SEPTUAGINT, the name given to a Greek version of the books of the Old Testament, from its being supposed to be the work of seventy-two Jews, who are usually called the seventy interpreters, because seventy is a round number.

The history of this version has been expressly written by Aristaeas, an officer of the guards to Ptolemy Philadelphus. Ptolemy having erected a noble library at Alexandria, which he took care to fill with the most curious and valuable books from all parts of the world, was informed that the Jews had one containing the laws of Moses, and the history of that people; and being desirous of enriching his library with a Greek translation of it, he applied to the high priest of the Jews, and, to engage him to comply with his request, set at liberty all the Jews whom his father Ptolemy Soter had reduced to slavery. After such a step, he easily obtained what he desired. Eleazar the Jewish high priest sent back his ambassadors with an exact copy of the Mosaical law, written in letters of gold, and six elders of each tribe, in all seventy-two, who were received with marks of respect by the king, and then conducted into the isle of Pharos, where they were lodged in a house prepared for their reception, and supplied with every thing necessary. They set about the translation without loss of time, which they finished in seventy-two days; and the whole being read in presence of the king, he admired the profound wisdom of the laws of Moses, and sent back the deputies laden with presents, for themselves, the high priest, and the temple.

Aristobulus, who was tutor to Ptolemy Physcon, Philo, who lived in our Saviour’s time, and was contemporary with the apostles, and Josephus, speak of this translation as made by seventy-two interpreters, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. All the Christian writers during the first fifteen centuries of the Christian era have admitted this account of the Septuagint as an undoubted fact. But since the Reformation, critics have boldly called it in question, because it was attended with circumstances which they think inconsistent, or at least improbable. Dupin has asked, why were seventy-two interpreters employed, since twelve would have been sufficient? Such an objection is trifling. We may as well ask, why did King James I. employ fifty-four translators in rendering the Bible into English, since Dupin thinks twelve would have been sufficient?

Prideaux objects, that the Septuagint is not written in the Jewish, but in the Alexandrian dialect; and could not therefore be the work of natives of Palestine. But these dialects were at that time probably the same, for both Jews and Alexandrians had received the Greek language from the Macedonians about fifty years before. Prideaux further contends, that all the books of the Old Testament could not be translated at the same time; for they exhibit great difference of style. To this it is sufficient to reply, that they were the work of seventy-two men, each of whom had separate portions assigned him.

The dean also urges, that Aristaeas, Aristobulus, Philo, and Josephus, all directly tell us, that the law was translated, without mentioning any of the other sacred books. But nothing was more common among writers of the Jewish nation, than to give this name to the Scriptures as a whole. In the New Testament, law is used as synonymous with what we call the Old Testament. Besides, it is expressly said by Aristobulus, in a fragment quoted by Eusebius, that the whole Sacred Scripture was rightly translated through the means of Demetrius Phalereus, and by the command of Philadelphus. Josephus, indeed, says the learned dean, asserts, in the preface to his Antiquities, that the Jewish interpreters did not translate for Ptolemy the whole Scriptures, but the law only. Here the evidence is contradictory, and we have to determine whether Aristobulus or Josephus be most worthy of credit. We do not mean, however, to accuse either of forgery, but only to inquire which had the best opportunities of knowing the truth. Aristobulus was an Alexandrian Jew, tutor to an Egyptian king, and lived within a hundred years after the translation was made, and certainly had access to see it in the royal library. Josephus was a native of Palestine, and lived not until three hundred years or more after the translation was made, and many years after it was burned along with the whole library of Alexandria in the wars of Julius Caesar. Supposing the veracity of these two writers equal, as we have no proof of the contrary, which of them ought we to consider as the best evidence? Aristobulus certainly. Prideaux, indeed, seems doubtful whether there was ever such a man; and Dr Hody supposes that the Commentaries on the five books of Moses, which bear the name of Aristobulus, were a forgery of the second century. To prove the existence of any human being, who lived two thousand years before us, and did not perform such works as no mere man ever performed, is a task which we are not disposed to undertake; and we believe that it would not be less difficult to prove that Philo and Josephus existed, than that such a person as Aristobulus did not exist. If the writings which have passed under his name were a forgery of the second century, it is surprising that they should have imposed upon Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived in the same century, and was a man of abilities, learning, and well acquainted[7:20:104] with the writings of the ancients. Eusebius, too, quotes the Commentaries of Aristobulus. But, continues the learned dean, “Clemens Alexandrinus is the first author that mentions them. Now, had any such commentaries existed in the time of Philo and Josephus, they would surely have mentioned them.” But is the circumstance of its not being quoted by every succeeding author a sufficient reason to disprove the authenticity of any book? Neither Philo nor Josephus undertook to give a list of preceding authors, and it was by no means the uniform practice of these times always to name the authors from whom they derived their information.

