The Septuagint Thackeray

8/18/2019 The Septuagint Thackeray

1/25

The Septuagint

by H. St. J. Thackeray

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915)

I. Iportance

The Greek version of the Old Testament commonly known as the Septuagint holds a unique place among translations. Its importance is manysided. Its chief value lies in the fact that it

is a version of a Hebrew tet earlier by about a millennium than the earliest dated Hebrew

manuscript etant !"#$ %&'( a version( in particular( prior to the formal rabbinical revisionof the Hebrew which took place early in the )nd century %&. It supplies the materials for

the reconstruction of an older form of the Hebrew than the *assoretic Tet reproduced inour modern +ibles. It is( moreover( a pioneering work, there was probably no precedent in

the world-s history for a series of translations from one language into another on soetensive a scale. It was the first attempt to reproduce the Hebrew Scriptures in another

tongue. It is one of the outstanding results of the breakingdown of international barriers by

the conquests of %leander the Great and the dissemination of the Greek language( whichwere fraught with such vital consequences for the history of religion. The cosmopolitan city

which he founded in the &elta witnessed the first attempt to bridge the gulf between /ewish

and Greek thought. The /ewish commercial settlers at %leandria( forced by circumstancesto abandon their language( clung tenaciously to their faith, and the translation of the

Scriptures into their adopted language( produced to meet their own needs( had the further

result of introducing the outside world to a knowledge of their history and religion. Thencame the most momentous event in its history( the startingpoint of a new life, the

translation was taken over from the /ews by the 0hristian church. It was the +ible of most

writers of the 1ew Testament. 1ot only are the ma2ority of their epress citations from

Scripture borrowed from it( but their writings contain numerous reminiscences of itslanguage. Its words are household words to them. It laid for them the foundations of a new

religious terminology. It was a potent weapon for missionary work( and( when versions of

the Scriptures into other languages became necessary( it was in most cases the Septuagintand not the Hebrew from which they were made. 3reeminent among these daughter

versions was the Old 4atin which preceded the 5ulgate. /erome-s version !6"7879 %.&.'(

for the most part a direct translation from the Hebrew( was in portions a mere revision of

the Old 4atin, our 3rayerbook version of the 3salter preserves peculiarities of theSeptuagint( transmitted through the medium of the Old 4atin. The Septuagint was also the

+ible of the early Greek :athers( and helped to mold dogma, it furnished prooftets to both

parties in the %rian controversy. Its language gives it another strong claim to recognition.;ncouth and unclassical as much of it appears( we now know that this is not wholly due to

the hampering effects of translation.


2/25

vocabulary and grammar and go to show that many socalled 7 !or >)' elders sent from /erusalem to %leandria for the purpose at the request of 3tolemy II.

The legend in its oldest form restricts their labors to the 3entateuch but they were afterward

credited with the translation of the whole +ible( and before the 8th century it had becomecustomary to apply the title to the whole collection? %ugustine( De Civ. Dei( viii.8)(

+0'( a Greek interested in /ewish antiquities. %ddressing his brother 3hilocrates he

describes an embassy to /erusalem on which he has recently been sent with another courtier

%ndreas. %ccording to his narrative( &emetrius of 3halerum( a prominent figure in later

%thenian history( who here appears as the royal librarian at %leandria( convinced the kingof the importance of securing for his library a translation of the /ewish 4aw. The king at the

same time( to propitiate the nation from whom he was asking a favor( consented( on the

suggestion of %risteas( to liberate all /ewish slaves in =gypt. 0opies follow of the letterswhich passed between 3tolemy and =leaCar( the high priest at /erusalem. 3tolemy requests

=leaCar to select and dispatch to %leandria >) elders( proficient in the 4aw( $ from each

tribe( to undertake the translation( the importance of the task requiring the services of a

http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbelxx01.html#note1http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbelxx01.html#note1


3/25

large number to secure an accurate version. =leaCar complies with the request and the

names of the selected translators are appended to his letter.

There follow? !#' a detailed description of votive offerings sent by 3tolemy for the temple,!)' a sketch of /erusalem( the temple and its services( and the geography of 3alestine(

doubtless reflecting in part the impressions of an eyewitness and giving a unique picture of the /ewish capital in the 3tolemaic era, !6' an eposition by =leaCar of portions of the 4aw.

