The work of Aristeas, which was first published in the origina/ Greek by Simon Schard, at Basel, 1561, 8vo, and several times reprinted, was also given by Hody, in Greek and Latin, in his book entitled De Biblionun textibus orightalibus, ver sionibus Grath, et Latina Vidgala, Oxonii, 1705, fol. The most accurate edition, however, is that by Galland, in the Bibliotheca Vet. Patrum, vol. ii. It was translated into English by Whiston, and published at London in his Collection of Authentic Records, part 2 (London, 1728).
It is a difficult point to determine the extent to which truth is mixed up with fable in this ancient story. However absurd the traditions may appear in the view of modern criticism, some truth must lie at the basis of them. In separating the true from the fabulous, it appears to us that Hody has not been successful. From the extreme credulity mani fested in the reception of the fable, he has gone to the extreme of scepticism. Yet he has been gen.: rally followed. He thinks that the Pentateuch was translated a considerable time before the prophets ; and that the Jews first resorted to the reading of the prophets in their synagogues when Antiochus Epiphanes forbade the use of the law ; conse quently the prophetic portion was not translated till after the commencement of Philometor's reign. It is wholly improbable, however, that Antiochus interdicted the jews merely from reading the Pen tateuch (comp. t Maccab. 4t, etc. ; and Joseph. Andy. xii. 5 ; Frankel, pp. 48, 49). The interval between the translating of the law and the pro phets, of which many speak, was probably short. In order to reconcile conflicting statements, Hody assigned the version of the Pentateuch to the two years during which Philadelphus reigned conjointly with his father, about 286-285 B.c. We prefer assuming that it was begun under Ptolemy Lagi, the son and father having been confounded by Aristobulus and the scholion on Plutarch ; by Aristeas too, probably on purpose. Hody's proof that the book of Joshua was not translated till upwards of twenty years after the death of Pto lemy Lagi, founded upon the word yauros, is per fectly nugatory ; although the time assigned cannot be far from the truth. The epilogue to the book of Esther does not state that this part of the O. T. was translated under Ptolemy Philometor, or that it was dedicated to him. On the contrary, it refers
to the apocryphal additions of the canonical book (Valckenaer, pp. 33, 63). It is a fruitless task to attempt to ascertain the precise times at which separate portions of the version were made. All that can be known with any degree of probability is, that it was begun under Lagi. Hody supposes that the book of Judges was not translated till after Christ, but his proof is invalid. The same may be said of the assumption made by Michaelis and Ber thold% that Daniel was not rendered into Greek till after Christ.
It is obvious, from internal evidence, that there were several translators ; but certainly not seventy two. Hody has endeavoured to parcel out their version into small portions, assigning each part to a separate person, and affirming that they were put together in one cento without revision ; but his notions of rigid uniformity in the translators are such as exclude perspicuity, freedom, variety, and elegance. Internal evidence is in favour of the Pentateuch having- been made by more than one. Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are better rendered than the other two books ; Leviticus best of all. But Thiersch and Herschfeld endea vour to shew that one translator only appears in the Pentateuch. The whole version was the work of five or six translators at least, and must therefore be of unequal merit.
In opposition to the Pseudo-Aristeas, we cannot but maintain that the translators were Alexan drian, not Palestinian Jews. The internal charac ter of the entire version, particularly of the Penta teuch, sufficiently attests the fact. We find, accordingly, that proper names, and terms pecu liar to Egypt, are rendered in such a manner as must have been unintelligible to a Greek-speaking population other than the Egyptian Jews. That the translators were Egyptians has been proved to the satisfaction of all by Hody ; although some of his examples, such as the words yezzeo-ts and brirapopos, are not appropriate or conclusive. Frankel supposes that tbe version was made not only at different times, but at different places. This is quite arbitrary. There is no reason for believing, with him, that different books originated after this fashion, the impulse having gone forth from Alex andria, and spreading to localities where the Jews had settled, especially Cyrene, Leontopolis, and even Asia Minor.