drinm (138) now m the British Mnsenm; because it did not arrive in England until the
year 1628 (189) The printed editions issued during the sixteenth century wer naturally
I 1 res» ting from the collation of such m a n n e r s as to the.r respee ive editors were
I r e or ess accessible; and if the originals were defective the transcriptions must be, «till
I Z l so We can u tte r no opinions on the critical value of the printed editions before
T certainingwhat scholarship may have decided upon the archeological merits of them««-
r S I e m s L s ; nor is it in our power to enumerate what copies of the la ter may or
may I t have h em consulted by our translators; chiefly because our own note-books do
T I n r d the dates at which many celebrated Greek MSS. were known throughout Eu-
^ V “ s l : hL y used-copies of the
Cardinal Caraffa), of which the antiquity is estimated by Kenmcott at A. n. 387, while
otters suppose I few years later; ” (141) among them Montfaucon .and Blanchini .who
r l r it to I fifth century. None of other Greek Codices extant can possibly antedate,
refer it to tn } for eyen oldest) the Codex-Cottomams, once conjeet
i e d to h i e been Origen’s property, is now proved to have been calligraphed towards the
end of the fourth or the commencement of the fifth ceptury Its' fragments lie in the
British Museum (142) This falls within the lifetime of St. Jerome, A . D . 331 , ( )
place and time, or the caprice of the transcribers. (144)
« Thus it seems that, in the time of
use under the sanction of the several churc:he!s, a rf Lucian in Constantinople
S v S I “ :v “ h°e 3 have come down to us with so man,
00 S u i l l e v l -G o n s , when once recognised to be true in fact, suffice to damage the g g
« . « . « . » a . G - ,b ; « « # » » . H I • »
a , HO , S i Aleiandria) • • longer eVsted 1. IB “ f j » » “ H
SSSS i S S i l l aS « 4 t. 1,«, tloWe., tbon «"
» . mwn- “ -“ j ■“* “ H sr" reached our translators in the year 1603: — : . ■ . . . •
“ No one of these recensions is found pure; tluCTenty has hitherto
mixed also with the other Greek versi • • • ' _ than to a collection of the 'various
redaTngsd “ h f e f f ills 'h if f ie r to published do not afford the jg and exact text of th.
manuscripts.” (146) -
But not merely does the Greek version falter in its historical traditions. Its deviation
; from the Hebrew original render objections to its plenary authenticity unanswerabl .
I As a whole, this version is chargeable with want of literalness, and plso with an »*■
am ) w on* tH n ta to age to lie Wards the end of the fourth; hut if g i g g -teats 4,»- 895, he repo*
other opinions as low as the ninth century (1st Dissert, pp. 306, 307).
ous, and we have not now his most excellent work: vide 01m, PP-111-113.
(141) Kenkicott: n d PUsertalim; p. 407.
(142) H orn e : Introd.; i. pp. 105-107.
(143) A n t h o n : Class. Did.; voce «Hieronymus ; p. 625.
(144) B e W e t t e : i. p. 181.
(145) Ibid.; p. 180.
(146) He W e t t e ; i. pp. 181-183.
trary method, whereby something foreign to the text is brought in. In general, it betrays
the want of an accurate acquaintance with the Hebrew language, though it furnishes many
goofd explanations. p i | |
« The character of this version is different, according to the different books. It is easy
to distinguish five or six different translators. . . . Indeed, the real value of the Septuagint,
as a version, stands in no sort of relation to its reputation. All the translators engaged in
it appear to have been wanting in a proper knowledge of the two languages, and in a due
attention to grammar, etymology and orthography. Hence they often confound proper
names, and appellations, kindred verbs, similar words and letters, &c., and this in cases
where we are not at liberty to conjecture various readings. The whole version is rather
free than literal,” &c. . . . The Text of the Septuagint has suffered greatly. Through the
multitude of copies, which the very general usage rendered necessary, and by means of
ignorant critics, the text of this version, in the third century, had fallen into 'the most
lamentable state.” (148)
« Although we cannot say from whom it (the LXX) emanated, it is certain that it is the
work of one or several Jews of Egypt, of Greek education (if always our version called
the Seventy .be exactly the same as the one that was made at that epoch) ; because one may
discover in it traces of that philosophy which afterwards developed itsélf among the Alexandrian
J ews, and of which P hilo is for us the principal representative. It does not
appertain to us to characterize here the translation under its philological aspect ; we must
content ourselves with establishing that, in many places, it differs sensibly from our Hebrew
text, and that very often its variants agree better with the text of the Samaritans. Nevertheless,
the latter does not sufficiently conform to the version of the Seventy, that one could
imagine a common source for both compilations.” (149)
It results from Talmudic exegesis that its authors, beyond vague impressions of errors
contained in the Greek version, not only did not know, save through, hearsay, the Septua-
gint themselves (although they suppose its Translators to have been seventy-two), but
that it was impossible for the Palestinic Jewish Rabbis to read it, owing to their ignorance
of the Greek tongue. (150) Not a word in the Mishna and the two Guemerds refers
tp Aristobulus, or Philo, or to the Apochryphal books ; neither to the Essenes, nòr to the
Therapeutce«• The Jews of Palestine were separate people from those of Alexandria ; and
it was a concern exclusively interesting to the latter to defend the many false renderings
of the Septuagint, of which remarkable examples are exhibited in the learned treatise of
Franck, whence we condense some facts into a foot-note. (151) But hear Sharpe : —
“ It will be enough to quote two passages from this (LXX) translation, to show how the
Alexandrian J ews, by a refinement of criticism, often found more meaning in thèir Scriptures
than ever entered the minds of the writers. Thus when the Psalmist, speaking of
the power of Jehovah, says with a truly Eastern figure (Pshlms civ. 4, Text), 1 He maketh
the winds his messengers, and the lightning his servants,’ (152) these translators change the
(147) Ibid.; p. 147.
(148) T a y lo r ’s Calmet; voce “ Versions.”
(149) M u n e : Palestine; p. 487. Cf. also, A m p è r e : Recherches énÉgypte, &c., 2de part. ; Rev. des D. Mondes, 1846.
(150) F r a n g e : La Kabbcde: Paris, 1843; pp. 273, 329.
(151) “ Already the Thalmud had a vague knowledge (Thalm. Babyl. Tract. MeguHtah; fol. 9, ch. i.) of the
numerous infidelities of this antique translation [viz.* of the LXX].. . . Thus, when the sacred Text says positively
(Exod. xxiv. 9,10) that Moses, his brother, and the seventy elders, saw the God of Israel upon a throne
of sapphire; according to the (Greek) translation, it is not God who was seen, but the place which he inhabits.
When another prophet, Isaiah, sees the Lord seated on his throne and filling the temple with the folds of his
robe (Isaiah, vi. 1), this too-material image is replaced by the glory o f G o d . . When it concerns Adam and
Eve, (the Greek interpreter) would carefully avoid saying, with the Text, that God created them male and
female (Gen. i. 27) ; hut this double Character, these two halves of humanity, are united in one and the same
being — * Agaev lidi dtfXv STtolrjasv airdv k Who has created all things?’ asks the Hebrew prophet (Isaiah
lx. 26); ‘Who has rendered them invisible?’ says the Alexandrian interpreter” (F r a n c e : La Kabbcde; Paris,
84o; pp; 329-331). Our author furnishes several other examples of downright perversions committed by those
Alexandrines called « the LXX” : of which our space denies insertion. After our own conclusions were formed,
it was most gratifying to find them all confirmed by R u b e n s o h n (« Origin and Structure of the Septuagint” —
Christian Examiner; Boston, March, 1853; pp, 165-187), who truthfully observes — “ Such a version — if it
should be thus designated — is not only conformable tó the spirit of those times, but there are many indications
that the .Greek version was originally intended only as an auxiliary hook for the use of the Alexandrian
Jews.”
(152) So also C a h en , xiii. p. 229, and note 4 — « des flammes brùlantes, ses ministres.” St. P a u l too, although
said to have been « a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” follows the Septuagint in quoting this passage (JEpist. to the Hoews;
i. 7) even to Jews! (S h a r p e ’s Hew Test.; p. 395)— a passage non-existent in the Hebrew Text.