The translators arrive at %leandria( bringing a copy of the 4aw written in letters of gold onrolls of skins( and are honorably received by 3tolemy. % seven days- banquet follows( at

which the king tests the proficiency of each in turn with hard questions. Three days later

&emetrius conducts them across the mole known as the Heptastadion to the island of 3haros( where( with all necessaries provided for their convenience( they complete their task(

as by a miracle( in >) days, we are epressly told that their work was the result of

collaboration and comparison. The completed version was read by &emetrius to the /ewishcommunity( who received it with enthusiasm and begged that a copy might be entrusted to

their leaders, a solemn curse was pronounced on any who should venture to add to or subtract from or make any alteration in the translation. The whole version was then read

aloud to the king who epressed his admiration and his surprise that Greek writers hadremained in ignorance of its contents, he directed that the books should be preserved with

scrupulous care.

'. Eidence o$ %ri&tobulu& and hilo

To set beside this account we have two pre0hristian allusions in /ewish writings.%ristobulus( addressing a 3tolemy who has been identified as 3hilometor !#B)#8$ +0'(

repeats the statement that the 3entateuch was translated under 3hiladelphus at the instance

of &emetrius 3halereus !=usebius( #raep. %v.( @III( #)($$8b', but the genuineness of the passage is doubtful. If it is accepted( it appears that some of the main features of the story

were believed at %leandria within a century of the date assigned by


4/25

0hristian writers accepted the story without suspicion and amplified it. % catena of their

evidence is given in an %ppendi to Aendland-s edition. The following are their principaladditions to the narrative( all clearly baseless fabrications.

!#' The translators worked independently( in separate cells( and produced identical versions(

3tolemy proposing this test of their trustworthiness. So Irenaeus( 0lement of %leandria(%ugustine( the Chronicon #aschale and the Cohortatio ad Graecos !wrongly attributed to/ustin', the author of the last work asserts that he had seen the cells and heard the tradition

on the spot. !)' % modification of this legend says that the translators worked in pairs in 6$

cells. So =piphanius !died 876 %&'( and later G. Syncellus( /ulius 3ollu and Donaras.

=piphanius- account is the most detailed. The translators were locked up in skylighted cellsin pairs with attendants and shorthand writers, each pair was entrusted with one book( the

books were then circulated( and 6$ identical versions of the whole +ible( canonical and

apocryphal books( were produced, 3tolemy wrote two letters( one asking for the originalScriptures( the second for translators. !6' This story of the two embassies appears already in

the )nd century %&( in /ustin-s !polog"( and !8' the etension of the translators- work to the

3rophets or the whole +ible recurs in the two 0yrils and in 0hrysostom. !9' The miraculousagreement of the translators proved them to be no less inspired than the authors !Irenaeus(

etc., compare 3hilo'. !$' %s regards date( 0lement of %leandria quotes an alternative

tradition referring the version back to the time of the first 3tolemy !6)))B9 +0', while0hrysostom brings it down to 7 elders of Israel( not heard of again( who with %aron( 1adab and

%bihu form a link between *oses and the people. %fter reciting the +ook of the 0ovenant

*oses ascends to the top of the mount, the >7( however( ascend but a little way and are bidden to worship from afar? according to the Septuagint tet


5/25

in the case of /eremiah and =Cekiel the practice goes back to the time of translation ! JTS (

I5( )89( 6"B, I@( BB'.

+. ,ritici& o$ the %ri&tea& Story

+eside the later etravagances( the story of %risteas appears comparatively rational. Fet ithas long been recogniCed that much of it is unhistorical( in particular the professed date and

nationality of the writer. Its claims to authenticity were demolished by &r. Hody two

centuries ago ! De )i)liorum texti)us originali)us( Oon.( #>79'. 0learly the writer is not aGreek( but a /ew( whose aim is to glorify his race and to disseminate information about

their sacred books. Fet the story is not wholly to be re2ected( though it is difficult to

disentangle truth from fiction. On one side his veracity has since Hody-s time beenestablished, his court titles( technical terms( epistolary formulas( etc.( reappear in =gyptian

papyri and inscriptions( and all his references to %leandrian life and customs are probably

equally trustworthy ! )B( #7" ff( measures to counteract the ill effects upon agriculture of migration from country to town, #$>( treatment of informers cf )9, #>9 reception of

foreign embassies cf #B)'. The import of this discovery has( however( since itsannouncement by 4ombroso ! echerches sur l*economie politi(ue de l*%g"pte( Turin(

#B>7'( been somewhat modified by the newfound papyri which show that %risteas- titlesand formulas are those of the later( not the earlier( 3tolemaic age.

