materially affects either the value or the date of the version. When it was completed there is no evidence to show. Regarding the work critically it may be observed that it contains many Graeco-Egyptian words, and that the Pentateuch is translated with much more accuracy than the other books. The Book of Job, the Psalms and the Prophets, are all inferior, and especially Isaiah and Daniel. The historical books are often inaccurately translated. In the early Christian Church this version was deemed of great value, though writers often appealed against it to the Hebrew." The Handbook then traces our present version through the various MSS. to the hexapla version of Origen, A.D. 228, itself apparently derived from the version of Aquila of Pontus about A.D. 130. And commenting on the version generally, it continues: "The version is free rather than literal, and frequently misses the sense of the original. It is to a great extent useful in settling the original text, but is more valuable in interpretation, although it often fails in difficult passages from the freeness of its renderings, the carelessness and ignorance of the translators, and the absence of fixed rules of translation. Allowing for these sources of error, it must be added that the LXX. often indicates an underlying text different from the Massoretic. At the same time,' writes Dr. Swete, 'between the age of the Septuagint and that of Aquila, a thorough revision of the Hebrew Bible must have taken place, probably under official direction. Again it is sufficient to warn the beginner that in the LXX. he has before him the version of an earlier text which often differed materially from the text of the printed Hebrew Bible and of all existing Hebrew MSS. Again, we are driven to the conclusion that the transition from a fluctuating to a relatively fixed text took place during the interval between the fall of Jerusalem and the completion of Aquila's version.'"*

Though this view discredits the account in Josephus, yet in his story there is much which might well have

*A.D. 70-130.

taken place. We have seen how Ezra gave the law to the Jews at Jerusalem. We have seen how it had to be translated into the current dialect, whence we get some of the books of the Apocrypha. Then may not Ptolemy Philadelphus, in his desire to settle the Jews at Alexandria have deemed it wise to have their law similarly translated into the Greek? That it should differ from the Hebrew as ultimately settled was of course inevitable. The Canon was revised and rerevised again and again, and from a literary point of view probably for the better. On the other hand, the Septuagint was a translation from versions in their unrevised state, in the same way and as the Apocrypha or the Aramaic version, it gives more faithfully the substance of the old or original text than does the more polished rendering of the Hebrew revision. For example, take Esther as found in the Apocrypha, the old version of the story, and compare it with the finished idyll in the canon. Undoubtedly there were great masters who revised these Hebrew writings.

And in tracing the evolution of thought one especially interesting feature comes out in comparing the books of the Apocrypha, mostly the earlier form of the same narrative, with those of the later period. And this is the excision of the unnecessary marvellous. Here we see how the same critical influence which impressed Polybius impressed the Jewish editors as well. Belief in the wonderful was then general; miracles were the order of the day; and marvels were accepted by the learned without question. Nor is this to be wondered at. Hypnotism, then wholly an unknown land, presented phenomena which altogether transcended ordinary human knowledge or experience. But the critical faculty developing, we come to an age which knew some of the greatest intellects of mankind, and so Polybius voices his time as he protests against the way the miraculous is accepted without inquiry. Thus he writes: "There is a report_which is firmly credited among the inhabitants of the Bargylian cities, that no snow or rain ever falls upon the

statue of the Cidnyan Diana, though it stands in the open air. The people of Issus affirm the same thing also concerning their statue of Vesta; and both these stories are related as facts by some historians. For my own part, I know not how it is, that I am still forced in the course of my work to take some notice of such traditions, which are scarcely to be heard with patience. It is certainly a proof of most childish folly to relate things which, when they are brought to be examined, appear to be not only improbable but even not possible. When a writer affirms that certain bodies, though placed in the light of the sun, project no shade, what is it but plain indication of a distempered brain? And yet Theopompus has declared that this happens to those who are admitted into the temple of Jupiter in Arcadia." And now he gives us an example of the cynicism of his age. "I must confess, indeed," he continues," that when things of this sort tend only to preserve in vulgar minds a reverential awe of the divinity, writers may be excused if they employ their pains in recounting miracles and in framing legendary tales."

