The original Hebrew being considered as the basis of the whole work, the proximity of each translation to the text, in point of closeness and fidelity, determined its rank in the order of the columns: thus Aquila's version, being the most faithful, is placed next to the sacred text; that of Symmachus occupies the fourth column; the Septuagint, the fifth; and Theodotion's, the sixth. The other three anonymous translations, not containing the entire books of the Old Testament, were placed in the three last columns of the Enneapla, according to the order of time in which they were discovered by Origen. Where the same words occurred in all the other Greek versions, without being particularly specified, Origen designated them by A or AO, Amo, the rest;-Or, or the three, denoted Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion;- OA, or the four, signified Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion; and II, IIavres, all the interpreters.

The object of Origen being to correct the differences found in the then existing copies of the Old Testament, he carefully noted the alterations made by him; and for the information of those who might consult his work, he made use of the following marks.

1. Where any passages appeared in the Septuagint, that were not found in the Hebrew, he designated them by an obelus with two bold points annexed. This mark was also used to denote words not extant in the Hebrew, but added by the Septuagint translators, either for the sake of elegance, or for the purpose of illustrating the

sense.

2. To passages, wanting in the copies of the Septuagint, and supplied by himself from the other Greek version, he prefixed an asterisk with two bold points also annexed, in order that his additions might be immediately perceived. These supplementary passages, we are informed by Jerome, were for the most part taken from Theodotion's translation; not unfrequently from that of Aquila; sometimes, though rarely, from the version of Symmachus; and sometimes from two or three together. But, in every case, the initial letter of each translator's name was placed immediately after the asterisk, to indicate the source whence such supplementary passage was taken. And in lieu of the very erroneous Septuagint version of Daniel, Theodotion's translation of that book was inserted

entire.

3. Further, not only the passages wanting in the Septuagint were supplied by Origen with the asterisks, as above noticed; but also where that version does not appear accurately to express the Hebrew original, having noted the former reading with an obelus,, he added the correct rendering from one of the other translators, with an asterisk subjoined. Concerning the shape and uses of the lemniscus and hypolemniscus, two other marks used by Origen, there is so great a difference of opinion among learned men, that it is difficult to determine what they were. Dr. Owen, after Montfaucon, supposes them to have been marks of better and more accurate renderings.

1 Montfaucon, Prælim. ad Hexapla, tom. i. pp. 36-42. Holmes, Vetus Testamen

In the Pentateuch, Origen compared the Samaritan text with the Hebrew as received by the Jews, and noted their differences. To each of the translations inserted in his Hexapla was prefixed an account of the author; each had its separate prolegomena; and the ample margins were filled with notes. A few fragments of these prolegomena and marginal annotations have been preserved; but nothing remains of his history of the Greek versions.1

Since Origen's time, biblical critics have distinguished two editions or exemplars of the Septuagint-the Kown or common text, with all its errors and imperfections, as it existed previously to his collation; and the Hexaplar text, or that corrected by Origen himself. For nearly fifty years was this great man's stupendous work buried in a corner of the city of Tyre, probably on account of the very great expense of transcribing forty or fifty volumes, which far exceeded the means of private individuals: and here, perhaps, it might have perished in oblivion, if Eusebius and Pamphilus had not discovered it, and deposited it in the library of Pamphilus the martyr at Cæsarea, where Jerome saw it about the middle of the fourth century. As we have no account whatever of Origen's autograph, after this time, it is most probable that it perished in the year 653, on the capture of that city by the Arabs: and a few imperfect fragments, collected from manuscripts of the Septuagint and the Catena of the Greek fathers, are all that now remain of a work, which, in the present improved state of sacred literature, would most eminently have assisted in the interpretation and criticism of the Old Testament.

