Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

THE SEPTUAGINT (Gr. of 0', Lat. LXX.)

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V24, Page 655 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

THE See also:

SEPTUAGINT (Gr. of 0', See also:Lat. LXX.)  , or the " Alexandrian version of the Old Testament," so named from the See also:legend of its See also:composition by seventy (See also:Lat. septuaginta), or more exactly seventy-two, translators . In the See also:Letter of See also:Aristeas to Philocrates 1 this legend is recounted as follows: See also:Demetrius of Phalerum, keeper of the Alexandrian library, proposed to See also:King See also:Ptolemy II . Philadelphus (285–247 B.c.) to have a See also:Greek See also:translation of the Jewish See also:law made for the library . The king consented and, after releasing 1oo,000 Jewish captives in his See also:kingdom, sent an See also:embassy with See also:rich presents to the high See also:priest Eleazar at See also:Jerusalem asking him to send six See also:ancient, worthy and learned men from each of the twelve tribes to translate the law for him at See also:Alexandria . Eleazar readily sent the seventy-two men with a See also:precious 1 Edited by H . St J . See also:Thackeray in H . B . Swete's Introd. to the Old Testament in Greek (1900), and by P . Wendland in the Teubner See also:series (1900) . See also:roll of the law . They were honourably received at the See also:court of Alexandria and conducted to the See also:island (Pharos), that they might See also:work undisturbed and isolated .

When they had come to an agreement upon a See also:

section Demetrius wrote down their version; the whole translation was finished in seventy-two days . The Jewish community of Alexandria was allowed to have a copy, and accepted the version officially; indeed a curse was laid upon the introduction of any changes in it . There is no question that this Letter (which is condensed in See also:Josephus, See also:Ant. xii . 2) is See also:spurious.' Aristeas, an See also:official at Ptolemy's court, is represented as a See also:heathen, but the real writer must have been a See also:Jew and no heathen . Aristeas is represented as himself a member of the embassy to Eleazar; but the author of the Letter cannot have been a contemporary of the events he records, else he would have known that Demetrius See also:fell out of favour at the very beginning of the reign of Philadelphus, on a See also:charge of intriguing against his See also:succession to the See also:throne.2 Nor could a genuine honest See also:witness have fallen into the absurd See also:mistake of making delegates from Jerusalem the authors of the Alexandrian version . There are also one or two passages (§§ 28, 182) where the author seems to forget that he is playing the role of Aristeas . The See also:forgery, however, seems to be an See also:early one.3 " There is not a court-See also:title, an institution, a law, a magistracy, an See also:office, a technical See also:term, a See also:formula, a See also:peculiar phrase in this letter which is not found on papyri or See also:inscriptions and confirmed by them."' That in itself would not necessarily imply a very early date for the piece; but what is decisive is that the author limits canonicity to the law and knows of no other See also:holy See also:book already translated into Greek . Nor does he claim any See also:inspiration for the translators . Further, what he tells about See also:Judaea and Jerusalem is throughout applicable to the See also:period when the See also:Ptolemies See also:bore sway there and gives not the slightest See also:suggestion of the immense changes that followed the See also:conquest of See also:Palestine by the Seleucids . It is probable that the Jewish philosopher See also:Aristobulus, who lived under Ptolemy VI . Philometor (180—145 B.C.), derived his See also:account of the origin of the LXX. from this Letter, with which it corresponds.' There seems See also:good ground for believing that the letter contains some elements derived from actual tradition as to the origin of the LXX . Ptolemy Philadelphus was a king of eclectic See also:literary tastes, and the welcome he gave to a Buddhist See also:mission from See also:India might well have been extended to See also:Jews from Palestine .

The letter See also:

lays See also:great stress on the point that the LXX. is the official and authoritative See also:Bible of the Hellenistic Jews, having not only been formally accepted by the See also:synagogue at Alexandria, but authorized by the authorities at Jerusalem . This, and the fact that the, See also:style of the version is not that of a book intended for literary use, points to the conclusion that the translation was made to satisfy the religious needs of the Jews in Alexandria, and possibly also in the See also:hope of gaining proselytes . In view of the Jewish See also:prejudice against See also:writing Scripture in any but the old holy See also:form (the See also:Targum, for instance, was for centuries handed down orally), it is quite possible that some impulse to the Alexandrian version came from without . Philadelphus may have encouraged it both to satisfy his own curiosity and to promote the use of Greek among the large Jewish See also:population of the See also:city . That the work is purely Jewish in See also:character is ' Its claims were demolished by See also:Humphry See also:Hody, Regius See also:Professor of Greek at See also:Oxford, in 1684 . 2 See also:Hermippus Callimachius, ap . Diog . Laert. v . 78 . See also:Irenaeus indeed, evidently following some other account, fixes the translation in the See also:time of Ptolemy I . 3 P . Wendland, however, puts it after the Maccabean See also:age (say 96 B.c.) and before the See also:Roman invasion of Palestine (63 Inc.) .

