which was the most literal: it was allowed to be read publicly in the Jews' synagogues, by the hundred and twenty-fifth Novel of the Emperor Justinian.

2. Theodotion was a native of Ephesus, and is termed by Jerome and Eusebius an Ebionite or semi-Christian. He was nearly contemporary with Aquila, and his translation is cited by Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, which was composed about the year 160. The version of Theodotion holds a middle rank between the servile closeness of Aquila and the freedom of Symmaehus: It is a kind of revision of the Septuagint made after the original Hebrew, and supplies some deficiencies in the Septuagint; but where he translates without help, he evidently shows himself to have been but indifferently skilled in Hebrew. Theodotion's translation of the book of Daniel was introduced into the Christian churches, as being deemed more accurate than that of the Septuagint of which a few fragments only remain.

3. Symmachus, we are informed by Eusebius and Jerome, was a semi-Christian or Ebionite: for the account given of him by Epiphanius (that he was first a Samaritan, then a Jew, next a Christian, and last of all an Ebionite) is generally disregarded as unworthy of credit. Concerning the precise time when he flourished, learned men are of different opinions. Epiphanes places him under the reign of Commodus II. an imaginary emperor: Jerome, however, expressly states that his translation appeared after that of Theodotion and as Symmachus was evidently unknown to Irenæus, who cites the versions of Aquila and Theodotion, it is probable that the date assigned by Jerome is the true one. Montfaucon accordingly places Symmachus a short time after Theodotion, that is, about the year 200. The version of Symmachus, who appears to have published a second edition of it revised, is by no means so literal as that of Aquila; he was certainly much better acquainted with the laws of interpretation than the latter, and has endeavoured, not unsuccessfully, to render the Hebrew idioms with Greek precision. Bauer and Morus have given specimens of the utility of this version for illustrating both the Old and New Testaments. Dr. Owen has printed the whole of the first chapter of the book of Genesis, according to the Septuagint version, together with the Greek translations of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, in columns, in order to show their respective agreement or discrepancy. This we are obliged to omit, on account of its length; but the following observations of that eminent critic on their relative merits (founded on an accurate comparison of them with each other, and with the original Hebrew, whence they were made,) are too valuable to be disregarded. He remarks, 1. With respect to Aquila, (1) That his translation is close and servile — abounding in Hebraisms and scrupulously conformable to the letter of the text. (2) That the author, notwithstanding he meant to disgrace and overturn the version of the Seventy, yet did

1 Critica Sacra, pp. 277, 278.

2 Acroases Hermeneuticæ, tom. ii. pp. 127, 128.

not scruple to make use of it, and frequently to borrow his expressions from it.

2. With respect to Theodotion, (1) That he made great use of the two former versions-following sometimes the diction of the one, and sometimes that of the other-nay, often commixing them both together in the compass of one and the same verse; and (2) That he did not keep so strictly and closely to the version of the Seventy, as some have unwarily represented. He borrowed largely from that of Aquila; but adapted it to his own style. And as his style was similar to that of the LXX., Origen, perhaps for the sake of uniformity, supplied the additions inserted in the Hexapla chiefly from this Version.

3. With respect to Symmachus, (1) That his version, though concise, is free and paraphrastic ― regarding the sense, rather than the words, of the original; (2) That he often borrowed from the three other versions but much oftener from those of his immediate predecessors than from the Septuagint: and, (3) It is observed by Montfaucon,2 that he kept close to the Hebrew original; and never introduced any thing from the Septuagint, that was not to be found in his Hebrew copy: But it evidently appears from ver. 20. — where we read και εγένετο ουτως that either the observation is false, or that the copy he used was different from the present Hebrew copies. The 30th verse has also a reading-it may perhaps be an interpolation-to which there is nothing answerable in the Hebrew, or in any other of the Greek versions.3

4, 5, 6.-The three anonymous translations, usually called the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions, derive their names from the order in which Origen disposed them in his columns. The author of the sixth version was evidently a Christian: for he renders Habakkuk ii. 13. (Thou wentest forth for the deliverance of thy people, even for the deliverance of thine anointed ones) in the following manner: Thou Εξήλθες του σώσαι τον λαον σου δια Ιησου του Χριστου σου. i. e. wentest forth to save thy people through Jesus thy Christ. The dates of these three versions are evidently subsequent to those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus: from the fragments collected by Montfaucon, it appears that they all contained the Psalms and minor prophets; the fifth and sixth further comprised the Pentateuch and Song of Solomon; and from some fragments of the fifth and seventh versions found by Bruns in a Syriac Hexaplar manuscript at Paris, it appears that they also contained the two books of Kings. Bauer is of opinion that the author of the seventh version was a Jew.

1 Theodotion, qui in cæteris cum lxx translatoribus facit. Hieron. Ep. ad Marcell. Licet autem Theodotio lxx Interpretum vestigio fere semper hæreat, &c. Montf. Præl. in Hexapl. p. 57.

