GREEK VERSIONS.—L SEPTUAGINT. The oldest version of the O. T. in any language is the Greek translation commonly called the Septuagint, either because it was approved and sanctioned by the Jewish Sanhedrim consisting of seventy-two persons, or rather from the Jewish account which states that so many individuals were employed in making it. The history of this version is obscure. Few notices of its origin are extant ; and even such as exist are contradictory.
The space allbtted to the present article will only allow the writer to Muth 71P071 the chief points relating to the Septuagint. A radical and minute investigation cannot be expected. Results alone must be brief/y stated.
The oldest writer who makes mention of the Septuagint is Aristobulus, an author referred to by Eusebius (Prapar. _Evangel. xiii. 12, VOI. p. 31o, ed. Gaisford), and Clement of Alexandria (Stroniata, i., v., vi.) According to Eusebius, he was a Jew, who united the Aristotelian with the Jewish philosophy, and composed a commen tary on the law of Moses, dedicated to Ptolemy Philometor. He is also mentioned in 2 Maccab. io. Both Clement and Eusebius make him con temporary with Philometor ; for the passages in their writings, in which they speak of him under Philadelphus, must either have been corrupted by ignorant transcribers, or have been so written by mistake (Valckenaer, De Aristobzelo yuduo, Philo sophic Peripatetic°, Alexandrine, etc., secs. 10, II ; Daehne, Geschichtliche Darstellung der Yiidisch Alexandrinischen Religions-Philosophic, zweyte Ab theilzing, p. 73, el seq.) His words relative to the Septuagint are 6X7; gpecnveia TWP sia Too vsihou rrciurwv brl raj rpoo-a-yopeuOlvros 4Qta6gXcbov pa aiXecos—Anyzirpiov 4.aXnpecos pa-y /harm:Fait& ou ra. rept 7067-COV. The entire passage, of which the preceding words form a brief portion, has occasioned much conjecture and discussion. It is given by Valckenaer, Thiersch, and Frankel. It appears to us, that the words of Aristobulus do not speak of any prior Greek translation, as Hody supposes, or indeed of any translation whatever. They rather refer to some brief extracts relative to Jewish his tory, which had been made from the Pentateuch into a language commonly understood by the Jews in Egypt, before the time of Demetrius. The entire i) epianpeict Tezw s‘a Too vomoo 7rchn-wv, was first rendered into Greek under Ptolemy- I. Hody, and after him Eichhorn, conjectured that the fragments of Aristobulus preserved by Euse. bius and Clement were written in the 2d cen tury by another Aristobulus, a Christian ; and that Aristobulus, the professed Peripatetic, was a heathen. But the quotation of Cyril of Alexandria
(contra Yulianum, lib. vi.), to which they appeal, was erroneously made by that father, as ivay be seen by comparing it with Clement. Richard Simon also denied the authenticity of Aristobulus's remains (Histoire Critique the V. T., p. 189). But Valckenaer has sufficiently established their authen ticity. The testimony of Aristobulus is corrobo rated by a Latin scholion recently found in a MS. of Plautus at Rome, which has been described and illustrated by Ritschl in a little book entitled ` Die Alexandrinischen Bibliotheken wed die Sammlzeng der Homerischen Gedichte nach A:del/wig eines Plaidinischen Scholium's,' Berlin, i838. From the passage of Aristobulus already quoted, it appears that in the time of Aristobulus, i.e., the beginning of the 2d century B. C., this version was considered to have been made when Demetrius Phalereus lived, or in the reign of Ptolemy Lagi. Hody has en deavoured to shew that this account contradicts the voice of certain history, because it places Demet rius in the reign of l'hiladelphus. The son is manifestly confounded with the father ; Ptolemy Philadelphus with Ptolemy Lagi, both by Aristo bulus and in the scholion. The object of Demet rius in advising Lagi to have in his library a copy of the Jewish laws in Greek, is not stated by Aris tobulus ; but Aristeas relates that the librarian re presented it to the king as a desirable thing that such a book should be deposited in the Alexandrian library, Some think that a literary, rather than a religious motive, led to the version. So Havernick. This, however, is improbable. Hody, Sturz, Frankel, and others conjecture that the object was religious or ecclesiastical. Eichhorn refers it to private impulse; while Hug takes the object to have been political. It is not probable, however, that the version was intended for the king's use, or that he wished to obtain from it information re specting the best mode of governing a nation and enacting laws for its economic well-being. The character and language of the version unite to shew that an Egyptian king, probably ignorant of Greek, could not have understood the work. Perhaps an ecclesiastical motive was in the minds of the Jews who were originally interested in it ; while De metrius Phalereus and the king were a.ctuated by a political design.