The seventy, is the name of the most ancient Greek version of the Old Testament, and is so called because there were said to have been seventy translators. The accounts of its origin disagree, but it should probably be assigned to the third century before Christ. This ancient version contains many errors, and yet as a whole is a faithful one, particularly in the books of Moses; it is of great value in the interpretation of the Old Testament, and is very often quoted by the New Testament writers, who wrote in the same dialect. It was the parent of the first Latin, the Coptic, and many other versions, and was so much quoted and followed by the Greek and Roman fathers as practically to supersede the original Hebrew, until the last few centuries. The chronology of the Septuagint differs materially from that of the Hebrew text, adding, for example, 606 years between the creation and the deluge. See ALEXANDRIA.

See Version.

Designated Septuagint. The Greek version of Old Testament, made for the Greek speaking (Hellenistic) Jews at Alexandria. The oldest manuscripts in capitals ("uncials") are the Cottonian ("fragments") in British Museum; Vatican (representing especially the oldest text) at Rome; Alexandrian in British Museum, of which Baber in 1816 published a facsimile; Sinaitic at Petersburgh. Alexandrian is of the fifth century, the others are of the fourth. The ancient text current before Origen was called "the common one"; he compared this with the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, and marked the Septuagint with an obelos mark where he found superfluous words, and supplied deficiencies of Septuagint from those three, prefixing an asterisk.* Its wide circulation among Hellenistic Jews before Christ providentially prepared the way for the gospel. Its completion was commemorated by a yearly feast at Alexandria (Philo, Vit. Mos. 2). Its general use is proved by the manner of its quotation in New Testament. The Jews in Justin Martyr's Apology questioned its accuracy.

A letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates (Hody, Bibl. Text. Orig., 1705) describes the origin of Septuagint; King Ptolemy (Philadelphus), by the advice of his librarian Demetrius Phalereus, obtained from the high priest at Jerusalem 72 interpreters, six from each tribe; by conference and comparison in 72 days they completed the work. Aristobulus (second century B.C., in Clemens Alex. Strom.) says that, before Demetrius, others had made a translation of the Pentateuch and Joshua (the history of the going forth from Egypt, etc.). Aristeas' letter is probably a forgery of an Alexandrian Jew; nevertheless the story gave its title to the Septuagint (70, the round number for 72). The composition at Alexandria begun under the earlier Ptolemies, 280 B.C.; the Pentateuch alone at first; these are the main facts well established. The Alexandrian Macedonic Greek forms in the Septuagint disprove the coming of 72 interpreters from Jerusalem, and show that the translators were Alexandrian Jews.

The Pentateuch is the best part of the version, being the first translated; the other books betray increasing degeneracy of the Hebrew manuscripts, with decay of Hebrew learning. The Septuagint translators did not have Hebrew manuscripts pointed as ours; nor were their words divided as ours. Different persons translated different books, and no general revision harmonized the whole. Names are differently rendered in different books. The poetical parts (except Psalms and Proverbs) are inferior to the historical. In the greater prophets important passages are misunderstood, as Isa 9:1,6; Jer 23:6; Ezekiel and the lesser prophets are better. Theodotion's version of Daniel was substituted for Septuagint, which was not used.

The delicate details of the Hebrew are sacrificed in Septuagint, the same word in the same chapter being often rendered by differing words, and differing words by the same word, the names of God (Yahweh, Kurios, and 'Elohim, Theos) being confounded; and proper names at times being translated, and Hebrew words mistaken for words like in form but altogether different in sense (sh being mistaken for s, Shin (?) (pronounced "sheen") for Sin (?) (pronounced "seen") [the same letter (with a different "point") pronounced different], r for d, Resh (?) for Daleth (?)). Some of the changes are designed; Ge 2:2, "sixth" for "seventh." Strong Hebrew expressions are softened, "God's power" for "hand," "word" for "mouth"; so no stress can be laid on the Septuagint words to prove a point. (See OLD TESTAMENT.)

Use of Septuagint. Being made from manuscripts older far than our Masoretic text (from 280 to 180 B.C.), it helps towards arriving at the true text in doubtful passages; so Ps 22:16, where Septuagint "they pierced" gives the true reading instead of "as a lion," Aquila a Jew (A.D. 133) so translated "they disfigured"; (Ps 16:10) "Thy Holy One" singular, instead of our Masoretic "Thy holy ones." The Septuagint is an impartial witness, being ages before the controversy between Jews and Christians. In Ge 4:8 Septuagint has "and Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go into the plain" or "field" (so Samaritan Pentateuch); but Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the Targum of Onkelos agree with our Hebrew.

