a Greek version of the Old Testament, which received this name either from the supposition that it was the work of LXX. or LXXII. translators, or more probably because it received the sanction of the Jewish Sanhedrim, which consisted of that number of members. If the latter reason be correct, the title is exactly equivalent to our Bishop's Bible, so called because it was a translation recommended by the authority of the English bishops.

Archbishop Usher places the date of this version B.C. following the story of its origin, which was so long current under the name of Aristeas, who professes to have been an officer of Ptolemy's guard at the time when the transaction took place. The story is as follows. Ptolemy Philadelphus having heard of the Jewish law from Demetrius Phalæetus, to whom he had entrusted the care of his Alexandrian library, ordered that a copy of it should be sent for, and that it should be rendered into Greek by properly qualified interpreters from Jerusalem. Aristeas and two other nobles took this opportunity to urge on the king the liberation of the Jews who had been taken captive by Ptolemy Soter, saying that unless this was done, obstacles would be put in the way of his wish. Accordingly, at the enormous expense of 660 talents, he procured the freedom of 198,000 Jewish captives, and then, by the advice of Demetrius, wrote to the high-priest Eleazer asking for a Hebrew copy of the law, and seventy-two translators (six out of each tribe), competent to render it into Greek. Aristeas was one of the bearers of this letter and of the splendid gifts which accompanied it, and he returned to Egypt with the translators, and a copy of the law written in golden letters. On their arrival at court, the translators having proved their wisdom by impromptu answers to the seventy-two questions put to them, were conducted to the Pharos, and there by common conference completed their task in seventy-two days, whereupon the king dismissed them home with regal munificence.

Besides Aristeas, the Septuagint is mentioned by Aristobulus (an Alexandrian Jew who wished to prove the foolish surmise that the Greeks had plagiarized their philosophy from Scripture); by Philo, and by Josephus. Philo adds the further particulars, that each translator rendered the whole book; that they were found at the conclusion to have agreed verbally with each other by the miraculous aid vouchsafed to them; and that a solemn anniversary was kept in honour of the occasion. Justin Martyr, following common rumour, still farther improves the story, and believed that he had actually seen the ruins of the seventy cells in which the distinct versions were miraculously made; and thus in one form or other this marvellous fiction received full credence among the ancient fathers—e.g., Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Hilary, Augustine, and Cyril of Jerusalem. Epiphanius also repeats the story with variations and additions; and it was believed for centuries with the most unquestioning confidence. The obvious inference was, that the LXX. version, with all its errors and imperfections, must be regarded as inspired.

But it has now been demonstrated that the book of Aristeas is an idle forgery, a mere religious romance, written by a Hellenistic Jew to magnify his nation, and to exalt the credit of this Greek version. His whole narrative bears the stamp of Jewish exaggeration and self-complacency. The author, professing to be a heathen, uses throughout language which could only have emanated from a Jew. The questions he puts in the mouth of Ptolemy are absurdly incongruous; the sum which he makes him disburse in accomplishing his wish (amounting to some 2,000,000 sterling) is utterly incredible; the distinction of the twelve tribes is an historical improbability, and several of the other particulars alluded to by him are confusions, anachronisms, or Pharisaical inventions. In fact, it is now admitted that the pseudo-Aristeas furnishes ample materials for the refutation of his own fiction, and since the learned work of Dr Hody, De Bibliorum Textibus originalibus, we are not aware that any one has attempted to defend the genuineness of his treatise.

But the question remains, is there a single germ of truth amid this mass of fable? It is indeed difficult to arrive at any certainty, but internal evidence supplies us with some strong probabilities. For instance it is clear,