Thus for the shortest of periods we see the world in a critical mood. It is soon to be again agape for the marvellous, and our times are not to be wholly free from the folly. Happily for mankind, the Hebrew Canon came to be edited when this critical faculty was highly developed and when its editors were influenced by the prevailing spirit. The earlier books. they left untouched; with them also they had become. sanctified by age. And in their case they satisfied their nicety by seeing in them allegory, or story told for edification, and not the narration of actual fact.

And for ourselves, the more we examine the message, the less necessary does it seem to be to appeal to the marvellous for its substantiation. Had the message needed the testimony of the miraculous, would God have left His tremendous verities of existence to depend on some third rate feats of clairvoyance and such like wonders? That the nations made much of

such practices; saw in them their gods manifest; found in them their oracles established, is undoubted; but God's own word carries its own assurance and wants no other vouching whatever. Through human agency the infinite is ever speaking to the finite. Why or wherefore we cannot say. But the speaking is undoubted, and woe that man or nation which will not hear. God's truths are never dependent on writings or foretellings, which only the half educated are given to understand.

34. But these eighty years of peace are to come to an end. The early Ptolemies had been wise and strong rulers. Now came a succession of weak monarchs, and Antiochus the Great thought it a favourable opportunity to add Egypt to his dominions. This involved Palestine as usual in the ensuing war, when, as Josephus pathetically remarks, "it fell out that these nations were equally sufferers both when he was beaten and when he beat the others." As always, we observe their most justifiable anxiety to stand well with the winner. Why should they do anything but hate and loathe both Syrian Greek and Egyptian Greek alike? Probably they viewed with dismay the increasing feebleness of Egypt, the rising power and ambitions of Antiochus. It was a terribly anxious moment. The fact was their land was all-important to both combatants, so much so that Antiochus, as Polybius tells us, having obtained possession of Sythopolis, i.e. Bethshan and the country about it, regarded himself as well on the road to victory, and "was filled with the fairest hopes as to the final issue of the war. For the country was such as could afford very large supplies, sufficient for all the army, and furnish them with every kind of necessities in the greatest plenty." It is accidental touches like these which give us justest view of what these much-abused people really were. A country does not teem with plenty unless its inhabitants are frugal and hardworking. And they tried to accommodate themselves to the ruffianly freebooters who were only united in indiscriminately

robbing them. And they accept Antiochus, as he is on the full tide of fortune. And then most surprising change. Ptolemy, utterly profligate, did nothing to stem the invasion. But his ministers thought it shame to thus ignominiously collapse without an effort, and collected an army. And the foes met at Raphia, where Ptolemy momentarily proved a veritable hero and Antiochus was defeated. And now it was a terrible moment for those who have supported him, given him a welcome. Concerning this, Polybius sneeringly writes:* "Such was the end of the battle of Raphia. . . . When Antiochus had discharged the last duties to his soldiers who had fallen in the action, he directed his route back again to his own kingdom. At the same time Ptolemy took possession of Raphia without resistance, with the rest also of the neighbouring cities, which all seemed to strive together which should be the first to return again to his dominion, and receive him as their master. For in such conjuncture, all men are indeed ready to accommodate their resolutions to present times. But the people, especially of Coele-Syria, are more strongly led by nature to this compliance than those of any other country. At this time, however, their conduct must in part be ascribed to that affection by which they were before inclined towards the kings of Egypt. For the multitude through all the province had always been accustomed to regard the princes of this family with sentiments of high respect and veneration. Ptolemy therefore was received among them with crowns, sacrifices, altars, and every other honour which flattery was able to invent."

But in the case of the Jews, both in Jerusalem and Alexandria, it would seem without too great success. The former he treated with severity, but the latter it is said he massacred to the extent of forty to sixty thousand. Why such ferocity is difficult to say. Had they made themselves obnoxious to other jealous colonists, who took this opportunity to rob and murder * Polybius, Book V., ch. 8.