6G . Lumbroso, Recherches sur fecon. poi. de l'Egypte sous See also:

les Lagides (See also:Turin, 1876), p. xiii . Clem . Alex . Strom. i. p . 342, ed . Sylb . ; See also:Eusebius, Praep . Ev. ix . 6, p . 410 seq . ; cf .

Valckenaer, Diatribe de Aristobulo (See also:

Leiden, ,8o6), reprinted in See also:Gaisford's edition of the Praep . Ev . One must not over-look the possibility that Aristobulus's See also:Interpretation of the Holy See also:Laws may itself be the pseudonymous work of some otherwise unknown Jewish author . It and the Letter of Aristeas seem to be of the same date, if not even by the same See also:hand . And See also:Philo (Vita Mosis, ii . § 7, ii . 141) describes an See also:annual festival held at Pharos in See also:honour of the origin of the Greek Bible.only what was inevitable in any See also:case . The translators were necessarily Jews, though See also:Egyptian and not Palestinian Jews, and were necessarily and entirely guided by the living tradition which had its See also:focus in the synagogal lessons.6 And hence it is easily understood that the version was ignored by the Greeks, who must have found it barbarous and largely unintelligible, but obtained speedy See also:acceptance with the Jews, first in private use and at length also in the synagogue service . The next See also:direct See also:evidence which we have as to the origin of the LXX. is the See also:prologue to See also:Ecclesiasticus, from which it appears that about 130 B.C. not only the law but "the prophets and the other books " were extant in Greek ? With this it agrees that the See also:text of Ecclesiasticus and the other ancient See also:relics of Jewish . Greek literature, preserved in the extracts made by See also:Alexander Polyhistor (Eusebius, Praep . Ev. ix.), all show acquaintance with the LXX.8 The experiment on the See also:Pentateuch (of which alone Aristeas speaks) had evidently been extended to other rolls as they arrived from Jerusalem .

Phoenix-squares

These later See also:

translations were not made simply to meet the needs of the synagogue, but See also:express a literary See also:movement among the Hellenistic Jews, stimulated by the favourable reception given to the Greek Pentateuch, which enabled the translators to See also:count on finding an interested public . If a translation was well received by See also:reading circles among the Jews, it gradually acquired public See also:acknowledgment and was finally used also in the synagogue, so far as lessons from other books than the Pentateuch were used at all . But originally the translations were See also:mere private enterprises, as appears from the prologue to Ecclesiasticus and the See also:colophon to See also:Esther . It appears also that it was See also:long before the whole See also:Septuagint was finished and treated as a See also:complete work . We may See also:grant that the Pentateuch (and perhaps See also:part of See also:Joshua) was translated in the 3rd See also:century B.C . The other books followed, generally speaking, in the See also:order in which they occur in the See also:Hebrew See also:Canon . See also:Isaiah perhaps See also:dates from c . 8o, See also:Jeremiah, See also:Ezekiel and the Twelve Prophets, as also 1 See also:Kings (=1 See also:Samuel), c . 150 . Most of the " Writings," together with See also:Judges and 2-4 Kings, were probably translated in the 1st century B.c., while See also:Ecclesiastes and See also:Daniel (the latter incorporated from Theodotion) date only from the 2nd century of the See also:Christian era . As the work of translation went on so gradually, and new books were always added to the collection, the See also:compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite . The law always maintained its pre-See also:eminence as the basis of the canon; but the prophetic collection changed' its aspect by having various Hagiographa incorporated with it according to an arbitrary arrangement by subjects .