1. That the version was the work of Alexandrian and not of Palestinian Jews. This appears at once from the freedom with which the Hebrew text is treated, since the Jews of Palestine would have been far more likely to adhere scrupulously to the most literal methods of rendering; a tendency which subsequently gave rise to the version of Aquila, which was called by them the Hebraica veritas. The language in which the LXX. is written is that Hellenistic Greek, that σοῦρις ἑλληνικός which became so general after the time of Alexander the Great, and there are a number of expressions which could only have been used by a native of Alexandria. Thus, to take a few of the instances adduced by Hody, the word shekel is in the pentateuch rendered by δορυφόρος; epha by οἴγρα, which, it appears from Phavorinus, was an Egyptian measure; Zaphnath-Paaneah, the Hebrew name of Joseph, is turned into its Egyptian equivalent Λευστροπάναχ; in Amos v. 26 the Egyptian Peqo is substituted for the Hebrew Gnu; and in Job viii. 11 "reed" is rendered by "papyrus." A still more curious and decisive instance of this is the fact, that Thummim, the jewelled ornament of the high-priest's robe, is translated Αὐγήστα or "truth," though the Hebrew word means "perfection;" we should be at a loss to account for this but for the information found in Elian, that the senior priest of the Egyptian hierarchy wore round his neck, while performing his judicial functions, an ornament of sapphires called by this very name "Truth." Besides all this, the translators, in the Apocryphal additions to the book of Esther, makes express mention of Ptolemy Philometor and Cleopatra; and when we add, that the universal tradition of the Jews themselves agrees in the main with these inferences (although Aristeas says that the translators came from Palestine), we may regard the Alexandrian origin of the version as sufficiently established.

But did the impulse which originated it come from within or from without? Alexander had transplanted a vast multitude of Jews to his new city, and had there given many privileges. Finding Alexandria a desirable place of residence, and being forced to speak the Greek language, which was at that time the common medium of communication, they gradually forgot the Chaldee, as, during the Babylonian captivity, they had forgotten the Hebrew. The Chaldee interpretation of the Scriptures used in their synagogues was, therefore, as obsolete to them as the original tongue, and they would doubtless feel the want of religious teaching in a language which they could comprehend. A literary motive may well have been combined with this religious motive, and it is by no means impossible that the general desire on the subject may have owed its first accomplishment to the additional influence of a king of Egypt, who wished so curious a record as the Pentateuch to be treasured up in the Alexandrian Library. In favour of this supposition is the annual festival, at which, according to Philo, the event is commemorated. The pseudo-Aristeas attributes the design to Ptolemy Philadelphus, and he has been generally followed; but the common Jewish account referred it to his father Ptolemy Lagus, and Hody reconciles the discrepancy by supposing the work to have been commenced during the years B.C. 286-285, when father and son were associated on the throne. Ptolemy Lagus, although kind to the Jews, was yet unpopular among them, because he had carried so many of them into captivity; and this may account for the omission of his name in the fable of Aristeas. It is probable that the Pentateuch alone was first translated, both from the distinct assertions by ancient writers to this effect, and from internal evidence; but in any case the manuscript, if procured for the Alexandrian Library, remained totally unknown, since nothing is more certain than the complete ignorance respecting Jewish history and institutions displayed not only by earlier authors, but even by the polished writers of the Roman empire.

2. The reasonings by which Hody and others attempt to arrive at a conclusion respecting the date of other portions of the Septuagint are very uncertain. For instance, it is argued from the use of the word γαύρος in Joshua (viii. 18), that this book could not have been rendered until the employment of Gallic mercenaries by the Egyptian kings, i.e., some twenty years after the death of Ptolemy Lagus, because γαύρος means a peculiar kind of Gallic javelin. But this argument is of very slender authority, nor can we deduce any strong inference from the mention of Ptolemy Philometer in the epilogue to Esther. It is, however, most probable, from a passage in the book of the son of Sirach, that the whole had been completed before B.C. 130, in the reign of Ptolemy Physcon.