2 Ea tamen cautela ut Hebraicum exemplar unicum sequendum sibi proponeret; nec quidpiam ex editione rv O. ubi cum Hebraico non quadrabat, in interpretationem suam refunderet. Prælim. in Hexapl. p. 54.

3 Owen on the Septuagint, pp. 124-126. 4 Archbishop Newcome's version.

The authorised English translation runs thus: "Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed."

VOL. II.

24

1

IX. Besides the fragments of the preceding antient versions, taken from Origen's Hexapla, there are found in the margins of the manuscripts of the Septuagint some additional marks or notes, containing various renderings in Greek of some passages in the Old Testament: these are cited as the Hebrew, Syrian, Samaritan, and Hellenistic versions, and as the version of some anonymous author. The probable meaning of these references it may not be improper briefly to notice.

1. The Hebrew ( Eganos) is supposed by some to denote the translation of Aquila, who closely and literally followed the Hebrew text: but this idea is refuted by Montfaucon and Bauer, who remark that, after the reference to the Hebrew, a reading follows, most widely differing from Aquila's rendering. Bauer more probably conjectures that the reference Eßgas denotes the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint version differs.

2. Under the name of the Syrian ( Zugos) are intended the fragments of the Greek version made by Sophronius, patriarch of Constantinople, from the very popular Latin translation of Jerome, who is supposed to have acquired the appellation of the Syrian, from his long residence on the confines of Syria. He is thus expressly styled by Theodore of Mopsuestia in a passage cited by Photius in his Bibliotheca.1

3. The Samaritan (To ZapageTxov) is supposed to refer to the fragments of a Greek version of the Hebræo-Samaritan text, which is attributed to the antient Greek scholiast so often cited by Flaminio Nobili, and in the Greek Scholia appended to the Roman edition of the Septuagint. Considerable doubts, however, exist concerning the identity of this supposed Greek version of the Samaritan text; which, if it ever existed, Bishop Walton thinks, must be long posterior in date to the Septuagint.

4. It is not known to which version or author the citation EXλnvixos, or the Hellenistic, refers:-The mark Aλos, or Avery gapos denotes some unknown anonymous author.

Before we conclude the present account of the antient Greek versions of the Old Testament, it remains that we briefly notice the translation preserved in St. Mark's Library at Venice, containing the Pentateuch, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations of Jeremiah, and Prophecy of Daniel. The existence of this version, which was for a long time buried among other literary treasures deposited in the above-mentioned library, was first announc ed by Zanetti and Bongiovanni in their catalogue of its manuscripts. The Pentateuch was published in three parts, by M. Ammon, at Erlang, 1790, 1791, 8vo. : and the remaining books by M. Villoison at Strasburgh, 1784, 8vo. The original manuscript, Morelli is of opinion, was executed in the 14th century; and, the numerous errors discoverable in it, prove that it cannot be the autograph of the translator. By whom this version was made, is a question yet undetermined. Morelli thinks its author was a Jew; Ammon supposes him

1 Page 205, edit. Hoeschelii.

2 Prol. c. xi. § 22. pp. 553, 554.

to have been a Christian monk, and perhaps a native of Syria; and Bauer, after Zeigler, conjectures him to have been a Christian grammarian of Constantinople, who had been taught Hebrew by a Western Jew. Whoever the translator was, his style evidently shows him to have been deeply skilled in the different dialects of the Greek language, and to have been conversant with the Greek poets. Equally uncertain is the date when this version was composed: Eichorn, Bauer, and several other eminent biblical writers, place it between the sixth and tenth centuries: the late Dr. Holmes supposed the author of it to have been some Hellenistic Jew, between the ninth and twelfth centuries. "Nothing can be more completely happy, or more judicious, than the idea adopted by this author, of rendering the Hebrew text in the pure Attic dialect, and the Chaldee in its corresponding Doric." Dr. Holmes has inserted extracts from this version in his edition of the Septuagint.2

3. ON THE ANTIENT ORIENTAL VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. I. SYRIAC VERSIONS.- Notice of the Syriac Manuscripts brought from India by the late Rev. Dr. Buchanan; · Editions of the Syriac Version; - II. ARABIC VERSIONS, and Editions ; III. Other Oriental Versions.-1. PERSIAN Versions; -2. EGYPTIAN Versions;-3. ETHIOPIC or ABYSSINIAN Version; 4. ARMENIAN Version; -5. SCLAVONIC, or Old Russian Version.