Prideaux further contends, that the sum which Ptolemy is said to have given to the interpreters is too great to be credible. If his computation were just, it certainly would be so. He makes it L.2,000,000 sterling; but other writers^[1. Blair’s Lectures on the Canon. ] reduce it to L.85,42l, and some to L.56,947, neither of which is a sum so very extraordinary in so great and magnificent a prince as Philadelphus, who spent, according to Athenaeus, not less than ten thousand talents on the furniture of one tent, which is six times more than what was spent in the whole of the embassy and translation, which amounted only to 1552 talents.

Prideaux says, “that what convicts the whole story of Aristaeas of falsity is, that he makes Demetrius Phalereus to be the chief actor in it, and a great favourite of the king; whereas Philadelphus, as soon as his father was dead, cast him into prison, where he soon after died.” But it may be replied, that Philadelphus reigned two years jointly with his father Lagus, and it is not said by Hermippus that Demetrius was out of favour with Philadelphus during his father’s life. Now, if the Septuagint was translated in the beginning of the reign of Philadelphus, as Eusebius and Jerome think, the difficulty will be removed. Demetrius might have been librarian during the reign of Philadelphus, and yet imprisoned on the death of Lagus. Indeed, as the cause of Philadelphus’s displeasure was the advice which Demetrius gave to his father, to prefer the sons of Arsinoë to the son of Bernice, he could scarcely show it till his father’s death. The Septuagint translation might therefore be begun while Philadelphus reigned jointly with his father, but not be finished till after his father’s death.

Besides the objections which have been considered, there is only one that deserves notice. The ancient Christians not only differ from one another concerning the time in which Aristobulus lived, but even contradict themselves in different parts of their works. Sometimes they tell us he dedicated his book to Ptolemy Philometer; at other times they say it was addressed to Philadelphus and his father. Sometimes they make him the same person who is mentioned in second Maccabees, and sometimes one of the seventy-two interpreters a hundred and fifty-two years before. It is difficult to explain how authors fall into such inconsistencies, but it is probably occasioned by their quoting from memory. This was certainly the practice of almost all the early Christian writers, and soractimes of the apostles themselves. Mistakes were therefore inevitable. Josephus has varied in the circumstances of the same event, in his Antiquities and Wars of the Jews, probably from the same cause; but we do not hence conclude, that every circumstance of such a relation is entirely false. In the account of the Marquis of Argyll’s death in the reign of Charles II. we have a very remarkable contradiction. Lord Clarendon relates that he was condemned to be hanged, which was performed the same day. On the contrary, Burnet, Wodrow, Heath, and Echard, concur in stating that he was beheaded; and that he was condemned upon the Saturday, and executed upon the Monday.^[2. * Biographia Britannica. ] But was any reader of English history ever sceptical enough to raise from hence a question, whether the Marquis of Argyll was executed or not? Yet this ought to be left in uncertainty, according to the way of reasoning in which the facts respecting the translation of the Septuagint are attempted to be disproved.

Such are the objections which Prideaux has raised against the common account of the Septuagint translation, and such are the answers which may be given to them. We have chosen to support that opinion which is sanctioned by historical evidence, in preference to the conjectures of modern critics, however ingenious; being persuaded that there are many things recorded in history, which, though perfectly true, yet, from our imperfect knowledge of the concomitant circumstances, may, at a distant period, seem liable to objections. To those who require positive evidence, it may be stated thus. Aristaeas, Aristobulus, Philo, and Josephus, assure us that the law was translated. Taking the law in the more restricted sense, we have at least sufficient authority to assert that the Pentateuch was rendered into Greek under Ptolemy Philadelphus. Aristobulus affirms, that the whole Scriptures were translated by the seventy-two. Josephus confines their labours to the books of Moses. He therefore who cannot determine to which of the two the greater respect is due, may suspend his opinion. It is certain, however, that many of the other books were translated before the age of our Saviour; for they are quoted both by him and by his apostles; and, perhaps, by a minute examination of ancient authors, in the same way that Dr Lardner has examined the Christian fathers to prove the antiquity of the New Testament, the precise period in which the whole books of the Septuagint were composed might, with considerable accuracy, be ascertained.