The distinction made in Palestine between Hagiographa and Apocrypha was never properly established among the Hellenists . In some books the translators took the See also:

liberty of making considerable additions to the See also:original, e.g. those to Daniel, and these additions became a part of the Septuagint . Nevertheless, learned Hellenists were quite well aware of the limits of the canon and respected them . Philo can be shown to have known the Apocrypha, but he never cites them, much less allegorizes them or uses them in See also:proof of his tenets . And in some measure the widening of the Old Testament canon in the Septuagint must be laid to the account of Christians . The vocabulary and See also:accidence of the Greek of the Septuagint are substantially those of the KOLV1] SL XOCTOS or Hellenistic Greek spoken throughout the See also:empire of Alexander . The See also:language of the Pentateuch attains the higher level shown by the papyri of the early Ptolemaic age, that of the prophets reflects the less literary style of the papyri of c . 13o–100 B.c . In the latest parts of the translation Mr St See also:John Thackeray notes two opposing influences, (a) the growing reverence for the letter of Scripture, tending to a pedantic literalism, (b) the See also:influence of the Atticistic school, strongest in See also:free writings like 4 See also:Maccabees but leaving, its See also:mark also on 4 Kings . But if in some respects the Septuagint is the great See also:monument of the Kolv$, in 6 It is quite likely that they worked on rolls newly brought from Jerusalem . There was no See also:desire to found an Alexandrian canon or type of text . 7 This does not necessarily mean that the whole of the section of the Hebrew Old Testament known as " The Writings " was trans- lated by that date .

3 Philo seems to have known the Greek version of most of the Old Testament except Esther . Ecclesiastes . See also:

Canticles and Daniel century A.D . The See also:chief uncial See also:MSS. are, as for the New Testament K, A, B, C and others . Of these A and B are largely complete, but though both of Egyptian origin vary considerably . A (with which the quotations in the New Testament generally agree) may represent the edition of See also:Hesychius; B, which is often, especially in the See also:Psalms, in See also:accord with the Bohairic version, resembles the text used by See also:Origen in the See also:Hexapla . Of versions the Bohairic (See also:Lower See also:Egypt), the Sahidic (Upper Egypt), the various See also:Syriac translations (unfortunately we have no Old Syriac for the Old Testament), and the Latin (Old Latin and See also:Vulgate, especially the former) are the most important . The evidence of the Fathers is valuable as helping to distinguish See also:local types of text . The testimony of the earliest patristic quotations seems to be in favour of A rather than B . The immediate aim of textual See also:criticism is a recovery of the three See also:main See also:editions, those of Origen, See also:Lucian and Hesychius, and then of the pre-Origenian LXX. text, which lies behind them all . When this has been accomplished there still remains the problem of the relation of the LXX. to the Hebrew . There is no doubt that the Hebrew text from which the LXX. translators worked was often divergent from that represented by the Massoretic .

For the Pentateuch we have additional material in the Samaritan version, but here the variants are least . In view of the palpable mistakes made by the Septuagint translators and their often inadequate knowledge of Hebrew, we must not hastily assume that in cases of difference the Greek is to be preferred . The book of Ecclesiasticus (the Hebrew of which has recently been discovered) furnishes a useful See also:

lesson here . Yet there is no doubt that much (e.g. in i Samuel) may be learned from the Septuagint; all one can say is that each case must be treated on its own merits . EDIrioNs.—The Septuagint was first printed in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514–1517), but before it was published in 1521 Aldus published another edition in 1519 . The Textus Receptus issued by See also:Pope See also:Sixtus V . (See also:Rome, 1587) was based mainly on See also:Cod . Vaticanus (B) with some collection of the See also:Venice MS . (V) . This edition was the basis of the great work of R . See also:Holmes and J . See also:Parsons (Oxford, 1798–1827), who furnished the Sixtine text with an apparatus (not always accurate) See also:drawn from 20 See also:uncials and nearly 28o minuscule MSS., in addition to versions .

In 1707–1720 See also:

Grabe had published an edition based on Cod . Alexandrinus (A) . C . See also:Tischendorf's text (1850; 7th ed., 1887) was a revision of that of Holmes and Parsons with an apparatus drawn from the chief uncials . H . B . Swete's edition in 3 vols . (1887–1894; revised 1895–1899) gives the text of B, and, where this fails, that of A or K, with variant readings from the chief uncials . The larger See also:Cambridge edition, begun in 1906 by A . E . See also:Brooke and N . McLean, follows the same See also:plan with the text, but its apparatus includes all the uncials, the best and most representative See also:minuscules, and the chief versions and patristic quotations .

End of Article: THE SEPTUAGINT (Gr. of 0', Lat. LXX.)
[back]
SEPTEMBER (Lat. septem, seven)
[next]
CANONS REGULAR OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click and select "copy." Paste it into a website, email, or other HTML document.