I. SYRIA being visited at a very early period by the preachers of the Christian faith, several translations of the sacred volume were made into the language of that country. The most celebrated of these is the Peschito or Literal (Versio Simplex), as it is usually called, on account of its very close adherence to the Hebrew text, from which it was immediately made. The most extravagant as

1 British Critic, O. S. vol. viii. p. 259.

2 The preceding account of antient Greek versions is drawn from Carpzov, Critica Sacra, pp. 552-574; Bauer, Critica Sacra, pp. 273-288; Morus, Acroases Hermeneutic, tom. ii. pp. 120-147; Bishop Walton, Prolegom. c. ix. § 19. pp. 385-387: Jahn, Introductio in Libros Sacros Veteris Fœderis, pp. 66-70; and Masch's edition of Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, part ii. vol. ii. sect. I. pp. 220-229. Montfaucon, Præl. Diss. ad Origenis Hexapla, tom. i. pp. 46-73. In the fourth volume of the Commentationes Theologica, (pp. 195-263,) edited by MM. Velthusen, Kuinõel, and Ruperti, there is a specimen of a Clavis Reliquiarum Versionum Græcarum V. T. by John Frederic Fischer: it contains only the letter A. A specimen of a new Lexicon to the antient Greek interpreters, and also to the apoeryphal books of the Old Testament so constructed as to serve as a Lexicon to the New Testament, was also lately published by M. E. G. A. Böckel, at Leipsic, entitled Nova Clavis in Græcos Interpretes Veteris Testamenti, Scriptoresque Apocryphos, ita adornate ut etiam Lexici in Novi Faderis Libros usum præbere possit, atque editionis lxz. interpretum hexaplaris, specimina, 4to. 1820. Such a work, when completed, must prove highly valuable to biblical students. Cappel, in his Critica Sacra, has given a copious account with very numerous examples of the various lections that may be obtained by collating the Septuagint with the Hebrew, (lib. iv. pp. 491-766.) and by collating the Hebrew text with the Chaldee paraphrases and the antient Greek versions, (lib. v. cc. 1-6. pp. 767—844.) tom, ii. ed. Scharfenberg.

sertions have been advanced concerning its antiquity, some referring it to the time of Solomon and Hiram, while others ascribe it to Asa the priest of Samaritans, and a third class to the apostle Thaddeus. This last tradition is received by the Syrian churches; but a more recent date is ascribed to it by modern biblical philologers. Bishop Walton, Carpzov, Leusden, Bishop Lowth, and Dr. Kennicott, fix its date to the first century; Bauer and some other German critics, to the second or third century; Jahn fixes it, at the latest, to the second century; De Rossi pronounces it to be very antient, but does not specify any precise date. The most probable opinion is that of Michaelis, who ascribes it to the close of the first, or to the earlier part of the second century, at which time the Syrian churches flourished most, and the Christians at Edessa had a temple for divine worship erected after the model of that at Jerusalem: and it is not to be supposed that they would be without a version of the Old Testament, the reading of which had been introduced by the apostles. The arguments prefixed to the Psalms were manifestly written by a Christian author. This version was evidently made from the original Hebrew, to which it most closely and literally adheres, with the exception of a few passages which appear to bear some affinity to the Septuagint: Jahn accounts for this by supposing, either that this version was consulted by the Syriac translator or translators, or that the Syrians afterwards corrected their translation by the Septuagint. Leusden conjectures, that the translator did not make use of the most correct Hebrew manuscripts, and has given some examples which appear to support his opinion. Dathe however speaks most positively in favour of its antiquity and fidelity, and refers to the Syriac version, as a certain standard by which we may judge of the state of the Hebrew text in the second century: and both Kennicott and De Rossi have derived many valuable readings from this version. To its general fidelity almost every critic of note bears unqualified approbation, although it is not every where equal: and it is remarkably clear and strong in those passages which attribute characters of Deity to the Messiah. Jahn observes, that a different method of interpretation is adopted in the Pentateuch from that which is to be found in the Book of Chronicles; and that there are some Chaldee words in the first chapter of Genesis, and also in the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon: whence he infers that this version was the work not of one, but of several authors.1

An important accession to biblical literature was made, a few years since, by the late learned and excellent Dr. Buchanan, to whose assiduous labours the British church in India is most deeply indebted; and who, in his progress among the Syrian churches and Jews of

1 Carpzov, Critica Sacra, pp. 623-626; Leusden, Philologus Hebræo-Mixtus, pp. 67-71; Bishop Lowth's Isaiah, vol. i. p. xci.; Dr. Kennicott, Diss. ii. p. 355; Bauer, Critica Sacra, pp. 308-320; Jahn, Introd. ad Vet. Fœd. pp. 75, 76; De Rossi, Varia Lectiones ad Vet. Test. tom. i. prol. p. xxxii.; Dathe, Opuscula ad Crisin et Interpretationem Vet. Test. p. 171; Kortholt, de Versionibus Scripture, pp. 40-45; Walton, Proleg. c. 13. pp. 593, et seq. Dr. Smith's Scripture Testimony of the Messiah, vol. i. pp. 396, 397.