For four hundred years this translation was in high estimation with the Jews. It was read in their synagogues in preference to the Hebrew, not only in those places where Greek was the common language, but in many synagogues of Jerusalem and Judaea. But when they saw that it was equally valued by the Christians, they became jealous of it; and at length, in the second century, Aquila, an apostate Christian, attempted to substitute another Greek translation in its place. In this work he was careful to give the ancient prophecies concerning the Messiah a different turn from the Septuagint, that they might not be applicable to Christ. In the same design he was followed by Symmachus and Theodotion, who also, as St Jerome informs us, wrote out of hatred to Christianity.

In the mean time, the Septuagint, from the ignorance, boldness, and carelessness of transcribers, became full of errors. To correct these, Origen published a new edition in the beginning of the third century, in which he placed the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. This edition was called Tetrapla, the translations being arranged opposite to one another in four columns. He also added one column, containing the Hebrew text in Hebrew letters, and another exhibiting it in Greek. In a second he published two additional Greek versions, one of which was found at Nicoolis, and the other at Jericho. This was called the Hexapla. By comparing so many translations, Origen endeavoured to form a correct copy of the Scriptures. Where they all agreed, he considered them as right. The passages which he found in the Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew text, he marked with an obelisk; what he found in the Hebrew, but not in the Septuagint, he marked with an asterisk. St Jerome says, that the additions which Origen made to the Septuagint, and marked with an asterisk, were taken from Theodotion. From this valuable work of Origen the version of the Septuagint was transcribed in a separate volume, with the asterisks and obelisks for the use of the churches; and from this circumstance the great work itself was neglected and lost.[7:20:105] About the year 300, two new editions of the Septuagint were published; the one by Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, and the other by Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch. But as these authors did not mark with any note of distinction the alterations which they had made, their edition does not possess the advantages of Origen’s.

The best edition of the Septuagint is that of Dr Grabe, which was published in the beginning of the last century. He had access to two manuscripts nearly of equal antiquity, the one found in the Vatican library at Rome, the other in the royal library at St James’s, which was presented to Charles I. by Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, and hence is commonly called the Alexandrian Manuscript. Anxious to discover which of these was according to the edition of Origen, Dr Grabe collected the fragments of the Hexapla, and found that they agreed with the Alexandrian Manuscript, but not with the Vatican where it differed with the other. Hence he concluded that the Alexandrian Manuscript was taken from the edition of Origen. By comparing the quotations from Scripture in the works of Athanasius and St Cyril, who were patriarchs of Alexandria at the time St Jerome says Hesychius’s edition of the Septuagint was used there, with the Vatican manuscript, he found they agreed so well that he justly inferred that the manuscript was taken from the edition of Hesychius.

This version was in use to the time of our blessed Saviour, and is that out of which most of the citations in the New Testament from the Old are taken. It was also the ordinary and canonical translation made use of by the Christian church in the earliest ages; and it still subsists in the churches both of the east and the west.

(Those who desire a more particular account of the Septuagint translation may consult Hody De Bibliorum Textibus, Prideaux’s Connections, Owen’s Inquiry into the Septuagint Version, Blair’s Lectures on the Canon, and Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament, last edition.)

Septuagint chronology, the chronology which is formed from the dates and periods of time mentioned in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. It reckons 1500 years more from the creation to Abraham than does the Hebrew Bible. Dr Kennico, in the dissertation prefixed to his Hebrew Bible, has shown it to be very probable that the chronology of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the period just mentioned, was corrupted by the Jews between the years 175 and 200, and that the chronology of the Septuagint is more agreeable to the truth. It is a fact, that during the second and third centuries the Hebrew Scriptures were almost entirely in the hands of the Jews, while the Septuagint was confined to the Christians. The Jews had therefore a very favourable opportunity for this corruption. The following is the reason which is given by oriental writers. It being a very ancient tradition that the Messiah was to come in the sixth chiliad, because he was to come in the last days, the contrivance was to shorten the age of the world from about 5500 to 3760, and thence to prove that Jesus could not be the Messiah. Dr Kennico adds, that some Hebrew copies having the larger chronology were extant till the time of Eusebius, and some till the year 700.