3. It is quite certain that it was made at different times and by different persons, although it is impossible to decide the exact number of translators employed on it. The common story speaks of 72; Epiphanius, of 36; the Jerusalem Talmud, of 5; and some of the Rabbis, of 3. Perhaps the real number was about 12 or 15. The different translators have adopted very different methods of rendering the same word, and even different modes of spelling the same common names; sometimes these names are made indeclinable, and sometimes a Greek termination is given to them. The rendering of Hebrew names for animals, trees, precious stones, weights and measures, are not only various but even irreconcilable. Thus, ἀρκός, "a lion," is in Job iv. 10 rendered by ἐπάσχων; ἄγριος, "an oryx," is in Is. li. 20 represented by οὐρανός, a vegetable; and not to give any further specimens, ἰχθύς, "a whale," is rendered ἰχθύς, Gen. i. 21; "a dragon," Ps. lxxiv. 16, &c.; "a siren," Job. xx. 39; "a sparrow," Jer. x. 22; "a hedgehog," Is. xvi. 22; "a bird," Is. xxxv. 7; "a fig," Neh. ii. 13; and "affliction," Ps. xliii. 19. These instances are the first that came to hand out of ten pages of similar ones in Hody's learned work; and some of these which he adduces prove that even the Pentateuch was not the work of a single hand. The Pentateuch is the part which was earliest and best executed; and of the books which it contains, Leviticus is translated best, and Numbers worst. The historical books are only tolerably rendered; the book of Proverbs admirably; the Prophets (especially Isaiah) indifferently. The vision of Daniel was so incomplete and erroneous, that Theodotion's version was substituted for it; it was long lost, and a manuscript of it was only rediscovered in 1772 in the Codex Chisianus at Rome. The translator of Job was a man of fine taste, profoundly read in the Greek poets, but a poor Hebrew scholar; this has led him into the awkward habit of omitting the passages which he did not understand.

From some curious agreements of the LXX. with the Samaritan Pentateuch, in some 2000 places, Hassencamp, and others have supposed that the translators made use of a Samaritan manuscript. But although there are those remarkable agreements, and although it has been thought that some variations in the LXX. may be accounted for by different readings, originating in the shape of the Samaritan letters, yet the numerous disagreements of the two tend to show that the points in which both differ from the Masoretic text are accounted for by the operation in both of false principles of criticism; as, for instance, the desire to remove objections, to reconcile discrepancies, &c. And in some of these cases, where both have made an attempt of this kind (e.g., Gen. v. 3-28; Ex. xii. 40), the method of the Samaritan is so much the more ingenious, that it is impossible to suppose that the Greek would not have adopted it had he been aware of it. There is, therefore, no necessity to assume great interpolation, numerous glosses, wilful corruptions, or any other of the numerous hypotheses which have been suggested to account for the numerous passages in which the Samaritan and the Greek agree, while both differ from the Hebrew. It is utterly incredible that Jews would ever have persuaded themselves to translate from a Samaritan text; and Abul Phatach's rival story of the origin of the Greek version of the Samaritan Pentateuch (which, according to him, was greatly preferred by Ptolemy Philadelphus), at least proves how unlikely it would have been for the Jews to use any other than the Masoretic text.

The importance of the Septuagint for all purposes of biblical criticism can hardly be overrated; and the influence which has been exercised by it for centuries renders the study of it imperative on every theologian. The fabulous accounts of its origin show the extravagant reputation in which it was held. Josephus used it in general; Philo, being ignorant of Hebrew, used it exclusively, and believed in its inspiration. Even in the Targums there are traces of a similar belief. Undertaken as it was without any suspicion of the controversies to which the interpretation of prophecy would subsequently give rise, and executed by men for the most part candid, zealous, and competent, it forms an invaluable commentary on the Hebrew text, and an historical specimen of the early method of exegesis. By rendering the Bible accessible to the learned of every country, it was an effectual safeguard against wilful interpolation, "so as to preclude all suspicion that it could be materially altered either by Jews or Christians, to support their respective opinions as to the person and character of the Messiah; the substance of the text being by this translation fixed and authenticated at least 270 years before the appearance of our Lord." It was the version from which our blessed Saviour, in all probability, was taught to read when a child at Nazareth,—the version which he loved to quote, if not to the Pharisees and doctors of the law, at least to the common people, who heard him gladly,—the version which formed the text-book of apostolic teaching; from which all the ancient versions, except the Syriac, were made; which constituted the sole Scriptures of the Old Testament for the first four centuries; from which Augustine drew his meditations and Chrysostom his homilies. "The entire phraseology of the New Testament is formed on the peculiar style of the LXX." and any one who will consult Mr Grinfield's Scholion Hellenisticum, may see at a glance that there is scarcely a page of the Gospels or Epistles which does not bear ample testimony to the fact, that the minds of the sacred writers were imbued with the style and language of this Greek version. It is well known that this Hellenistic Greek differs widely from the classical standard; and although it is a common error to attribute to Bentley the assertion that the dialect would have been altogether unintelligible to Demosthenes, yet certainly a Greek of the age of Pericles would have found it marvellously obscure. Hence the expressions of the LXX. are the ultimate source of our theological language, and "the Hebraic or Hellenistic Greek is the sacred idiom." To it we owe such words as the ἐξαίρεσις, ἀποκρίσις, προφητεία, διαμειγμένος, ἐκχωροῦσα— the very keywords of the Christian Septuagint, religion. "There are many words," says Bishop Pearson, "which, from the mere usage of the Greek tongue, cannot be understood; which by collation with the Hebrews and the LXX., become easily intelligible. No one knows what ἐναγκάλητος signifies among the Greek authors; and if you collect all the senses in which the Greeks use these words, you will find none that reach the apostle's meaning." Thus, the dissemination of the LXX. paved the way for Christianity, and prepared the minds of men for the advent of an expected Saviour.