5. -ate

The letter was used by /osephus and probably known to 3hilo. How much earlier is itJ

Schurer ! +J# ( II( iii( 67" f GJ& 8(III( $7B#$'( relying on !#' the questionable %ristobulus passage( !)' the picture drawn of 3alestine as if still under 3tolemaic rule( from which it

passed to the Seleucids circa )77 +0( argued that the work could not be later than that date.

+ut it is hard to believe that a fictitious story !as he regards it to be' could have gainedcredence within little more than half a century of the period to which it relates( and

Aendland rightly re2ects so ancient an origin. The following indications suggest a date

about #77B7 +0.

!#' *any of %risteas- formulas( etc. !see above'( only came into use in the )nd century +0!Strack( hein. 'us.( 45( #$B, Thackeray( !risteas( =nglish translation( pp. 6( #)'. !)' The

later *accabean age or the end of the )nd century +0 is suggested by some of the

translators- names !Aendland( vi'( and !6' by the independent position of the high priest.

!8' Some of 3tolemy-s questions indicate a tottering dynasty !section #B>( etc.'. !9' Thewriter occasionally forgets his role and distinguishes between his own time and that of

3hiladelphus !sections )B( #B)'. !$' He appears to borrow his name from a /ewish historian

of the )nd century +0 and to wish to pass off the latter-s history as his own !section $'. !>'He is guilty of historical inaccuracies concerning &emetrius( etc. !B' The prologue to the

Greek =cclesiasticus !after #6) +0' ignores and contradicts the %risteas story( whereas

%risteas possibly used this prologue !Aendland( vii, compare Hart( %cclesiasticus inGreek ( #"7"'. !"' The imprecation upon any who should alter the translation !section 6##'

points to divergences of tet which the writer desired to check, compare section 9>( where

he seems to insist on the correctness of the Septuagint tet of =odus )9?))(


6/25

!sections #)B( #88' presuppose a familiarity with it on the part of non/ewish readers only

eplicable if the Septuagint had long been current. !##' Fet details in the Greek orthography preclude a date much later than #77 +0.

. ,redibility

The probable amount of truth in the story is ably discussed by Swete ! Intro( #$))'. The

following statements in the letter may be accepted? !#' The translation was produced at

%leandria( as is conclusively proved by =gyptian influence on its language. !)' The3entateuch was translated first and( in view of the homogeneity of style( as a whole. !6' The

Greek 3entateuch goes back to the first half of the 6rd century +0, the style is akin to that

of the 6rdcentury papyri( and the Greek Genesis was used by the Hellenist &emetriustoward the end of the century. !8' The Hebrew rolls were brought from /erusalem. !9'

3ossibly 3hiladelphus( the patron of literature( with his religious impartiality( may have

countenanced the work. +ut the assertion that it owed its inception wholly to him and hislibrarian is incredible, it is known from other sources that &emetrius 3halereus did not fill

the office of librarian under that monarch. The language is that of the people( not a literarystyle suitable to a work produced under royal patronage. The importation of 3alestinian

translators is likewise fictitious. &r. Swete acutely observes that %risteas( in stating that thetranslation was read to and welcomed by the /ewish community before being presented to

the king( unconsciously reveals its true origin. It was no doubt produced to meet their own

needs by the large /ewish colony at %leandria. % demand that the 4aw should be read inthe synagogues in a tongue +0' is more ingenious than convincing.

