Next to the Pentateuch, in point of goodness, is the version of Proverbs. The translator of Job, though familiar with the Greek poets, and master of an elegant diction, was very imperfectly acquainted with Hebrew. The Psalms and Pro phets have been indifferently executed. Jeremiah is best translated among the prophetic books. Amos and Ezekiel stand in the next rank. Isaith met with a very incompetent translator. The ver sion of Daniel is the worst. That of Theodotion was very early substituted for it. Jerome did not know the reason of the substitution. Most of the historical books are ill interpreted.
With regard to the external form of the MSS. from which this version was made, we may re mark that the letters were substantially the same as the old Samaritan characters—that there were no vowel-points—that there was no separation into words ; no final letters ; that the letter wanted the diacritic.poini; and that words were frequently abbreviated. The division into verses and chapters is much later than the age of the translators. Our present editions have been printed in conformity with the division into chapters made in the izth century ; though they are not uniform in this par ticular. Still, however, many MSS. have separa tions in the text. The Alexandrine codex is said by Grabe to have one hundred and forty divisions, or as they may be called, chapters, in the book of Numbers alone (Prolegomena, c. i. sec. 7).
The titles given to the books, such as Plvccrts, etc., could hardly have been affixed by the trans lators, since they do not often harmonise with the version of the book itself to which they belong.
It has been inquired, whether the translator of the Pentateuch followed a Hebrew or Samaritan codex. The Septuag-int and Samaritan harmonise in more than a thousand places, where they differ from the Hebrew. Hence it has been supposed that the Samaritan edition was the basis of the version. Various considerations have been ad duccd in favour of this opinion ; and the names of De Dieu, Selden, Whiston, Hottinger, Hassell camp, and Eichhorn, are enlisted on its behalf. But the irreconcilable enmity subsisting between the Jews and the Samaritans, both in Egypt and Palestine, effectually militates against it Besides, in the prophets and hagiographa the number of variations from the Masoretic text is even greater and more remarkable than those in the Penta teuch ; whereas the Samaritan extends no farther than the Mosaic books. No solution, therefore, can be satisfactory, which will not serve to explain at once the cause or causes both of the differences between the Seventy and Hebrew in the Penta teuch, and those found in the remaining books.
The problem can be fully solved only by such an hypothesis as will throw light on the remarkable form of the Septuagint in Jeremiah and Esther, where it deviates most from the Masoretic MSS., presenting such transpositions and interpolations as excite the surprise of the most superficial reader. How, then, is the agreement between the Samaritan and Septuagint to be explained ? Some suppose that the one was interpolated from the other—a conjecture not at all probable. Jahn and Bauer imagine that the Hebrew MS. used by the Egyptian Jews agreed much more closely with the Samaritan in the text and forms of its letters, than the present Masoretic copies. This hypo thesis, however, even if it were otherwise correct, would not account for the great harmony existing between the Samaritan and Septuagint.
Another hypothesis has been put forth by Ge senius (Commentatio de Pent. Sanzar. orig. indole, et auctor.), viz., that both the Samaritan and Sep tuagint flowed from a common recension (gicaoci-zs) of the Hebrew Scriptures, one older than eithef, and different in many places from tbe recension of the Masoretes now in common use. This sup position,' says Prof. Stuart, by whom it is adopted, will account for the differences and for the agree ments of the Septuagint and Samaritan.' This hypothesis, more ingenious and refined than the others, is less liable to objection. Much may be said in its favour. With some minor improve inents and modifications we should not oppose it. Taking recension as not necessarily equivalent to revision, but rather in connection with the Samaritan and Septuagint a want of revision, as far as the text at their basis is concerned, the hypo thesis bears a very plausible character. In the ab sence of a better it might be adopted. But it is not probable that the Sammitan copy was subse quently corrected and interpolated, as Gesenius supposes ; at least it could not have been much transcribed, and therefore its liability to interpola tion was less. Some considerations might be urged as adverse to the hypothesis ; but they are of a subtle character, not patent to ordinary apprehen sion. We waive all mention of them in the present place, especially as they are of comparatively little weight or importance. We do not feel at liberty to adopt the hypothesis, however plausible it ap pears, believing it insufficient to account for all the phenomena. We admire the ingenuity of the con triver, but cannot fully coincide with him.