Of 350 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament only 50 differ materially from Septuagint Its language molded the conceptions of the New Testament writers and preachers. The Hebrew ideas and modes of thought are transfused into its Greek, which is wholly distinct from classic Greek in this. Expressions unknown to the latter are intelligible from Septuagint, as "believe in God," "faith toward God," "flesh," "spirit," "justify," "fleshly mindedness." "The Passover" includes the after feast and sacrifices (De 16:2), illustrating the question on what day Christ kept it (Joh 18:28).

Sep'tuagint

(The seventy). The Septuagint or Greek version of the Old Testament appears at the present day in four principal editions:--

1. Biblia Polyglotta Complutensis, A.D. 1514-1617,

2. The Aldine Edition, Venice, A.D. 1518.

3. The Roman Edition, edited under Pope Sixtus V., A.D. 1587.

4. Fac-simile Edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, by H. H. Baber, A.D.

1816. [TARGUMS] The Jews of Alexandria had probably still less knowledge of Hebrew than their brethren in Palestine their familiar language was Alexandrian Greek. They had settled in Alexandria in large numbers soon after the time of Alexander, and under the early Ptolemies. They would naturally follow the same practice as the Jews in Palestine; and hence would arise in time an entire Greek version. But the numbers and names of the translators, and the times at which different portions were translated are all uncertain. The commonly-received story respecting its origin is contained in an extant letter ascribed to Aristeas, who was an officer at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus. This letter which is dressed by Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, gives a glowing account of the origin of the Septuagint; of the embassy and presents sent by King Ptolemy to the high priest at Jerusalem, by the advice of Demetrius Phalereus, his librarian, 30 talents of gold and 70 talents of silver, etc.; the Jewish slaves whom he set free, paying their ransom himself the letter of the king: the answer of the high priest; the choosing of six interpreters from each of the twelve tribes and their names; the copy of the law, in letters of gold; the feast prepared for the seventy two, which continued for seven days; the questions proposed to each of the interpreters in turn, with the answers of each; their lodging by the seashore and the accomplishment of their work in seventy. two days, by conference and comparison. This is the story which probably gave to the version the title of the Septuagint, and which has been repeated in various forms by the Christian writers. But it is now generally admitted that the letter is spurious and is probably the fabrication of an Alexandrian Jew shortly before the Christian era. Still there can be no doubt that there was a basis of fact for the fiction; on three points of the story there is no material difference of opinion and they are confirmed by the study of the version itself:--

1. The version was made at Alexandria.

2. It was begun in the time of the earlier Ptolemies, about 280 B.C.

3. The law (i.e. the Pentateuch) alone was translated at first. The Septuagint version was highly esteemed by the Hellenistic Jews before the coming of Christ. Wherever, by the conquests of Alexander or by colonization, the Greek language prevailed wherever Jews were settled and the attention of the neighboring Gentiles was drawn to their wondrous history and law there was found the Septuagint, which thus became, by divine Providence the means of spreading widely the knowledge of the one true God and his promises of it Saviour to come, throughout the nations. To the wide dispersion of this version we may ascribe in great measure that general persuasion which prevailed over the whole East of the near approach of the Redeemer, and led the Magi to recognize the star which, reclaimed the birth of the King of the Jews. Not less wide was the influence of the Septuagint in the spread of the gospel. For a long period the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the far larger part of the Christian Church. Character of the Septuagint. The Septuagint is faithful in substance but not minutely accurate in details. It has been clearly shown by Hody, Frankel and others that the several books were translated by different persons, without any comprehensive revision to harmonize the several parts. Names and words are rendered differently in different books. Thus the character of the version varies much in the several books, those of the Pentateuch are the best. The poetical parts are, generally speaking, inferior to the historical, the original abounding with rarer words and expressions. In the major prophets (probably translated nearly 100 years after the Pentateuch) some of the most important prophecies are sadly obscured. Ezekiel and the minor prophets (generally speaking) seem to be better rendered. Supposing the numerous glosses and duplicate renderings, which have evidently crept from the margin into the text, to be removed and forming a rough estimate of what the Septuagint was in its earliest state, we may perhaps say of it that it is the image of the original seen through a glass not adjusted to the proper focus; the larger features are shown, but the sharpness of definition is lost. The close connection between the Old and the New Testament makes the study of the Septuagint most valuable, and indeed indispensable, to the theological student. It was manifestly the chief storehouse from which the apostles drew their proofs and precepts.

