sychius says, was an Egyptian name for a measure, as was also the term
agraßa, Isa. v. 10, according to Jerome; axı or axɛi, Gen. xli. 2. Isa.
xix. 7; 'Pɛpav or 'Peμgav or 'Paigav, Amos v. 26, which in the old
Egyptian, and present Coptic, is the word for Saturn, and aλndɛiα for
the image of truth and righteousness worn by the Egyptian chief justice,
and used for the Urim and Thummim, Ex, xxviii. 30.]

[e) No trace of a more modern age exists. The occurrence of the word
yasdos, javelin, in Jos. viii. 18, is no proof, for although it is a Gallic
word, yet there were Gauls in Egypt in this century, and as early as the
year 265 B. C., 4000 of them made an insurrection against Ptolemy Phi-
ladelphus. See PAUSANIAS in Atticis, Lib. I. c. viii. 1—3.]

§ 35. The Pentateuch was translated from a Jewish text. Philo indeed tells us that the Pentateuch was translated from the Chaldee; but what he calls Chaldee, was the Hebrew idiom, which is termed by him sometimes Hebrew, and sometimes Chaldee, as on the other hand Chaldee is called Hebrew in Ac. xxi. 40. xxii. 2. xxvi. 14. Hassencamp, who asserted, Comment. Phil. Crit. 1765. Marpurg, that the Pentateuch was translated from the Samaritan text, has not been able to prove his assertion; nor did that learned man reflect that a Pentateuch translated from the Samaritan would never have attained that credit among the Jews, which we every where find attached to this version. The numerous instances of agreement between the Alexandrine and Samaritan readings against the Jewish, only prove that the latter text formerly agreed more closely with the Samaritan than at present; and there are abundant instances of a difference of reading. If in the Alexandrine version such errors occur as may be supposed to arise from the interchange of similar letters in the Samaritan alphabet, it still remains to be proved that those letters were then dissimilar in the Jewish alphabet; and on the other hand more errors exist which have arisen from the interchange of similar letters in the Jewish alphabet.

§ 36. Character of the Alexandrine version.

The character of the translation differs in different books. In all, however, the Greek is full of Hebraisms, and various errors occur, arising partly from an imperfect acquaintance with grammar, partly from ignorance of the art of interpretation, and partly from a defect

of erudition; nevertheless very many parts are excellently translated.

The first place in the scale of merit is due to the version of the Pentateuch, which far surpasses the versions of the other books, Comp. Gen. xviii. 5. xliii. 17. xliv. 21. xlv. 16. xlix. 10. Deut. xxviii. 57. The next to this is the translation of the book of Proverbs, the very errors of which exhibit genius.The books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings seem to have been translated by one man, who does not admit more Hebraisms than the other translators, but has several other peculiarities.The Psalms and Prophets have been translated by men who were unequal to their task. The version of Jeremiah is better than the rest; those of Amos and Ezekiel deserve the next place, and the last must be given to that of Isaiah. The translation of Daniel which every where differed from the Hebrew, has been long ago changed by the church for the version of the same book by Theodotion.- -The version of Ecclesiastes is remarkable for its being closely literal.- -In the version of Job, additions have been made to those parts of the book which are in prose, while the poetical parts are deficient in many places; for, as Jerome (Praef. in Jobum) has observed, seven or eight hundred verses (or members of sentences) have been omitted.

§ 37. Authority of the Alexandrine version.

This version was used by all the Jews who understood the Greek language, as well the Hebrew as the Hellenistic, as appears from Josephus and the writers of the New Testament, who almost always follow it. Even the authors of the Talmud (Tract. Megilloth) make honourable mention of its origin, and (Tract. Sota. c. 7.) speak of the Hellenistic Synagogue at Cesarea in which this version was read. Others, however, differed so far from them as (Tract. Thaanet aud Sopherim) to abominate this version, and, as we learn from Justinian's Novells, (Nov. 146.) to wish it exterminated from their synagogues. They were led to this in consequence of being frequently pressed by quotations from it in their arguments with the Christians, who in that age used this version almost exclusively, received it as derived from the Apostles, and generally attributed to it a divine authority, believing the fables which were circulated respecting the pretended inspi

ration of the interpreters. So firmly rooted was this last erroneous opinion, that neither Origen nor Jerome was able to overthrow it, and Jerome, who incurred obloquy by his contrary opinion, was induced occasionally to write as though he allowed the inspiration of the translators.

§ 38. History of the Alexandrine version.

Copies of this version made for the use of the Jews, and afterwards of the Christians also, having been multiplied until they amounted to an immense number, the errors which originally existed in the version were greatly increased by the addition of those which were caused by the mistakes of transcribers. The Jews in their controversies with the Christians took advantage of this circumstance to make objections to passages cited in opposition to them from this version, on pretence either that they were different from the Hebrew text, or that they were interpolations, or that they were mutilated. Origen, in order to meet this difficulty, transcribed this and all the other Greek versions together with the Hebrew text itself in one large volume, in the order exhibited in the following page.

HABAKKUK ii. 4.

σει.

σει.

In this Polyglot, which was generally called Hexapla, sometimes Tetrapla, and occasionally Octapla, he observed the following method. The Alexandrine version he placed in the middle, that he might correct it from the other versions which accompanied it, yet without altering the version itself. Where it was deficient he supplied the deficiency from Theodotion, Symmachus, Aquila, the 5th, 6th, or 7th version, or the Hebrew text itself, denoting by means of an asterisk that this was an addition, and by an initial letter the name of the translator from whom the passage was taken. Such additions were generally taken from the version of Theodotion. Where any thing was found that was not in the Hebrew text, he marked it with an obeliskort, to denote that it was wanting. He added to other passages lemnisks and hyperlemnisks, the figure and signification of which are equally uncertain. In this manner he pointed out to Christians engaged in controversies with the Jews, what the Hebrew text really did, or did not, contain. This great work, comprehended in 50 volumes, finished at Tyre in the space of 27 years, was afterwards in the year 303 removed to Caesarea to the library of Pamphilus, where Jerome corrected his Hebrew copies after its text. Subsequently, most probably in the overthrow of Caesarea by the Saracens, it was destroyed, without ever having been transcribed.[a]

[a) On the character and value of the Hexapla of Origen, some excellent observations may be found in a dissertation by ERNESTI, cntitled 'Origen the Father of Grammatical interpretation,' translated in HODGE'S Biblical Repertory, Vol. III. No. 2. pp. 245–260. Tr.]

§ 39. Recensions of the Alexandrine Version.

Toward the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth, three recensions of this version appeared. The first was edited by Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom in 311. It was amended according to the Hebrew text, but whether Lucian himself understood Hebrew or whether he made use of the works of Origen, is uncertain. This edition was received in the churches from Antioch to Constantinople. JEROME, Præf. I. in Paralip. and Ep. ad Suniam et Fretelam.The second was edited about the same time by Hesychius in Egypt. Whether it was cor

༡