The prologue implies the eistence of a Greek version of the 4aw, the 3rophets and


7/25

Greek versions of a large part !probably not the whole' of


8/25

Tetual corruption began early( before the 0hristian era. Ae have seen indications of this in

the letter of %risteas !III( 9( !"' above'. Traces of corruption appear in 3hilo !e.g. hiscomment( in Quis er. Div. +er. 9$( on Genesis #9?#9( shows that already in his day

tapheis(


9/25

these later translators in his De mens. et pond. is not wholly trustworthy'( under Hadrian

!##>6B %&' and was related to that emperor, there is no probability in =piphanius- further statement that Hadrian entrusted to %quila the superintendence of the building of %elia

0apitolina on the site of /erusalem( that there he was converted to 0hristianity by 0hristian

eiles returning from 3ella( but that refusing to abandon astrology he was ecommunicated(

and in revenge turned /ew and was actuated by a bias against 0hristianity in his version of the Old Testament. Ahat is certain is that he was a pupil of the new rabbinical school( in

particular of Kabbi %kiba !"9#69 %&'( and that his version was an attempt to reproduce

eactly the revised official tet. The result was an etraordinary production( unparalleled inGreek literature( if it can be classed under that category at all. 1o 2ot or tittle of the Hebrew

might be neglected, uniformity in the translation of each Hebrew word must be preserved

and the etymological kinship of different Hebrew words represented. Such were some of his leading principles. The opening words of his translation !Genesis #?#' may be rendered?

and edited by :. 0. +urkitt ! ragments o$ the /ooks o$ 0ings( #B">' and by 0. Taylor

!Sa"ings o$ the Je,ish athers )( #B">, +e)re,1Greek Cairo Geni2ah #alimpsests( #"77'.

The student of Swete-s Old Testament will trace %quila-s unmistakable style in the footnotesto the +ooks of Samuel and Eings, the older and shorter + tet in those books has

constantly been supplemented in the % tet from %quila. % longer specimen of his work

occurs in the Greek =cclesiastes( which has no claim to be regarded as


10/25

whereas Symmachus lived under 0ommodus !#B7")', Irenaeus mentions only the versions

of %quila and Theodotion( and that of Symmachus had in his day either not been producedor at least not widely circulated. %ccording to the more credible account of Irenaeus(

Theodotion was an =phesian and a convert to /udaism. His version constantly agrees with

the Septuagint and was rather a revision of it( to bring it into accord with the current

Hebrew tet( than an independent work. The supplementing of lacunae in the Septuagint!due partly to the fact that the older version of some books did not aim at completeness'

gave scope for greater originality. These lacunae were greatest in /ob and his version of that

book was much longer than the Septuagint. The tet of /ob printed in Swete-s edition is a patchwork of old and new, the careful reader may detect the Theodotion portions by

transliterations and other peculiarities. 4ong etracts from Theodotion are preserved in

code L in /eremiah. %s regards the additional matter contained in Septuagint( Theodotionwas inconsistent, he admitted( e.g.( the additions to &aniel !Susanna( +el and the &ragon(

and the Song of the Three 0hildren'( but did not apparently admit the noncanonical books

as a whole. The church adopted his &aniel in place of the inadequate Septuagint version(

which has survived in only one Greek manuscript, but the date when the change took placeis unknown and the early history of the two Greek tets is obscure. Theodotion-s renderings

have been found in writings before his time !including the 1ew Testament'( and it is

reasonably con2ectured that even before the )nd century %& the Septuagint tet had beendiscarded and that Theodotion-s version is but a working over of an older alternative

version. Theodotion is free from the barbarisms of %quila( but is addicted to transliteration(

i.e. the reproduction of Hebrew words in Greek letters. His reasons for this habit are notalways clear, ignorance of Hebrew will not account for all !compare 5III( #( 9( below'.

6. Syachu& and "ther&

+eside the two versions produced by( and primarily intended for( /ews was a third(

presumably to meet the needs of a /ewish 0hristian sect who were dissatisfied with the

Septuagint. Symmachus( its author( was( according to the more trustworthy account( an=bionite( who also wrote a commentary on *atthew( a copy of which was given to Origen

by /uliana( a lady who received it from its author !=useb.( +% ( 5I( #>'. =piphanius-

description of him as a Samaritan convert to /udaism may be re2ected. The date of his work(as above stated( was probably the reign of 0ommodus !#B7#") %&'. In one respect the

version resembled %quila-s( in its faithful adherence to the sense of the current Hebrew tet,

its style( however( which was flowing and literary( was a revolt against %quila-smonstrosities. It seems to have been a recasting of %quila-s version( with free use of both

Septuagint and Theodotion. It carried farther a tendency apparent in the Septuagint to refine

away the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament.

Of three other manuscripts discovered by Origen !one at 1icopolis in Greece( one at/ericho' and known from their position in the Heapla as Luinta( Seta( and Septima( little

is known. There is no reason to suppose that they embraced the whole Old Testament.

