Philocrates. Aristeas, it appears, was one of the body-guard to Ptolemy II., called Philadelphus, who reigned B.C. 284 (or -5) to 246 (or -7). According to this letter, Demetrius Phalereus, the Royal librarian of his day at Alexandria, suggested to the king, that the laws of the Jews (Tv 'Iovdaiwv vóμipa) should be translated into Greek. In consequence of the librarian's suggestion, which appears to have been graciously received by the king's majesty, a letter was addressed to the high priest Eleazar, who eventually sent down to Egypt seventy-two persons, six from each tribe. According to the letter (or legend), these seventy-two translators were themselves translated to the island of Pharus, where they finished their translation of the Pentateuch in seventy-two days.1

2. According to Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius, Aristobulus, a Jewish philosopher, a cotemporary of Ptolemy VI., called Philometer (his reign lasted from B.c. 181 to 146, but he was a mere child at his accession), mentions the translation of the law as having been made in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus.2

3. Two centuries later, Philo Judæus, born about A.D. 1,3 says that the translators, on their arrival, were examined by the king as to their capability and readiness; that they were sent over to Pharus in order to be in perfect seclusion; that there, remote from men, and in the presence of nature only, they offered up their prayers, and in answer to their prayers they were enabled to give the identically same renderings in Greek for the Hebrew original. So wonderful was this result, that (says Philo) the Greeks who know Chaldee, and the Chaldees who know Greek, pay the same veneration to the translation as to the original, considering the authors of the translation rather as persons inspired than as translators.5 A festival was yearly held at Pharus to commemorate the making of the translation, and it was attended not only by Jews, but by crowds of other people besides (παμπληθεῖς ἕτεροι).

4. Josephus, born A.D. 37, takes his account of the making of the Greek translation from the letter of Aristeas, whom he calls Ἀρισταῖος.

1 See Hody de Bibl. text. origin. Oxford, 1705. Fol. pp. i-xxxvi. The letter of Ptolemy to Eleazar is at p. vi.; of Eleazar to Ptolemy at p. vii.

2 Clem. Al. Strom. i. p. 410. Eusebius, Præp. Ev. ix. 6, xiii. 12. The words of Aristobulus, quoted by Eusebius, are ἡ δὲ ὅλη ἑρμηνεία τῶν διὰ τοῦ νόμου πάντων ἐπὶ τοῦ προσαγορευθέντος Φιλαδέλφου βασιλέως.

3 A. D. 20. Smith's Dict.

4 καθάπερ ἐνθουσιῶντες προεφήτευον, οὐκ ἄλλα ἄλλοι, τὰ δ ̓ αὐτὰ πάντες ὀνόματα καὶ ῥήματα, ὥσπερ ὑποβολέως ἑκάστοις ἀοράτως ἐνηχοῦντος. De Vit. Mosis, Lib. II. (Tom. ii. pp. 139, 140, Ed. Mangey.)

5 καθάπερ ἀδελφὰς, μᾶλλον δ ̓ ὡς μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔν τε τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ τοῖς ἑρμηνεῖς ἐκείνους, ἀλλ ̓ ἱεροφάντας καὶ

ὀνόμασι τεθήπασι καὶ προσκυνοῦσιν, οὐχ ερμην. 1113.

προφήτας προσαγορεύοντες. Ibid.

5. Justin Martyr, who died between A.D. 165 and 171, says that the number of the translators was seventy; that they were shut up in seventy distinct cells, of which he had himself seen the ruins in Pharus; that they were strictly prohibited from all intercourse with each other; and that (working separately) they produced exactly the same translation-to the great astonishment of the king. But, according to Justin, the translation embraced the writings not only of Moses, but of the other prophets. And he appeals to Philo and Josephus in confirmation of his statements.1

6. Passing over the testimony of Irenæus, and many more who might be cited, we come to Epiphanius, who died A.D. 402. According to him there were seventy-two translators, but they were to translate in couples, one couple taking Genesis, and so on. Thirty-six cells were provided, one for each couple: they worked from carly dawn to evening, when they were rowed in thirty-six boats to dine (or sup) with King Ptolemy. Two servants were allowed to each couple, and their cells were lighted from above. Thus the twenty-seven books of the Old Testament (reducible by a different arrangement to twentytwo, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet) were completed.'

7. The testimony of S. Jerome may be given in his own words, from his preface to Genesis. "Nescio quis primus auctor LXX cellulas Alexandriæ mendacio suo exstruxerit, quibus divisi eadem scriptitarint quum Aristeas ejusdem Ptolemæi VπEраσTIOтηs et multo post tempore Josephus nihil tale retulerint, sed in una basilica congregatos contulisse scribant, non prophetasse. Aliud est enim vatem, aliud interpretem esse: ibi spiritus ventura prædicit, hic eruditio et verborum copia ea quæ intellegit transfert." Again, S. Jerome is against the opinion of those who assert that the whole of the Old Testament was translated by the Seventy. Quamquam et Aristeas et Josephus et omnis schola Judæorum quinque tantum libros Moysis a LXX translatos asserant." (Comm. in Ezech. V.)