Direct quotations from the LXX. abound in the New Testament. In St Stephen's speech alone there are no less than twenty-eight, and the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews is "a kind of Mosaic, composed of bits and fragments of the LXX." Our Lord quoted it repeatedly. Out of the thirty-seven quotations made by him from the Old Testament, thirty-three are said to agree with the Greek almost verbatim. It is certainly a striking and most important fact, that the apostles quote it and argue from it even where it differs from the Hebrews; "et quidem illis in locis," says Dr Mill on Heb. xiii. 23, "in quibus si reponerentur Hebraeae, non modo periret vis argumentationis Apostolicae, sed ne quidem illus foret argumentationi locus." Instances of this may be found by the student in Luke iii. 37, Matt. xv. 8, 9, Acts ii. 25, Rom. x. 18, Heb. i. 7, ii. 7, x. 5, &c.

On these grounds it has been repeatedly argued, that, in order to maintain the doctrine of verbal or plenary inspiration, it is absolutely necessary to adopt the belief of the early Christian world as to the inspiration of the Greek translators. We have already seen that such a supposition prevailed among the Jews; it was the express belief of Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Hilary, and many of the fathers; it was strongly and frequently asserted by Augustine, and even his stout opponent St Jerome, whose study of the original Hebrew had given him a less favourable opinion, occasionally recurs to the old prejudice, and speaks of the Alexandrian interpreters as actuated by the extraordinary influences of the Holy Spirit. Even in modern times so strange an hallucination has not been totally dispelled; and Mr Grinfield's Apology supports the divine authority of the version with an earnestness and ingenuity which is deserving of a better cause.

For whatever inferences may be drawn from the fact, the dignity of truth demands the statement that the Septuagint abounds in errors, transpositions, interpolations, omissions, and defects of every kind, which abundantly prove that the translators were extremely fallible. Sometimes they show an imperfect acquaintance with Hebrew, sometimes with Greek, and sometimes they have made mistakes which can be attributed to carelessness alone. Nor are these variations due solely to defective knowledge; it is tolerably clear that they sometimes arise from a distinct purpose. Even the version of the Pentateuch is not free from this literary dishonesty. "It is obvious," says an able writer, "that the translator of Exodus had a plan which he strictly followed; and for the maintenance of his design he sacrificed the original text. Sometimes it was for a philosophical, sometimes for a political reason, at another time for the sake of saving the reputation for humanity of the Jewish legislator. Often he altogether neglected to translate words from which it might have appeared that the ordinances of the Jewish law were unnecessarily severe." Thus, in Ex. xiii. 13, he wilfully changes "thou shalt break his neck," into "thou shalt ransom it;" a rendering which is in direct contradiction to Lev. xxvii. 11. In Ex. xxiv. 10, 11, "they saw the God of heaven" is, from the Alexandrian pseudo-philosophical avoidance of Septuagint, anthropomorphism, absurdly rendered, "they saw the place where the God of Israel stood." In Ex. xv. 3, "the Lord is a man of war," is, for a similar reason, changed into "the Lord brings wars to nought;" and the same influence is at work in verse 10. Ex. xxxii. 9 is altogether omitted by this translator as unfavourable to the Jews; and he has given us a further indication of his political bias by the remarkable way in which he has softened the harsh expression of Ex. xxxii. 22. These instances, though taken from a single book, are chosen from a portion confessedly the best executed of the whole, and are no unfair specimens of the want of due regard to the text which sometimes misled them, even when their knowledge was not at fault. They are surely amply sufficient to prove, that to attribute inspiration to these Hellenists, is nothing else than an apotheosis of partial incompetence and positive mistake. In fact, the Septuagint translation must rather be regarded in the light of a paraphrase executed from the critical and religious standpoint of Alexandrian Jews some two centuries before Christ. This will account for more inaccuracies and arbitrary alterations than any other principle; although besides this, it is possible that their manuscripts were often corrupt, and certain that they were without vowel points, final letters, or any of the other aids afforded by the later method of writing Hebrew. Nor must we overlook the enormous difficulty which had to be overcome in creating a style which should give in Greek a tolerable expression of Hebraic idioms and modes of thought.