Luinta is characteriCed by :ield as the most elegant of the Greek versions. :.0. +urkitt hasdiscussed


11/25

7. "rigen and the He0apla

These later versions play a large part in the history of the tet of the Septuagint. This is due

to the labors of the greatest Septuagint scholar of antiquity( the celebrated Origen of %leandria( whose active life covers the first half of the 6rd century. Origen frankly

recogniCed( and wished 0hristians to recogniCe( the merits of the later versions( and thedivergences between the Septuagint and the current Hebrew. He determined to provide thechurch with the materials for ascertaining the true tet and meaning of the Old Testament.

Aith this ob2ect he set himself to learn Hebrewa feat probably unprecedented among non

/ewish 0hristians of that timeand to collect the later versions. The idea of using these

versions to amend the Septuagint seemed to him an inspiration?


12/25

tacitly corrected. Origen produced a minor edition( the Tetrapla( without the first two

columns of the larger work. The +eptapla and Octapla( occasionally mentioned( appear to be alternative names given to the Heapla at points where the number of columns was

increased to receive other fragmentary versions. This gigantic work( which according to a

reasonable estimate must have filled 9(777 leaves( was probably never copied in extenso.

The original was preserved for some centuries in the library of 3amphilus at 0aesarea, thereit was studied by /erome( and thither came owners of +iblical manuscripts to collate their

copies with it( as we learn from some interesting notes in our uncial manuscripts !e.g. a >th

century note appended to =sther in code S'. The 4ibrary probably perished circa $6B %&(when 0aesarea fell into the hands of the Saracens.

9. He0aplaric 8anu&cript&

+ut( though the whole work was too vast to be copied( it was a simple task to copy the 9th

column. This task was performed( partly in prison( by 3amphilus( a martyr in the &iocletian persecution( and his friend =usebius( the great bishop of 0aesarea. 0opies of the


13/25

read the manuscripts which were promulgated by =usebius and 3amphilus on the basis of

Origen-s labors( and the whole world is divided between these three varieties of tet.<

11. He&ychian ecen&ion

Hesychius is probably to be identified with the martyr bishop mentioned by =usebius! +istoria %cclesiastica( 5III( #6' along with another scholar martyr( 3hileas bishop of

Thmuis( and it is thought that these two were engaged in prison in revising the =gyptian

tet at the time when 3amphilus and =usebius were employed on a similar task under similar conditions. How far eisting manuscripts preserve the Hesychian recension is

uncertain, agreement of their tet with that of =gyptian versions and :athers !0yril in

particular' is the criterion. :or the 3rophets 0eriani has identified code L and its kin asHesychian. :or the Octateuch 1. *c4ean ! JTS ( II( 67$' finds the Hesychian tet in a group

of cursives( 88( >8( >$( B8( #7$( #68( etc. +ut the first installments of the larger 0ambridge

Septuagint raise the question whether 0ode + !5aticanus' may not itself be Hesychian, itstet is more closely allied to that of 0yril %le. than to any other patristic tet( and the

consensus of these two witnesses against the rest is sometimes !=odus 6)?#8' curiouslystriking. In the 3salter also Kahlfs !Septuaginta1Studien( ). Heft( #"7>( )69' traces the

Hesychian tet in + and partially in 0ode Sinaiticus. 0ompare von Soden-s theory for the 1ew Testament.

1'. #ucianic ecen&ion

The 4ucianic recension was the work of another martyr( 4ucian of %ntioch !died 6###)'(

probably with the collaboration of the Hebraist &orotheus. There are( as Hort has shown(reasons for associating 4ucian with a


14/25

/I. econ&truction o$ Septuagint Te0t: /er&ion&; 8anu&cript& and rinted

Edition&

The task of restoring the original tet is beset with difficulties. The materials !*SS( 5SS( patristic citations' are abundant( but none has escaped '.The influence bf the Heapla is traceable elsewhere in this version.

The =thiopic version was made in the main from the Greek and in part at least from an

early tet, Kahlfs !Sept. Stud.( I( #"78' considers its tet of SE( with that of code +( to be

preOrigenic.


15/25

The vulgar or 3eshitta Syriac version was made from the Hebrew( though partly influenced

by the Septuagint. +ut another Syriac version is of primary importance for the Septuaginttet( namely( that of 3aul( bishop of Tella !0onstantine in *esopotamia'( eecuted at

%leandria in $#$#> and known as the SyroHeaplar. This is a bald Syriac version of the

Septuagint column of the Heapla( containing the Heaplar signs. % manuscript of the

poetical and prophetical books is in the %mbrosian 4ibrary at *ilan and has been edited by0eriani ! 'onumenta sacra et pro$ana( #B>8', fragments of the historical books are also

etant !4agarde and Kahlfs( /i)liothecae S"riacae( Gottingen( #B")'. This version

supplements the Greek Heaplaric manuscripts and is the principal authority for Origen-stet. :or the original version of &aniel( which has survived in only one late *S( the Syro

Heaplar supplies a second and older authority of great value.

The %rmenian version !ascribed to the 9th century' also owes its value to its etreme

literalness, its tet of the Octateuch is largely Heaplaric.

% bare mention must suffice of the %rabic version !of which the prophetical and poetical

books( /ob ecluded( were rendered from the Septuagint', the fragments of the Gothicversion !made from the 4ucianic recension'( and the Slavonic !partly from Septuagint( also

4ucianic' and the Georgian versions.

'. 8anu&cript&

:or a full description of the Greek manuscripts see Swete( Introduction( I( chapter 5. They

are divided according to their script !capitals or minuscules' into uncials and cursives( the

former ranging from the 8th century !four papyrus scraps go back to the 6rd century, 1estlein HauckHerCog( ealenc"klopadie $ur protestantische Theologie und 0irche( @@III( )7B'

to the #7th century %&( the latter from the "th to the #$th century %&. 0omplete +ibles are

few, the ma2ority contain groups of books only( such as the 3entateuch( Octateuch !GenKuth'( the later historical books( the 3salter( the 6 or 9


16/25

Origenic tet with the Heaplar signs, # !3urpureus 5indobonensis( 5ienna( 9th to $th

century'( fragments of an illuminated manuscript Genesis on purple vellum, 8!0oislinianus( 3aris( >th century'( important on account of its marginal Heaplaric matter.

:or the 3rophets( = !*archalianus( Kome( $th century' is valuable( both for its tet( which

is 7>)7' begun by Grabe !died #>#)' was based on the code %leandrinus( withaid from other manuscripts( and had the peculiarity that he employed Origen-s critical signs

and different siCes of type to show the divergence between the Greek and the Hebrew. Of

more recent editions three are preeminent. !9' The great Oford edition of Holmes and3arsons !Oford( #>"B#B)>( 9 volumes( folio' was the first attempt to bring together in a

gigantic apparatus criticus all the evidence of uncial and cursire manuscripts !upward of

677'( versions and early citations from 3hilo and /osephus onward. %s a monumentalstorehouse of materials


17/25

primary manuscript have been corrected( a delicate task in which the editors have re2ected a

few old readings without sufficient regard to the peculiarities of Hellenistic Greek. Theimportance of the work lies in its apparatus( which presents the readings of all the uncials(

versions and early citations( and those of a careful representative selection of the cursives.

The materials of H. and 3. are brought up to date and presented in a more reliable and

convenient form. +esides these there is !B' 4agarde-s reconstruction of the 4ucianicrecension of the historical books( which( as stated( must be used with caution !see above'.

+. econ&truction o$ "riginal Te0t

The task of reconstructing the Oldest tet is still unaccomplished. *aterials have

accumulated( and much preliminary


18/25

/II. !uber; Title& and "rder o$ Book&

1. ,ontent&

In addition to the Hebrew canonical books( the Septuagint includes all the books in the

=nglish %pocrypha ecept ) =sdras !The 3rayer of *anasseh only finds a place among thecanticles appended in some manuscripts to the 3salms' besides a 6rd and 8th book of *accabees. Swete further includes in his tet as an appendi of Greek books on the

borderland of canonicity the 3salms of Solomon !found in some cursives and mentioned in

the list in code %'( the Greek fragments of the +ook of =noch and the ecclesiastical

canticles above mentioned. =arly 0hristian writers in quoting freely from these additional books as Scripture doubtless perpetuate a tradition inherited from the /ews of %leandria.

