de Onkelo Chaldaico, 1845; art. in D. C. B. (W. J. Dickson); M. Friedmann, Onkelos u. Akylas, 1896; Lagarde, Clementina, p. 12 ff.; Krauss, Akylas der Proselyt (Festschrift), 1896; F. C. Burkitt, Fragments of Aquila, 1897; C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers^2, 1897 (p. viii.); Schuerer^3, iii. p. 317 ff. On Symmachus, C. H. Thieme, pro puritate Symmachi dissert., 1755; art. in D. C. B. (J. Gwynn); Giov. Mercati, l'et`a di Simmaco interprete, 1892. On Theodotion, Credner, Beitraege, ii. p. 253 ff.; art. in D. C. B. (J. Gwynn); G. Salmon, Intr. to the N. T.^7, p. 538 ff.; Schuerer^3, iii. p. 323 ff. Works which deal with the ancient non-Septuagintal versions in general will be mentioned in c. iii., under Literature of the Hexapla. 12. Other ancient Greek versions. The researches of Origen (A.D. 185--253) brought to light three anonymous versions besides those of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus; from their relative position in the columns of his great collection (see c. iii.) they are known as the Quinta (e'), Sexta (s'), and Septima (z') respectively. The following are the chief authorities: Eus. H. E. vi. 16 tosaute de eisegeto to Origenei ton theion logon apekribomene exetasis hos . . . kai tinas heteras para tas; kathemaxeumenas hermeneias enallattousas . . ., epheurein, has ouk oid' hothen ek tinon muchon ton palai lanthanousas chronon eis phos anichneusas proegagen . . . tinos ar eien ouk eidos auto touto monon epesemenato hos ara ten men heuroi en te pros Aktio Nikopolei . . .epi mias authis sesemeiotai hos en Ierichoi heuremenes en pitho kata tous chronous Antoninou tou uiou Seberou. Epiph. de mens. et pond. 18 meta ton diogmon tou basileos Seuerou heurethe he pempte en pithois en Iericho kekrummene en chronois tou huiou Seuerou tou epiklethentos Karakallou te kai Geta . . . en de to hebdomo autou etei heurethesan kai bibloi tes pemptes ekdoseos en pithois en Iericho kekrummenes meta allon biblion Ebraikon kai Hellenikon. ton de Karakallon diadechetai Antoninos heteros . . . meta touton ebasileusen Alexandros . . . ete ig'; en meso ton chronon touton heurethe hekte ekdosis, kai aute en pithois kekrummene, en Nikopolei te pros Aktio. Pseudo-Ath. syn. scr. sacr. 77 pempte hermeneia estin he en pithois heuretheisa kekrummene epi Antoninou basileos tou Karakalla en Iericho para tinos ton en Ierosolumois spoudaion. hekte ermeneia estin he en pithois heuretheisa, kai haute kekrummene, epi Alexandrou tou Mamaias paidos en Nikopolei te pros Aktion hupo Origenous gnorimon. Hieron. de virr. ill. 54 "quintam et sextam et septimam editionem, quas etiam nos de eius bibliotheca habemus, miro labore repperit et cum ceteris editionibus conparavit": in ep. ad Tit. "nonnulli vero libri, et maxime hi qui apud Hebraeos versu compositi sunt, tres alias editiones additas habent quam 'quintam' et 'sextam' et 'septimam' translationem vocant, auctoritatem sine nominibus interpretum consecutas." Cf. in Hab. ii. 11, iii. 13. It appears from the statement of Eusebius [142] that Origen found the Quinta at Nicopolis near Actium, and that either the Sexta or the Septima was discovered in the reign of Caracalla (A.D. 211--217) at Jericho; while Epiphanius, reversing this order, says that the Quinta was found at Jericho c. A.D. 217, and the Sexta at Nicopolis under Severus Alexander (A.D. 222--235) [143] . According to Epiphanius both the Quinta and the Sexta, according to Eusebius the Sexta only, lay buried in a pithos (dolium), one of the earthenware jars, pitched internally, and partly sunk in the ground, in which the mustum was usually stored while it underwent the process of fermentation [144] . Since Origen was in Palestine A.D. 217, and in Greece A.D. 231, it is natural to connect his discoveries with those years. How long the versions had been buried cannot be determined, for it is impossible to attach any importance to the vague statements of Eusebius (ton palai lanthanousas chronon). The version found at or near Nicopolis may have been a relic of the early Christianity of Epirus, to which there is an indirect allusion in the Pastoral Epistles [145] . The Jericho find, on the other hand, was very possibly a Palestinian work, deposited in the wine jar for the sake of safety during the persecution of Septimius Severus, who was in Palestine A.D. 202, and issued edicts against both the Synagogue and the Church [146] . Of Septima nothing is known, beyond what Eusebius tells us, and the very sparing use of it in the Psalter of some Hexaplaric MSS.; the few instances are so dubious that Field was disposed to conclude