SEPTUAGINT
723
SEPTUAGINT
God is the author of the Mosaic law; he is an enthu-
siastic admirer of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Jewish
land and people, and its holy laws and learned men.
(2) The account as given in the letter must be re- garded as fabulous and legendarj', at least in several parts. Some of the details, such as the official inter- vention of the king and the high priest, the number of the seventy-two translators, the seventy-two ques- tions they had to answer, the seventy-two days they took for their work, are clearly arbitrary assertions; it is difficult, moreover, to admit that the Alexandrian Jews adopted for their public worship a translation of the Law, made at the request of a pagan king; lastly, the very language of the Septuagint Version betrays in places a rather imperfect knowledge both of Hebrew and of the topography of Palestine, and corresponds more closely with the vulgar idiom used at Alexandria. Yet it is not certain that everything contained m the letter is legendary, and scholars ask if there is not a historic foundation underneath the legendary details. Indeed it is likely — as appears from the peculiar char- acter of the language, as well as from what we know of the origin and history of the version — that the Pentateuch was translated at Alexandria. It seems true also that it dates from the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and therefore from the middle of the third century B. c. For if, as is commonly believed, Aristeas's letter was written about 200 b.c, fifty years after the death of Philadelphus, and with a view to increase the authority of the Greek version of the Law, would it have been accepted so easily and spread broadcast, if it had l)('en fict itious, and if the time of the composition did not correspond with the reality? Moreover, it is possible tluit Ptolemy had something to do with the prei):iratioii or pul)lishing of the trans- lation, though how and why cannot be determined now. Was it for the purpose of enriching his library as Pseudo-Aristeas states? This is possible, but it is not proved, while, as will be shown below, we can very well account for the origin of the version inde- pendently of the king.
(3) The few details which during the course of ages have been added to Aristeas's account cannot be ac- cepted; such are the story of the cells (St. Jerome explicitly rejected this) ; the inspiration of the trans- lators, an opinion certainly based on the legend of the cells; the number of the translators, seventy-two (see below); the assertion that all the Hebrew books were translated at the same time. Aristeas speaks of the translation of the Law {vSfj.os), of the legislation (vofiodeffia), of the books of the legislator; now these expressions, especially the last two, certainly mean the Pentateuch, exclusive of the other Old-Testament books: and St. Jerome (Comment, in Mich.) say.s: "Josephus writes, and the Hebrews inform us, that only the five books of Moses were translated by them (seventy-two), and given to King Ptolemy." Be- sides, the versions of the various books of the Old Testament differ so much in vocabulary, style, form, and character, sometimes free and sometimes ex- tremely hteral, that they could not be the work of the same translators. Nevertheless, in spite of these divergencies the name of Septuagint Version is uni- versally given to the entire coUection of the Old Testament books in the Greek Bible adopted by the Eastern Church.
B. Origin according to the commonly accepted view. — As to the Pentateuch the following view seems plau- sible, and is now commonly accepted in its broad lines: The Jews in the last two centuries b. c. were so nu- merous in Egypt, especially at Alexandria, that at a certain time they formed two-fifths of the entire population. Little by little most of them ceased to use and even forgot the Hebrew language in great part, and there was a danger of their forgetting the Law. Consequently it became customary to interpret in I Greek the Law which was read in the synagogues, and
it was quite natural that, after a time, some men
zealous for the Law should have undertaken to compile
a Greek Translation of the Pentateuch. This hap-
pened about the middle of the third century B.C.
As to the other Hebrew books — the prophetical and
historical — it was natural that the Alexandrian Jews,
making use of the translated Pentateuch in their
liturgical reunions, should desire to read the remain-
ing books also and hence should gradually have trans-
lated all of them into Greek, which had become their
maternal language; this would be so much the more
likely as their knowledge of Hebrew was diminishing
daily. It is not possible to determine accurately the
precise time or the occasions on which these different
translations were made; but it is certain that the Law,
the Prophets, and at least part of the other books, that
is, the hagiographies, existed in Greek before the year
130 B.C., as appears from the prologue of Ecclesiasti-
cus, which does not date later than that j ear. It is
difficult also to say where the various translations were
made, the data being so scanty. Judging by the
Egyptian words and expressions occurring in the ver-
sion, most of the books must have been translated in
Egypt and most likely at Alexandria; Esther however
was translated at Jerusalem (XI, i).
Who were the translators and how many? Is there any foundation for their number, seventy or seventy- two, as given in the legendary account (Brassac- Vigouroux, n. 105)? It seems impo.ssible to decide definitively; the Talmudists tell us that the Penta- teuch was translated by five interpreters (Sopherim, c. i.). History gives us no details; but an examination of the text shows that in general the authors were not Palestinian Jews called to Egypt; and differences of terminology, method, etc. prove clearly that the trans- lators were not the same for the different books. It is impossible also to say whether the work was carried out officially or was merely a private undertaking, as seems to have been the case with Ecclesiasticus; but the different books when translated were soon put to- gether — the author of Ecclesiasticus knew the col- lection — and were received as official by the Greek- speaking Jews.
III. Subsequent History. — Recensions. — The Greek version, known as the Septuagint, welcomed by the Alexandrian Jews, spread quickly throughout the countries in which Greek was spoken; it was utilized by different writers, and supplanted the original text in hturgical services. Philo of Alexandria used it in his writings and looked on the translators as inspired Prophets; it was finally received even by the Jews of Palestine, and was employed notably by Josephus, the Palestinian Jewish historian. We know also that the writers of the New Testament made use of it, borrowing from it most of their citations; it became the Old Testament of the Church and was so highly esteemed by the early Christians that several writers and Fathers declared it to be inspired. The Chris- tians had recourse to it constantly in their controver- sies with the Jews, who soon recognized its imperfec- tions, and finally rejected it in favour of the Hebrew text or of more literal translations (Aquila, Theodo- tion).
Critical corrections of Origen, Lucian, and Hesych- ius. — On account of its diffusion among the hellenizing Jews and early Christians, copies of the Septuagint were multiplied; and as might be expected, many changes, deliberate as well as involuntary, crept in. The necessity of restoring the text as far as possible to its pristine purity was felt. The following is a brief account of the attempted corrections: —
A. Origen reproduced the Septuagint text in the fifth column of his Hexapla; marking with obeli the texts that occurred in the Septuagint without being in the original; adding according to Theodotion's ver- sion, and distinguishing with asterisks and metobeli the texts of the original which were not in the Septua-