*ost of the books being original Greek compositions were ipso $acto ecluded from a place

in the Hebrew 0anon. Greater latitude as regards canonicity prevailed at %leandria, the3entateuch occupied a place apart( but as regards later books no very sharp line of

demarcation between

names


19/25

Originally 0hronicles=Cra1ehemiah formed a unit( as was apparently still the case when

the oldest Greek version !# =sdras' was made.

+. 4rouping and "rder o$ Book&

In the arrangement of books there is a radical departure from 3alestinian practice. Therewere three main unalterable divisions in the Hebrew +ible( representing three stages in the

formation of the 0anon? 4aw( 3rophets !


20/25

/III. ,haracteri&tic& o$ the /er&ion and It& ,oponent art&

1otwithstanding the uncertain state of the tet( some general characteristics of the version

are patent. It is clear that( like the Hebrew itself( it is not a single book( but a library. It is a

series of versions and Greek compositions covering wellnigh 877 years( since it includes a

few productions of the )nd century %&, the bulk of the translations( however( fall withinthe first half of the period !Sirach( prologue'.

1. 4rouping o$ Septuagint Book& on Internal Eidence

The translations may be grouped and their chronological order approimately determined

from certain characteristics of their style. !#' Ae may inquire how a Hebrew word or phraseis rendered in different parts of the work. &iversity of renderings is not an infallible proof

that different hands have been employed( since invariable uniformity in translation is

difficult of attainment and indeed was not the aim of the 3entateuch translators( who seemrather to have studied variety of epression. If( however( a Hebrew word is consistently

rendered by one Greek word in one portion and by another elsewhere( and if each of thetwo portions has other features peculiar to itself( it becomes highly probable that the two

portions are the work of different schools. %mong


21/25

securely established in this portion and substantial variant readings are comparatively few.

The latter part of =odus is an eception, the Hebrew had here not reached its final form inthe 6rd century +0( and there is some reason for thinking that the version is not the work of

the translator of the first half. In &euteronomy a few new features in vocabulary appear

!e.g. ekklesia, see Hort( Christian %cclesia( 8 ff'. The Greek version of /oshua forms a link

between the 3entateuch and the later historical books. The tet was not yet fied( andvariants are more abundant than in the 3entateuch. The earliest version( probably of

selections only( appears from certain common features to have been nearly coeval with that

of the 4aw.

!)' The 43atter4 #rophets. There is little doubt that the net books to be translated werethe 3rophets in the narrower sense( and that Isaiah came first. The style of the Greek Isaiah

has a close similarity( not wholly attributable to imitation( to that of the 3entateuch? a

certain freedom of treatment connects it with the earlier translation period? it was known tothe author of Aisdom !Isaiah 6?#7 with Ottley-s note'. The translation shows B'. +ut this official version of the 3rophets had probably been

preceded by versions of short passages selected to be read on the festivals in thesynagogues. 4ectionary requirements occasioned the earliest versions of the 3rophets(

possibly of the 3entateuch as well. Two indications of this have been traced. There eists in

four manuscripts a Greek version of the 3salm of Habakkuk !Habakkuk 6'( a chapter whichhas been a /ewish lesson for 3entecost from the earliest times( independent of and

apparently older than the Septuagint and made for synagogue use. Similarly in =Cekiel of

the Septuagint there is a section of siteen verses !6$?)86B' with a style quite distinct fromthat of its contet. This passage was also an early 0hristian lesson for 3entecost( and its

lectionary use was inherited from /udaism. Here the Septuagint translators seem to have

incorporated the older version( whereas in Habakkuk 6 they re2ected it ! JTS ( @II( #"#, I5(

87>'.


22/25

!6' #artial &ersion o$ the 4ormer4 #rophets !# Samuel) Eings'. The Greek style

indicates that the history of the monarchy was not all translated at once. ;lfilas is said tohave omitted these books from the Gothic version as likely to inflame the military temper

of his race, for another reason the Greek translators were at first content with a partial

version. They omitted as unedifying the more disastrous portions( &avid-s sin with the

subsequent calamities of his reign and the later history of the divided monarchyculminating in the captivity. 3robably the earliest versions embraced only !#' # K( !)' ) K