V. As the Septuagint version had been read in the church from the commencement of Christianity, so it continued to be used in most of the Greek churches: and the text, as corrected by Origen, was transcribed for their use, together with his critical marks. Hence, in the progress of time, from the negligence or inaccuracy of copyists, numerous errors were introduced into this version, which rendered a new revisal necessary: and, as all the Greek churches did not receive Origen's biblical labours with equal deference, three principal recensions were undertaken nearly at the same time, of which we are now to offer a brief notice.

The first was the edition, undertaken by Eusebius and Pamphilus about the year 300, from the Hexaplar text, with the whole of tum Græcum, tom. i. Præfat. cap. i. sect. i-vii. The first book of Dr. Holmes's erudite preface is translated into English in the Christian Observer for 1821, vol. xx. pp. 544-548. 610-615. 676-683. 746-750.

1 The best edition, unhappily very rare, of the remains of Origen's Hexapla, is that of Montfaucon, in two volumes, folio, Paris, 1713. The first volume contains a very valuable preliminary disquisition on the Hebrew text and different antient Greek versions, of which we have liberally availed ourselves in the preceding and following pages, together with a minute account of Origen's biblical labours, and some inedited fragments of Origen, &c. To these succeed the remains of the Hexapla, from Genesis to the book of Psalms inclusive. The second volume comprises the rest of the Hexapla to the end of the twelve minor prophets, together with Greek and Hebrew Lexicons to the Hexapla. These fragments of Origen's great work were reprinted in two vols. 8vo. (Lipsia 1769), by C. F. Bahrdt; whose edition has been most severely criticised by Fisher in his Prolusiones de Versionibus Græcis Librorum V. T. Litterarum Hebr. Magistris, p. 34, note (Lipsiæ, 1772, Svo.); it is now but little valued.

Origen's critical marks: it was not only adopted by the churches of Palestine, but was also deposited in almost every library. By frequent transcriptions, however, Origen's marks or notes became, in the course of a few years, so much changed as to be of little use, and were finally omitted: this omission only augmented the evil, since even in the time of Jerome it was no longer possible to know what belonged to the translators, or what were Origen's own corrections; and now it may almost be considered as a hopeless task to distinguish between them. Contemporary with the edition of Eusebius and Pamphilus was the recension of the Kown, or vulgate text of the Septuagint, conducted by Lucian, a presbyter of the church at Antioch, who suffered martyrdom A. D. 311. He took the Hebrew text for the basis of his edition, which was received in all the eastern churches from Constantinople to Antioch. While Lucian was prosecuting his biblical labours, Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, undertook a similar work, which was generally received in the churches of Egypt. He is supposed to have introduced fewer alterations than Lucian; and his edition is cited by Jerome as the Exemplar Alexandrinum. Syncellus1 mentions another revisal of the Septuagint text by Basil bishop of Cæsarea: but this, we have every reason to believe, has long since perished. All the manuscripts of the Septuagint now extant, as well as the printed editions, are derived from the three recensions above mentioned, although biblical critics are by no means agreed what particular recension each manuscript has followed.2

The importance of the Septuagint version for the right understanding of the sacred text has been variously estimated by different learned men while some have elevated it to an equality with the original Hebrew, others have rated it far below its real value. The great authority which it formerly enjoyed, certainly gives it a claim to a high degree of consideration. It was executed long before the Jews were prejudiced against Jesus Christ as the Messiah; and it was the means of preparing the world at large for his appearance, by making known the types and prophecies concerning him. With all its faults and imperfections, therefore, this version is of more use in correcting the Hebrew text than any other that is extant; because its authors had better opportunities of knowing the propriety and extent of the Hebrew language, than we can possibly have at this distance of time. The Septuagint, likewise, being written in the same dialect as the New Testament (the formation of whose style was influenced by it), becomes a very important source of interpretation for not only does it frequently serve to determine the genuine reading, but also to ascertain the meaning of particular idiomatic expressions and passages in the New Testament, the true import of which could not be known but from their use in the Septuagint.3 Grotius, Keuchenius, Biel,

1 Chronographia ab Adamo usque ad Dioclesianum, p. 203.

2 Dr. Holmes has given a copious and interesting account of the editions of Lucian and Hesychius, and of the sources of the Septuagint text in the manuscripts of the Pentateuch, which are now extant. Tom. i. Præf. cap. i. sect. viii. et seq. 3 In the Eclectic Review for 1806 (vol. ii. part i. pp. 337-347.) the reader will

VOL. 11.