66

In

8. Two testimonies may be added from Hebrew sources. the Babylonian Talmud mention is made (Megill. 9) of the seventy-two elders, who were shut up in as many cells by order of King Ptolemy, of their translating the Pentateuch, and of their exact agreement in the translation: in fifteen places they are said to have departed from the sacred text. In the Jeru

1 Cohort. ad Græcos, 13, which begins εἰ δέ τις φάσκοι καὶ τὴν Μωσέως καὶ τῶν ἄλλων προφητῶν τοῖς Ἑλλήνων γεγράφθαι γράμμασι κ. τ. λ. So in Apol. I. 31, he mentions τὰς βίβλους τῶν προφητειών, but unfortunately makes Ptolemy send τῷ τῶν Ἰουδαίων τότε βασιλεύοντι Ηρώδῃ. (!)

2 De Mens. et Pond. III. A-C, p. 161.

salem Talmud mention is made (Megill. 6) of the translation, but nothing is said of King Ptolemy, nothing about the number of the translators, or of the cells, nor is it stated that the translation was confined to the Pentateuch. But in the thirteen places in which, according to this authority, the translators are said to have departed from the Hebrew text, it is to be noted that the citations are all of them made from the Pentateuch.1

In the endeavour to come to a probable conclusion from the above scattered notices, it may be observed that the letter of Aristeas (on which so much depends), though it was received with unquestioning faith for more than fifteen centuries (as for instance by S. Jerome himself), is now generally admitted to be not genuine. Its genuineness was first called in question by Ludovicus de Vivis, and its spuriousness seems to be fairly established by Humfry Hody, formerly Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford; and the general, though not the universal, consent seems to have relegated to the province of legend the number of the translators, their being shut up in cells, and their inspiration in the work of translation.*

2

3

The letter, however, of Aristeas, if it do not state what is true, may perhaps point to what is true. There are, for instance, some grounds for thinking that the tradition is right in assigning the commencement of the translation, i.e. the translation of the Pentateuch, to the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. There is on this point a very general consent among ancient writers, and it is likely that whenever the work of translating the Holy Scriptures was taken in hand the Pentateuch would have the very first place.

The long captivity of the Jews, who were brought down into Egypt by Ptolemy I., surnamed Soter, the reputed son of

1 The Mishna or text of the oral law (which was considered as the interpretation of the written law) is supposed to have been reduced to writing A.D. 190 or 220. The Gemara (or commentary) in the Babylonian Talmud was begun A.D. 427 and completed A.D. 500. The date of the Gemara in the Jerusalem Talmud is variously put at 230, 270, 370, A.D. but was certainly prior to the Babylonian Talmud. The Amsterdam edition of the latter (1763) occupies eighteen volumes folio (!), the Mishna (Amst. 1698) six volumes folio.

2 In his commentary on Aug. de Civ. xviii. 42. (Basle, 1522.)

3 First in a treatise against the story of Aristeas (Oxford, 1685), afterwards more fully in a work on the original texts of the Bible (Oxford, 1705), a work which still remains the great repertory for Septuagintal lore. The Oxford edition of the LXX. (1848) was, we believe, prepared by the late learned Regius Professor of Greek, Dr. Gaisford.

For the genuineness of the letter of Aristeas, Mr. Grinfield refers to the Vindication (London, 1736), the 'Apologia Sententiæ Patrum,' appended to the LXX. edition of Daniel (Rome, 1772), Gregory's History of the LXX. (London, 1664). See Apol. for the Septuagint,' Appendix, No. 4, p. 148. Professor Tischendorf refers to a learned work, in four volumes, by Constantine Oiconomos (Athens, 1854).

Lagus (Ptolemy died B.C. 283), might render them desirous of having a Greek version of their Scriptures; and the well-known fondness of the Ptolemies for Greek literature would render them favourably disposed to such a desire, and might lead them to concur in giving it effect.

Again, in the prologue to the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach, the translator (who was grandson to the author of that book) states that he (the translator) was in Egypt in the thirty-eighth year in the time of King Euergetes; and he seems to imply that there was existing at that time a Greek translation of all the Old Testament. Now there were two Ptolemies who bore the surname of Euergetes. Ptolemy (III.) Euergetes I. reigned B.C. 247-222, or twenty-five years. Ptolemy (VII.) Euergetes II. (called also Þúokov) assumed the regal title B.c. 170, and died 117. If the thirty-eighth year named in the prologue is to be reckoned from the accession of the Euergetes there mentioned, then that Euergetes must be Euergetes II., and the date when the translator of the Wisdom of Siracides was in Egypt must have been B.C. 132.3 At this time, then, it would seem that the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures had been translated into Greek. But if the thirty-eighth year refer to some other starting point of time, and if also the first Euergetes be the one intended in the prologue, then the translation of the Old Testament into Greek must have been completed at an earlier date, say

B.C. 220.

Again, from the last sentence in the Book of Esther (LXX.), it would appear that the translation of that book must have been made in or before the fourth year of Ptolemy and Cleopatra.*

1 Οὐ μόνον δὲ ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος, καὶ αἱ προφητεῖαι, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων οὐ μικρὰν ἔχει τὴν διαφορὰν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς λεγόμενα. Ἐν γὰρ τῷ ὀγδόῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐεργέτου βασιλέως παραγενηθεὶς εἰς Αἴγυπτον, κ.τ.λ. The Taîтa refers to the writings of the grandfather, translated by the grandson : ἐν ἑαυτοῖς is explained by Ἑβραϊστί in the sentence before; and the translator is pointing out the difference between the original and the translation. The question is, What translation? His own translation of his grandfather's work into Greek would seem to indicate that he was speaking of a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. His mention of Egypt points to the same conclusion. Greek would be the language current among the Jews settled in that country.

2 Thus according to this mode of computation, his death took place in the fifty-fourth year of his reign.' Smith's Dict.

3 Such an interpretation of ení is justified by 1 Mc. xiii. 42, xiv. 27; Hagg. i. 1, ii. 1; Zach. i. 7, vii. 1. Polybius visited Egypt about the same time.

Esth. x. 3 (p. 1092, Oxford edit. 1848). ETOUS TETάρTOV BaσiλEvoνтOS ПTOλεμαίου καὶ Κλεοπάτρας, εἰσήνεγκε Δοσίθεος, ὃς ἔφη εἶναι ἱερεὺς καὶ Λευίτης, καὶ Πτολεμαῖος ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, τὴν προκειμένην ἐπιστολὴν τῶν Φρουραὶ, ἣν ἔφασαν εἶναι καὶ ἡρμηνευκέναι Λυσίμαχον Πτολεμαίου, τὸν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ. Schleusner renders elońveyke, in lucem protulit ac publicavit. Fritzsche renders, Brachte herein, herbei, näml. nach Aegypten: èπτоλýν probably refers to the writing of Mordecai, Esth. ix. 26 (LXX.), so virtually implies the whole book. Esth. ix. 20. It would seem, then, that the translation of such a document into Greek had become a matter of necessity.

But then there were four Ptolemies from V. to VIII.-viz., Epiphanes, Philometor, Physkon, and Lathuros, who each married a Cleopatra. The more general opinion, however, inclines to Philometor; and the Cleopatra intended is perhaps his mother, who was regent for him during his minority. If so, then the fourth year is to be reckoned from B.C. 181, when the father of Philometor died, and brings us down to B.c. 177, as the date for the translation of Esther and as this would probably be among the last of the translated books (if not the last), there seems to be some ground for inferring that the whole of the Old Testament had been translated into Greek before the middle of the second century B.C. But the historical value of the additions to the Book of Esther is a matter of question.

The story of the seventy-two cells, and the tradition of Divine inspiration granted to the translators, cannot be shown to rest on any historical basis, and they have quite the look of a legendary addition; but they may point to a conviction generally established, that the translation was, upon the whole, faithfully done, and that it was received as an adequate representation of the original text among those who were unacquainted with Hebrew, or who at all events were better acquainted with Greek than they were with Hebrew.

II. THE TRANSLATORS.-It is quite uncertain who these were. It seems pretty clear that the books were translated at various times, and by various hands. Some books are better rendered than others. The translation of the Pentateuch, for example, is better than that of the Prophets. There are, however, fair arguments for supposing that the translators were, for the most part, Alexandrine Jews.'

It is altogether uncertain from what source or sources the variations from the Masoretic text, which the Septuagint exhibits, are derived. The unpointed state of the Hebrew text, at the time when the version was made, will undoubtedly account for many. Some critics have maintained that the Greek version was made, not from the Hebrew text, but from a Chaldee paraphrase; others have supposed the Pentateuch to have been rendered from the Samaritan text.

We have before mentioned how far Philo and Josephus use and recognise the Septuagint version: it may be added that from this earliest version were derived the Armenian, Coptic,

1 See Hody, Eichorn, Frankel. On the differences in translation between the Pentateuch and Joshua, see Egli 'Zur Kritik der Septuaginta,' in the Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1862, xiv. pp. 287, et seq.