(2) The Thebaie. This version was also made from the Greek, both in the Old and New Testa ments. and probably too in the third century. Only some fragments of the Old Testament part have been printed by Mtinter, Mingarelli, and Zoega. In the New Testament it agrees erally, though not uniformly, with the Alex andrine family. Not a few readings, however, are peculiar ; and sor.:c harmonize with the Latin versions.
(3) The Bashmurie or Ammonian. Only some fragments of such a version in the Old and New Testaments have been published, and very little is known concerning it. Scholars are not agreed as to the nature of the dialect in which it is written ; some thinking that it does not de serve,the name of a dialect, while others regard the Bashmuric as a kind of intermediate dialect between those spoken in Upper and Lower Egypt. Hug and De \Vette arc inclined to believe that it is merely the version of Upper Egypt translated into the idiom of the particular place where the Bashmuric was spoken. The origin of this ver sion belongs to the third or fourth century.
(4) The Ethiopic Version was made some time between the fourth and sixth centuries A. D.; it is the oldest monument as well as the foundation of the whole Ethiopic literature. Its translators were not learned men, nor entirely familiar with Greek, but the rendering is faithful and has preserved peculiarities. The Old Testa ment portion was not translated immediately from the Hebrew, but was made from the Greek ver sion, and is therefore valuable as an aid in de termining the text of the Septuagint.
(5) The Georgian Version. This translation comprehends the entire Bible, made from the Septuagint in the Old Testament, and from Greek MSS. of the Constantinopolitan family in the New. It belongs to the sixth century. The au thor or authors are not known. The edition published at Moscow, A. D. 1743, folio, was in terpolated by the Georgian princes, Arcil and \Vacuset, from the Slavonic version. This cir cumstance detracts from its authority and value, since it is now impossible to separate the original from the interpolated readings.
(6) The Gothic Version was made in the lat ter half of the fourth century by Ulphilas, bishop of the West Goths. It embraced the whole Bible except the books of Samuel and Kings, which the bishop omitted, because he thought it would be dangerous to place them, with their warlike spirit and opposition to idolatry, in the hands of the Goths. Most of the New Testament, but little
of the Old Testament in this version is extant. The translation is faithful and skillful.
5. Greek Versions. (1) The Septuagint. The most celebrated Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures and the oldest complete translation of them. It was called the Septuagint, commonly des ignated by LXX, after the seventy translators re puted to have been employed on it in the time of Ptolemy Philadclphus, 2S5-247, B. C. (Sec ALEX ANDRIA AND NEW TEST, p. 83.) Aristobulus, a Jew ish priest who lived in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy Philometer, 181-146 B. C.. and who is mentioned in 2 Mace. i:to, is quoted by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius as stating that while portions relating to Hebrew history had been translated into Greek previously, the entire law was translated from the Hebrew in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus.
A fabulous account of this version is given in a letter of Aristeas, narrating how King Ptolemy sent an embassy to the high-priect at Jerusalem, with large sums in silver and gold; and how the high-priest selected six men of each tribe, who, after a magnificent reception, were shut up in cells on the seacoast, and completed the translation in seventy-two days. The internal evidence proves that it was made gradually, and by men deficient in the knowledge handed down in the schools in Palestine. They often divide sentences wrongly, mistake the meaning of rare words, and not un frequently confess their ignorance by transcribing Hebrew words in Greek characters. But the story was so generally current that the version was called the Septuagint, as being made by sev enty (and two) men." (Dean of Canterbury in The Observer.) These ancient reports concerning the origin of the Septuagint have great value, although re liance cannot be placed on the details, and the statements regarding the scope of the work are difficult of interpretation. It is, however, com monly agreed that the Septuagint originated in Egypt, that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, that the other books followed gradually, and that the entire work was completed by t5o B. C.