ther by later writers," the version of the Mosaic Law was made by seventy-two Palestine Jews, learned in the Scripture; it was made at the instance of Demetrius Phalereus, under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, to aid in forming a universal collection of laws."

[The story related by the Pseudo-Aristeas is this: Demetrius Phalereus, the keeper of the Alexandrian library, wished to make a collection of all the books in the world, and mentioned the Jewish works to King Ptolemy, who promised to write to the high priest at Jerusalem for interpreters to translate those books into the Greek tongue. Aristeas happened to be present, and advised the king to set free the large number of Hebrews then held as slaves in his dominions. He did this, and sent a messenger to Eleazar, the high priest at Jerusa

Aristea Hist. LXXII. Interpretum. Accessere Veterum Testimonia de eorum Vers.; Oxon. 1692, 8vo. Also, in Van Dale, Dissert. super Aristea de LXX. Interprett.; Amst. 1705, 4to. p. 231-333, and Humphr. Hody, De Biblior. Textibus original.; Oxon. 1705, fol. p. i.-xxxvi. See the other literature relative to this epistle in Rosenmüller, Handbuch, vol. ii. p. 344, sqq.

a

Antiq. xii. 2, 2-14. On the slight difference between this and Aristeas, see Rosenmüller, 1. c. p. 362, sqq.

Philo, De Vita Mosis, lib. ii. p. 658, sq., says these translators were inspired, so that all agreed in producing the same version —¿vovσtõvTES AQ08φήτευον, οὐκ ἄλλα ἄλλοι, καὶ τὰ δ ̓ ἀυτὰ πάντες ὀνόματα καὶ ῥήματα, ὥσπερ ὑποβολέως ἑκάστοις ἀοράτως ἐνηχοῦντος. (The story is told in a similar manner by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. i. p. 342, and Irenæus, iii. 25.) See Justin Martyr, Cohort. ad Græcos, ch. xiii. p. 16. But neither he nor Philo refers to Aristeas. Epiphanius, De Pond. et Mens. c. 3, 6, 9—11, differs widely from Aristeas. See Hody, 1. c. p. 8. Rosenmüller, 1. c. p. 370, sqq. On the origin of this legend, see Eichhorn's Essay, in the Repertorium, vol. i. p. 266, sqq.

Aristeas, Josephus, (Proëm to Antiq. § 3.) Philo and the Talmudists speak only of a translation of the Law. See Jerome on Ezek. v. Et Aristeas et Josephus, et omnis schola Judæorum quinque tantum libros Moysis a LXX. translatos asserunt. Compare his Quæst. Hebr. in Gen. Proëm. But Justin, Clement, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Hilary of Poictiers, speak of the whole O. T. [This affords an instructive example of the growth of a theological notion by the addition of new absurdities.]

lem, for six learned men out of each tribe to serve as translators of the Law. A letter and costly presents were sent. Aristeas, the pretended writer of this tale, and Andreas, are sent as messengers. Eleazar returned a courteous answer, and sent the seventy-two translators requested; "all picked men." Ptolemy was much rejoiced to see them. He entertained them for seven days at his own table, in a most splendid manner, and asked them seventy-two questions respecting the kingly office, and the best way of governing a state. To all these queries the individuals returned the most satisfactory replies. Demetrius then conducted them to a quiet place, on the Island of Pharos, where they commenced their work; and in seventy-two days the whole was completed. It was copied carefully by Demetrius himself, and read to a large audience, who stood and listened out of respect to the sacred books; a curse was then pronounced upon all who should add to or diminish it. Ptolemy dismissed the translators with praises and rewards.]"

It is now generally acknowledged that this story is a fable. [It is surprising that critics like Usher, Vossius,

⚫ [Justin Martyr says they were all shut up in separate cells, and though having no intercourse, yet each translated the whole book in just the same words and letters. Epiphanius makes thirty-six cells, the remains of which were visible in his time. Justin, Cohort. ad Græcos.]

The first doubt as to the truth of this story was suggested in modern times, by Ludovicus Vives, in a remark on Augustine, Civitas Dei, xviii. 42, and by J. J. Scaliger in his notes to Eusebius's Chron. p. 133, et al. These are quoted by Buddeus, Isagoge Hist. Theol. p. 1318, and by Fabricius, Bib. Græc. vol. iii. p. 665. Hody has completely proved the falsity of the book in his Diss. contra Hist. Aristeæ de LXX., in qua probatur, illam a Judæo aliquo confictam fuisse ad conciliandam Auctoritatem Versionis Græcæ, et Is. Vossii aliorumque Defensiones ejusdem Examini subjiciuntur; Lond. 1685, 8vo.; also enlarged in his work De Bibl. Text. origg. lib. i. See, also, Van Dale, Diss. super Aristea.