either that this version never existed, or that all traces of it have been lost [147] . There is no conclusive evidence to shew that any of these versions covered the whole of the Old Testament [148] . Renderings from Quinta [149] are more or less abundant in 2 Kings, Job, Psalms, Canticles, and the Minor Prophets, and a few traces have been observed in the Pentateuch. Sexta is well represented in the Psalms and in Canticles, and has left indications of its existence in Exodus, 1 Kings, and the Minor Prophets. With regard to the literary character of Quinta and Sexta, the style of Quinta is characterised by Field as "omnium elegantissimus . . . cum optimis Graecis suae aetatis scriptoribus comparandus." Sexta also shews some command of Greek, but is said to be disposed to paraphrase; Field, while he regards that charge as on the whole 'not proven,' cites a remarkable example of the tendency from Ps. xxxvi. 35, which s' renders, Eidon asebe kai anaide antipoioumenon en skleroteti kai legonta Eimi hos autochthon peripaton en dikaiosune. Jerome [150] attributes both versions to 'Jewish translators,' but the Christian origin of Sexta betrays itself [151] at Hab. iii. 13 exelthes tou sosai ton laon sou dia Iesoun ton christon sou [152] . The Greek fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries quotes non-Septuagintal renderings from an interpreter who is styled ho Ebraios. Ho Suros is also cited, frequently as agreeing with ho Ebraios. Nothing is known of these translators (if such they were), but an elaborate discussion of all the facts may be seen in Field [153] . 13. The 'GRAECUS VENETUS.' This is a version of the Pentateuch, together with the books of Ruth, Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Daniel, preserved in St Mark's Library at Venice in a single MS. of cent. xiv.--xv. (cod. Gr. vii.) [154] . It was first given to the world by de Villoison (Strassburg, 1784) and C. F. Ammon (Erlangen, 1790--1); a new edition with valuable prolegomena by O. von Gebhardt appeared at Leipzig in 1875 [155] . This translation has been made directly from the M. T., but the author appears to have occasionally availed himself of earlier Greek versions (LXX., Aq., Symm., Theod.) [156] . His chief guide however appears to have been David Kimchi, whose interpretations are closely followed [157] . That he was a Jew is clear from incidental renderings (e.g. in Exod. xxiii. 20 he translates H+aM+uoQ+M% ton ontoten [158] , sc. J+H+oH+). From the fact of his having undertaken a Greek version Gebhardt infers that he was a proselyte to Christianity, but the argument may be used to support an opposite conclusion; as a Jew he may have been moved by a desire to place before the dominant Orthodox Church a better rendering of the Old Testament than the LXX. Delitzsch wishes to identify him with Elissaeus, a Jewish scholar at the court of Murad I., who flourished in the second half of the 14th century. The style of this remarkable version will be best illustrated by a few specimens: Gen. vi. 2 f. ^2 tetheantai goun hoi huieis tou theou tas thugateras tou anthrhopou hoti kalai eteloun, kai elaron heautois gunaikas apo pason on heilonto. ^3 ephe toinun ho ontotes Ou krinei pneuma toumon en to anthropo es aiona, eph' hois eti per esti sarx; telesousi d' hai hemerai autou hekaton kai eikosin ete. Prov. viii. 22 ff. ^22 ho ontotes ektesato me archen hodou hoi, pro ton ergon autou ek tote. ^23 ap' aionos kechumai, apo kratos, apo prolemmatos ges. ^24 en ouk abussois peplasmai, en ou pegais dedoxasmenon hudaton; ^25 prin ore empagenai, pro ton bounon hodinemai; ^26 achris ouk epoiese gen, diodous kai kephalen koneon tes oikoumenes. Daniel vii. 13. ^13 horaon ekuresa en horasesin euphronas, autika te xun tais nephelais ton polon hos huieus anthropo aphiknoumenos een, mechri te to palaio tais hamerais ephthase kanopion teno prosegagon he. ^14 teno t' edothe archa tima te kai basileia, pantes te laoi ethnea kai glottai teno latreuseionti; ha archu heu archa aionos hos ou pareleuseietai, ha te basileia heu haper ouk oicheseietai. The student will not fail to notice the translator's desire to render his text faithfully, and, on the other hand, his curiously infelicitous attempt to reproduce it in Attic Greek; and lastly his use of the Doric dialect in Daniel to distinguish the Aramaic passages from the rest of the book. The result reminds us of a schoolboy's exercise, and the reader turns from it with pleasure to the less ambitious diction of the LXX., which, with its many imperfections, is at least the natural outgrowth of historical surroundings. Klostermann (Analecta p. 30) mentions a MS. Psalter (Vat. Gr. 343), bearing the date 22 April, 1450, which professes to be a translation into the Greek of the fifteenth century (kata ten nun koinen ton Graikon phonen). A version of the Pentateuch into modern Greek in Hebrew characters was printed at Constantinople in 1547, forming the left-hand column of a Polyglott (Hebrew, Chaldee, Spanish, Greek). It is described in Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. p. 355, and more fully in La version Neo-grecque du Pentateuche Polyglotte . . . remarques du Dr Lasare Belleli (Paris, 1897). This Greek version has recently been transliterated and published in a separate form with an introduction and glossary by D. C. Hesseling (Leide, 1897). A Greek version of job (1576) is mentioned by Neubauer in J. Q. R. iv. p. 18 f. __________________________________________________________________ [81] Robertson Smith, The O. T. in the J. Ch., p. 64; cf. ib. p. 87 f.; Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, p. 63 ff.; cf. Buhl, p. 118 f. [82] Eus. H. E. vi. 16. [83] Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, p. 27 f.; cf. Hort, Commentary on Peter, p. 172 ff. [84] The name is written Q+J+L+M% ,#Q+J+L+M% ,E+Q+J+L+M% or E+Q+J+E+L+M%, and in the Bab. Talmud, #G+Q+L+W+M%. On the identity of Aquila with Onkelos see Anger de Onkelo Chaldaico (before 1845), Friedmann Onkelos u. Akylas (Wien, 1896); or the brief statement in Buhl, p. 173. [85] Field, Hexapla, prolegg. p. xviii. [86] Megilla 1. 9: in J+P+J+P+J+T+ there is a play upon J+P+T+ (cf. Gen. ix. 27). [87] See Dr C. Taylor in the preface to Prof. Burkitt's Fragments of Aquila, p. vi.: "Aquila in a sense was not the sole or independent author of the version, its uncompromising literalism being the necessary outcome of his Jewish teachers' system of exegesis." [88] Ep. ad Afric. 3. Cf. Aug. l.c. [89] See p. 31. [90] Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the translation of Aquila (Cambridge, 1897). [91] Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests (Camb. 1900). See also Amherst Papyri, i. p. 30 f. (London, 1900). [92] Cod. A is nearer to Aquila, as the following variants shew: 10 poiesaisan moi oi theoi kai tade prostheiesan A 12 ote] os A | pantes oi b. A 13 to bas.] pr to Achaab A | ton ochlon] pr panta A | eis ch. sas semeron A. [93] MS. ; see Burkitt, op. cit. p. 2. [94] The following variants in Cod. A agree with Aquila: 22 pason emeron A 23 to pascha] + touto A [95] MS. , at the end of a line: see Burkitt, p. 16. [96] 11 tais odois] pr tasais A(R)T [97] MS. . [98] The following variants deserve attention: 6 ebathunth. Bab#c.aRT 10 pr oti idou oi echthroi sou ke #AaRT [99] For these see Burkitt, Aquila, p. 12. [100] This singular use of sun appears also in the LXX., but only in Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, which Freudenthal is disposed to assign to Aquila (p. 65); cf. Koenig, Einleitung, p. 108 n., and McNeile, Introd. to Ecclesiastes. [101] Aq. does not transliterate E+X+H+# (see Burkitt, p. 14). [102] In a few Hexaplaric MSS. (e.g. Q, 86, 88, 243mg, 264) the Greek letters PIPI are written for J+H+W+H+, but (with the exception of the Genizah Palimpsest, Taylor, p. 27) the Greek MSS. use it solely in their excerpts from the non-Septuagintal columns of the Hexapla, and only the Hexaplaric Syriac admits PIPI into the text of the LXX., using it freely for kurios, even with a preposition (as ). Oxyrh. Pap. 1007 (vol. VII.), late 3rd cent., has ZZ, representing doubled yod, in Gen. ii., iii. Ceriani expresses the opinion that the use of PIPI is due either to Origen or Eusebius, i.e. one of those fathers substituted PIPI for for in the non-Septuagintal columns, using the letters to represent the Hebrew characters which were familiar to them. On the whole subject the student may consult Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profane, ii. p. 106 ff.; Schleusner, s.v. pipi, Field, Hexapla ad Esa. i. 2; Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, p. 1135; Driver in Studia Biblia, i. p. 12, n. 3; Z. D. M. G. (1878), 465 ff., 501, 506. Prof. Burkitt acutely points out (p. 16) that (and doubtless also PIPI was read as Kurios, since in one place in the Aquila fragments where there was no room to write the Hebrew characters "instead of oiko we find oiko ku." On the orthography see Burkitt, p. 15, par. 4. [103] Even Jerome speaks of Aquila as "eruditissimus linguae Graecae" (in Isa. xlix. 5). [104] See Prof. Burkitt's note (p. 26). [105] The student who wishes to pursue the subject may refer to Field, Prolegg. p. xxi. sqq.,