23

and Schleusner are the critics who have most successfully applied this version to the interpretation of the New Testament.

VII. The following table exhibits the four principal Standard Text Editions of the Septuagint Greek version, together with the principal editions which are founded upon them.1

1. COMPLUTENSIan Text, 1514.

Antwerp Polyglott, Fol. Gr. Lat. &c. 1569-72.-Commelini. Fol. Gr. 1586, 1599, 1616.—Wolderi. Fol. Gr. 1596.-Hutteri. Fol. 1599. Gr. Lat. &c.-Paris Polyglott, Fol. Gr. Lat. &c. 1629–45.

2. ALDINE TEXT, 1518.

Cephalai. Oct. Gr. 1526.-Hervagi. Fol. Gr. 1545.—Brylingeri. Oct. Gr. 1550. -Wechelii Hæred. Fol. Gr. 1597.

3. ROMAN OR VATICAN TEXT, 1587.

Waltoni Polyglotta, Fol. Gr. Lat. &c. 1657.-Morini. Fol. Gr. Lat. 1628.-Daniel. Qto. et Oct. Gr. 1653, 1665, 1683.-Cluveri. Oct. Gr. 1697.-Bosii. Gr. Qto. 1709.-Millii. Oct. Gr. 1725.-Reineccü. Oct. Gr. 1730, 1757.-Kirchneri. Oct. Gr. 1759.-Holmesü. Fol. Gr. 1798, &c. The editions printed at Oxford, Oct. Gr. 1805, 1817.—Valpii, 1819.

4. THE ALEXandrian Text, 1707-9-19-20.

Breitingeri, Qto. Gr. 1730-33.-Reineccii Biblia Quadrilinguia. Fol. Gr. Lat. &c. 1750.

Of the various editions of the Septuagint Greek version, which have issued from the press, the following more particularly claim the notice of the biblical student. Most of them contain the New Testament, in addition to the Old; but as the principal editions of the former have already been described, no notice will be taken of them. 1. Biblia Græca; cum versione Latina ad verbum. In Bibliis Polyglottis Compluti editis, 1514, 1515, 1517.

The text of this edition was composed after several manuscripts, which the editors neglected to describe; they have frequently been charged with having altered the Greek text, to make it harmonise with the Hebrew, or rather with the Vulgate version, and with having filled up the chasms in the Alexandrian or Septuagint version from other Greek interpreters.-For a further account of the Complutensian Polyglott, see p. 115. of Part I. of this volume.

2. Παντα τα κατ' εξοχήν καλούμενα Βιβλια θειας δηλαδη γραφής παλαιας Sacræ Scripturæ Veteris Novæque omnia. Venetiis,

σε και νέας.

1518, small folio.

This edition appeared in 1518, two years after the death of Aldus Manutius; it was executed under the care of his father-in-law, Andreas Asulanus. The text was compiled from numerous antient MSS. Archbishop Usher is of opinion that in many instances it follows the readings of Aquila's version, instead of those of the Septuagint. The Aldine text, however, is pronounced by Bishop Walton to be much purer than that in the Complutensian Polyglott, to which it is actually prior in point of time; for though the Polyglott bears date 1514-1517, it was not published until the year 1522. Father Simon and M. de Colomies concur in speaking very highly of the execution of the Aldine edition.

find many examples adduced, confirming the remarks above offered, concerning the value and importance of the Septuagint version.

1 This notice is chiefly taken from Masch and Boerner's edition of Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, part ii. vol. ii. pp. 263-304. In pp. 306-323. there is an account of the several editions of detached books of the Septuagint version, which

we have not room to describe.

2 See pp. 126-137. supra.