SEPTUAGINT. Among the Greek versions of the Old Testament, says Mr. Horne, the Alexandrian or Septuagint is the most ancient and valuable, and was held in so much esteem both by the Jews as well as by the first Christians, as to be constantly read in the synagogues and churches. Hence it is uniformly cited by the early fathers, whether Greek or Latin; and from this version all the translations into other languages which were anciently approved by the Christian church were executed, with the exception of the Syriac; as the Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothic, and old Italic or the Latin version in use before the time of Jerom; and to this day the Septuagint is exclusively read in the Greek and most other oriental churches. This version has derived its name either from the Jewish account of seventy-two persons having been employed to make it, or from its having received the approbation of the sanhedrim or great council of the Jews, which consisted of seventy, or, more correctly, of seventy-two persons. Much uncertainty, however, has prevailed concerning the real history of this ancient version; and while some have strenuously advocated its miraculous and Divine origin, other eminent philologists have laboured to prove that it must have been executed by several persons and at different times. According to one account, Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, caused this translation to be made for the use of the library which he had founded at Alexandria at the request and with the advice of the celebrated Demetrius Phalereus, his principal librarian. For this purpose, it is reported, that he sent Aristeas and Andreas, two distinguished officers of his court, to Jerusalem, on an embassy to Eleazar, then high priest of the Jews, to request of the latter a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that there might also be sent to him seventy-two persons, six chosen out of each of the twelve tribes, who were equally well skilled in the Hebrew and Greek languages. These learned men were accordingly shut up in the island of Pharos; where, having agreed in a translation of each period after a mutual conference, Demetrius wrote down their version as they dictated it to him; and thus, in the space of seventy-two days, the whole was accomplished. This relation is derived from a letter ascribed to Aristeas himself, the authenticity of which has been greatly disputed. If, as there is every reason to believe is the case, this piece is a forgery, it was made at a very early period; for it was in existence in the time of Josephus, who has made use of it in his Jewish Antiquities. The veracity of Aristeas's narrative was not questioned until the seventeenth or eighteenth century, at which time, indeed, Biblical criticism was, comparatively, in its infancy. Vives, Scaliger, Van Dale, Dr. Prideaux, and, above all, Dr. Hody, were the principal writers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries who attacked the genuineness of the pretended narrative of Aristeas; and though it was ably vindicated by Bishop Walton, Isaac Vossius, Whiston, Brett, and other modern writers, the majority of the learned of our own time are fully agreed in considering it as fictitious. Philo, the Jew, who also notices the Septuagint version, was ignorant of most of the circumstances narrated by Aristeas; but he relates others which appear not less extraordinary. According to him, Ptolemy Philadelphus sent to Palestine for some learned Jews, whose number he does not specify; and these, going over to the island of Pharos, there executed so many distinct versions, all of which so exactly and uniformly agreed in sense, phrases, and words, as proved them to have been not common interpreters, but men prophetically inspired and divinely directed, who had every word dictated to them by the Spirit of God throughout the entire translation. He adds, that an annual festival was celebrated by the Alexandrian Jews in the isle of Pharos, where the version was made, until his time, to preserve the memory of it, and to thank God for so great a benefit.

It is not a little remarkable that the Samaritans have traditions in favour of their version of the Pentateuch, equally extravagant with these preserved by the Jews. In the Samaritan chronicle of Abul Phatach, which was compiled in the fourteenth century from ancient and modern authors, both Hebrew and Arabic, there is a story to the following effect: that Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the tenth year of his reign, directed his attention to the difference subsisting between the Samaritans and Jews concerning the law, the former receiving only the Pentateuch, and rejecting every other work ascribed to the prophets by the Jews. In order to determine this difference, he commanded the two nations to send deputies to Alexandria. The Jews entrusted this mission to Osar, the Samaritans to Aaron, to whom several other associates were added. Separate apartments in a particular quarter of Alexandria were assigned to each of these strangers, who were prohibited from having any personal intercourse, and each of them had a Greek scribe to write his version. Thus were the law and other Scriptures translated by the Samaritans; whose version being most carefully examined, the king was convinced that their text was more complete than that of the Jews. Such is the narrative of Abul Phatach, divested, however, of numerous marvellous circumstances with which it has been decorated by the Samaritans, who are not surpassed, even by the Jews, in their partiality for idle legends.

A fact, buried under such a mass of fables as the translation of the Septuagint has been by the historians who have pretended to record it, necessarily loses all its historical character, which, indeed, we are fully justified in disregarding altogether. Although there is no doubt but that some truth is concealed under this load of fables, yet it is by no means an easy task to discern the truth from what is false: the following, however, is the result of our researches concerning this celebrated version: