In some cases a book bears the marks of two hands, e.g., Jere miah i.–xxviii. is from another hand than xxix–li., and so with Ezekiel, where xxviii.–xxxix. stands apart from the remainder. In these cases probably one man dictated, the other translated, and then they changed over. Isaiah is more akin to classicai Greek; like the Pentateuch and 1 Macc., i.e., is good The two chief mss. of Judges vary so much as to point to different recensions. In some books, especially Jeremiah xxv.–li., the order of the LXX. is totally different from that of the Massoretic He brew (cf., also Proverbs xxiv.–xxix.). In some cases, e.g., Job, the original LXX. text was much shorter than that of the Mas soretes; in Esther and Daniel there are numerous additions. Apart from its being the oldest translation of considerable extent that ever was written, the Septuagint was "the first step towards that fusion of the Hebraic with the Hellenic strain which has issued in the mind and heart of modern Christendom." It is also the starting point for the history of Jewish interpretation and the Jewish view of Scripture. Hence its importance as a document of exegetical tradition, especially in lexical matters, may be easily understood. It was largely composed before the close of the O.T. canon, and in it alone are preserved several Jewish writings that never became canonical. As the book which at last codified the dialect of biblical Greek, it is a key to the N.T. and its dependent literature. To many its chief value is that it is the only inde pendent witness for the text of O.T. which we have to com pare with the Massoretic text. Its critical value is unfortunately greatly impaired by the corrupt state of its own text. As we have not the version itself in authentic form we cannot reconstruct with certainty the Hebrew text from which it was made. The difficulties in getting behind the confusion of versions and re censions and of weighing the patristic evidence are very for midable. The chief uncial mss. are, as for N.T. N A, B, of which A and B are largely complete, but though both of Egyptian origin, vary considerably. A may represent the edition of Hesychius,
B that of Origen. When the arduous task of reconstructing the text of LXX. has been achieved, there still remains the problem of its relation to the Hebrew. The Hebrew text from which the LXX. translators worked was often divergent from that repre sented by the Massoretic text, but we need not assume that in cases of difference the Greek is to be preferred. The LXX. translators made some palpable mistakes ; their knowledge of Hebrew was often inadequate ; they occasionally interpreted as well as translated, and they sometimes introduced local colour. Yet there is no doubt that much (e.g., in i Sam.) may be learned from the Septuagint ; all one can say is that each case must be treated on its own merits.
Amongst recent studies of the Septuagint may be mentioned the theory of Dr. M. Gaster that it is a Palestinian work, a first step towards a Targum, written for the masses rather than for synagogue worship, and "an answer to Greek pretensions," a carrying of the war against Hellenism into the enemy's camp. But neither this nor the quaint notion of Wutz that the LXX. translators worked not from Hebrew mss. but from a transliter ated text, i.e., Hebrew written in Greek characters, has met with any acceptance. More fruitful are the suggestions made by Dr. St. John Thackeray as to the "liturgical" aspect of the Greek Bible. The LXX. was first printed in the Complutension Poly glot (1514-17), but before this was published in 1521, Aldus had published another edition in 1519. H. B. Swete's compact edi tion in 3 vols. revised 1895-99) gives the text of B so far as available, then A or it with variant readings from the chief uncials. The larger Cambridge edition (1906, in progress) by A. E. Brooke and N. McLean follows the same plan with the text, but its apparatus includes all the uncials, the best minus cules and the chief versions and patristic quotations.