#?###?# !&avid-s early reign'( !6' 6 K )?#))#?#6 !Solomon and the beginning of the

divided monarchy', the third book of 9( #6$'. Thetranslator was a student of the Greek poets, his version was probably produced for the

general reader( not for the synagogues. Hatch-s theory ! %ssa"s in /i)lical Greek ( #BB"( )#8'

that his Hebrew tet was shorter than ours and was epanded later is untenable, avoidance

of anthropomorphisms eplains some omissions( the reason for others is obscure. The firstGreek narrative of the return from eile !# =sdras' was probably a similar version of

etracts only from 0hronicles=Cra1ehemiah( grouped round a fable of non/ewish origin(

the story of the 6 youths at the court of &arius. The work is a fragment( the end being lost(and it has been contended by some critics that the version once embraced the whole of

0hronicles=Cra1ehemiah !0. 0. Torrey( %2ra Studies( 0hicago( #"#7'. The Greek is

obviously earlier than =sdras + and is of great value for the reconstruction of the Hebrew.The same translator appears from peculiarities of diction to have produced the earliest

version of &aniel( treating it with similar freedom and incorporating etraneous matter !the

Song of the Three 0hildren( Susanna( +el'. The maimum of interpolation is reached in

=sther( where the Greek additions make up twothirds of the story. The Greek 3roverbs!probably #st century +0' includes many maims not in the Hebrew, some of these appear

to be derived from a lost Hebrew collection( others are of purely Greek origin. This

translator also knew and imitated the Greek classics, the numerous fragments of iambic andheameter verse in the translation cannot be accidental ! JTS ( @III( 8$'. The 3salter is the

one translation in this category in which liberties have not been taken, in 3salm #6 #8?6

the etracts from other parts of 3salms and from Isaiah included in the + tet must be aninterpolation possibly made before St. 3aul-s time !Komans 6?#6 ff'( or else taken from

Komans. The little 3salm #9# in the Septuagint( described in the title as an


23/25

earlier( the work of pioneers in the new school which advocated strict adherence to the

Hebrew. The books of


24/25

1. Seuence

The most etensive discrepancies in arrangement of materials occur in !#' = 696"( the

construction of the Tabernacle and the ornaments of its ministers( !)' 6 K 8##( Solomon-sreign( !6' /eremiah !last half'( !8' 3roverbs !end'. !#' In =odus the Septuagint gives

precedence to the priests- ornaments( which in the Hebrew follow the account of theTabernacle( and omits altogether the altar of incense. The whole section describing theeecution of the instructions given in the previous chapters in almost identical words is one

of the latest portions of the 3entateuch and the tet had clearly not been finally fied in the

6rd century +0, the section was perhaps absent from the oldest Greek version. In =odus

)7?#6#9 0ode + arranges three of the commandments in the %leandrian order !>( B( $'(attested in 3hilo and in the 1ew Testament. !)' &eliberate rearrangement has taken place in

the history of Solomon( and the Septuagint unquestionably preserves the older tet. The

narrative of the building of the Temple( like that of the Tabernacle( contains some of theclearest eamples of editorial revision in the *assoretic Tet !Aellhausen( +ist o$ Israel (

$>( )B7( etc.'. %t the end of 6 K the Septuagint places chapters )7 and )# in their proper

order, *assoretic Tet reverses this( interposing the 1aboth story in the connected accountof the Syriac wars and 2ustifying the change by a short preface. !6' In /eremiah the chapter

numbers differ from the middle of chapter )9 to the end of chapter 9#( the historical

appendi !chapter 9)' concluding both tets. This is due to the different position assignedto a group of prophecies against the nations? The Septuagint places them in the center( the

*assoretic Tet at the end. The items in this group are also rearranged. The diversity in

order is earlier than the Greek translation, see JTS ( I5, )89. !8' The order of some groups of

maims at the end of 3roverbs was not finally fied at the time of the Greek translation,like /eremiah-s prophecies against the nations( these little groups seem to have circulated as

late as the )nd or #st century +0 as separate pamphlets. The 3salms numbers from #7 to

#8> differ by one in the Septuagint and *assoretic Tet( owing to discrepancies in the linesof demarcation between individual psalms.

'. Sub?ect 8atter

=cluding the end of =odus( striking eamples of divergence in the 3entateuch are few.

The Septuagint alone preserves 0ain-s words to his brother( #B( the *assoretic Tet has apparently


25/25

preserved two contradictory accounts J of events in &avid-s early history( while the

Septuagint presents a shorter and consistent narrative !Swete( Intro( )89 f'. %n

Documents

The Septuagint Thackeray