The Jews first began to dislike and reject the Septuagint, when they found that its renderings were peculiarly valuable for the purposes of Christian controversy. They therefore adopted in lieu of it the version of Aquila, the chief merit of which is its slavish literalism. There seems, however, to be no adequate proof that they instituted a fasted on the 8th of Tebet, to execrate the anniversary of its completion, as we have no authority for this statement earlier than Justin Martyr. Since the Septuagint had long been used in almost all their synagogues, this condemnation of it came a little too late in the day; and the Christians, who had no means of consulting the original, prized the translation with an extravagant veneration, and accepted it as an inspired production, and even preferred it to the Hebrew text. Jerome's profound learning led him to see that such views were untenable, and in forming the design of making a fresh translation from the Hebrew, he pointed out the necessity for doing so by showing the errors of the LXX. This proposal alarmed St Augustine as much as the suggestion of a revision of our English version alarms the more timid divines of the present day; and when Jerome was driven by the Bishop's opposition into further arguments, he finally forbade the use of Jerome's translation within his diocese. Rufinus was even more violent and unreasonable in his attacks on the proposed innovation; and, on the whole, the Septuagint maintained its high authority until the conclusion of the eighteenth century, when it began to be rated at its true value, as a version which cannot be regarded as possessing any claims to equal authority with the Hebrew text, although it is exceedingly important for all the purposes of Scriptural interpretation.

When the Greek text began to accumulate a vast number of glosses, interpolations, marginal readings, alterations, and mistakes, Origen undertook his stupendous work, the Hexapla, in order to compare it with the Hebrew, and restore it, if possible, to its primitive condition. This noble undertaking, which might well entitle its author to the surname of "Adamantine," occupied (according to Epiphanius) Sepulchre no less than twenty-eight years; but, in spite of its value, unfortunately increased the evil which it was intended to cure, since subsequent copyists often confounded and mixed together the various other texts which Origen had printed in parallel columns, side by side with the version of the LXX.

The four chief editions of the LXX. are the Complutensian, the Aldine, the Sixtine, and the Grubian, which mainly follows the Codex Alexandrinus. A thorough revision of the text, and a good concordance, are still wanted: the lexicons of Biel and Schleusner are full of valuable information, but are still capable of very great improvement.

A vast number of books have been written on the Septuagint, and it only remains to enumerate the most important. Popular accounts may be found in Kitto's Cyclopaedia, in Dr Davidson's Bibl. Introduction, in Horne's Introduction, vol. ii., and in Herzog's Cyclopaedia, of which there is an English translation by Dr Bonberger. The classical book on the story of Aristaeus is Hodius De Bibl. Text. originalibus, Oxon. 1703; and it is also examined in Gregory's History of the LXX., Lond. 1664, and Van Dale's Dissert. super Aristed, &c., Amst. 1705. An account of the disputes of Jerome and Augustin may be found in Du Pin's lives of these fathers. For further information see Pearson's Prefatio Paratextus; Walton's Prolegomena, c. ix.; Grabe's Prolegomena Valckenaer, De Aristobulo Juxte; Thiersch, De Pentat. Versione; Togeler, De Pent. Jut. Indole; Studer, De Vers. Alex. Origine, &c. Important German books are, Dahme's Judisch-Alexandr. Philosophie, Halle, 1834, and Frankel's Vorstudien, Leipzig, 1841. The study of the LXX. is at present attracting much attention in England; and we have recently had valuable contributions to the literature of this subject by Mr Grünfeld, Dean Howard, and Prof. Selwyn. (F.W.F.)