This fable is defended by Usher, De Græca LXX. Interprett. Vers. Syntag18

VOL. I.

a

and Walton, could ever have believed it genuine; for, not to mention its general absurdity, - which would only enhance its value in some eyes, it bears obvious marks of its forgery. It contradicts the account of Demetrius, as given by Hermippas in Diogenes Laertius.' Aristeas professes to be a heathen in this story, and yet writes as a Jew. There were six translators for each tribe; but the ten tribes had perished long before. It is not probable a man like Demetrius Phalereus would serve as

ma, (Lond. 1655 ; Lips. 1695,) Isaac Vossius, De LXX. Interprett. Diss. (Hag. Com. 1661, 4to.; see his Appendix ad Libr. de LXX. Interprett., ibid. 1663, 4to.,) by Whiston, Authentic Records., Sim. de Magistris, Charles Hayes, and others, cited by Masch, Præf. ad Le Long, pt. ii. vol. ii. p. 10, sqq., and Rosenmüller, l. c. p. 387, sqq. and 378, sqq. Valckenaer, De Aristobulo Judæo; ed. Jo. Luzac, L. B. 1806, 4to. p. 568, sqq., believes the main fact of the story is true, and relies on the testimony of Aristobulus, cited in Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 342, and Eusebius, Præp. Ev. ix. 6, and xiii. 12: Ainquývεviai лò Anunτolov ὑφ ̓ ἑτέρων, πρὸ τῆς ̓Αλεξάνδρου καὶ Περσῶν ἐπικρατήσεως, τά τε κατά τὴν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐξαγωγὴν τῶν Εβραίων τῶν ἡμετέρων πολιτῶν καὶ ἡ τῶν γεγονότων ἁπάντων αὐτοῖς ἐπιφάνεια καὶ κράτησις τῆς χώρας καὶ τῆς ὅλης νομοθεσίας ἐπεξήγησις. Η δ' ὅλη ερμηνεία τῶν διὰ τοῦ νόμου πάντων ἐπὶ τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου βασιλέως Δημητρίου τοῦ Φαληρέως πραγματευσαμένου τὰ περὶ τούτων. But Hody, l. c. p. 52, considers this very Aristobulus a spurious character; so does Eichhorn, Allg. Bib. vol. v. p. 253, sqq.; but their arguments are not wholly convincing. Valckenaer, p. 22, sqq., regards him as a genuine person. See Amersfoordt, Diss. de variis Lectionibus Holmesianis; Lug. Bat. 1815, 4to. p. 14, sqq.

......

[Walton, 1. c. lib. ix. § 4, p. 339, ed. Dathe, affirms the truth of this absurd story. In hac historia, qua nulla fere inter Judæos vel Christianos certior vel illustrior, quædam sunt, de quibus Neoterici quidam, qui omnia in dubium revocant, quæstionem movent. He thinks that no sane man will reckon the authority of the Neoterics of our days equivalent to the writers who lived so much nearer the time of Aristeas, and of course knew so much more of the matter.]

b [Diogenes Laertius, lib. v. segm. 78, vol. i. p. 369, ed. Hübner. Demetrius advised Ptolemy Soter to leave his crown to the children of Eurydice, but the king left it to the son of Berenice. Then, after Ptolemy's death, it was awarded that Demetrius should be kept in custody until it should be determined what must be done with him. Upon this, he became dejected, and died from the sting of an asp.]

a scribe to a company of Jewish translators; much less that he, whom Cicero calls "a most accomplished orator," would write a letter in such execrable Greek as this which pretends to come from him; nor is it less improbable that Ptolemy should expend so large a sum in purchasing the freedom of the Hebrew slaves, and sending presents to Jerusalem, solely for the sake of getting a copy of the law of Moses in the Greek tongue.

The argument for the genuineness of this document rests chiefly on the testimony of Josephus and Epiphanius, both of whom cite the original of Aristeas, but both, and particularly the latter, have altered the text; and, besides, they wrote so long after the alleged date of the original, that their testimony has no authority to determine the point. The passage in Eusebius is of little value. "Before the time of Demetrius [Phalereus,] before the dominion of Alexander and the Persians, part of our holy books were translated, namely, those which relate the departure of our Hebrew nation out of Egypt, and an account of all the wonderful things that happened to them the conquest of the land, and the reception of the Law. But the whole translation of all that relates to the Law was made under Ptolemy Philadelphus-Demetrius Phalereus taking charge of the whole matter.""

It seems probable that this fable of Aristeas was written by a Palestine Jew, who wished to exalt the honor of the Law, and of his native land. But his fiction is so clumsily executed that the imposture is seen through on all sides. Philo, an Egyptian Jew, knew nothing of this treatise; but Josephus cites it as well known and authentic.]

It is possible that this fable may contain somewhat

that is true respecting the occasion and date of this version; but, in the main point, that learned Palestine Jews were its authors, it is refuted by the character of the version itself. This remains the most certain, that it was made by Alexandrian Jews, who were induced to undertake it by the want of such a version.

[Eichhorn indulges in the following account of the origin of this version, which, in the midst of many conjectures, may contain much that is true. After the death of Alexander the Great, the Jews whom he had conducted to Egypt, remained there in great numbers, especially at Alexandria. They enjoyed their ancient usages and laws. They had synagogues, and probably a Sanhedrim. A knowledge of Hebrew was soon lost, and a version in the vernacular tongue became needed. Both the Jews and the Samaritans claim the honor of making the translation. But, at this distance of time, it is not possible to determine, by historical testimony, which party effected what both desired to accomplish. However, since the Jews and the Samaritans had such a cordial hatred for one another at that time, it is plain each party would only translate from its own manuscripts of the Scriptures. Now, the Alexandrian version of the Pentateuch agrees with the Samaritan copy, in a multitude of passages, much better than with the Hebrew. From this and other considerations, it would seem most probable that a Samaritan manuscript was at the basis of the version. But, on the other hand, there are passages which agree with the Hebrew, but not with the Samaritan. It is the conjecture of some scholars, that the version was originally made by Samaritans, and afterwards partially corrected by the Jews. Perhaps it was revised and improved by the Egyptian San

2