living at Alexandria, as were above eighty Years of Age when Ariftobulus was born. But where does it appear that Ariftobulus has followed the counterfeit Arifleas? He only tells us, as Arifleas alfo does, that this Verfion was made at the Command of Ptolemy Philadelphus, under the Care and Direction of Demetrius Phalereus; that is, he has only told a Truth, to which the pretended Arifteas and feveral others afterwards added many fabulous Circumftances. For Du Pin, no Friend to the general ancient Opinion of Jews and Chriftians concerning the LXX, yet fays, "There must be fome Truth that has given Rife to "the Fable of Arifteas, and that Ptolemy Philadelphus did in Effect de"mand, and caufe to be made, a Greek Verfion of the Law." How then does it appear that he took his Account from Arifteas? He had certainly Opportunity of being truly informed of the whole Matter, and we have no Ground to believe that any of the fabulous Stories concerning it were invented, at least not published in Writing before his Time. But Ariftobulus speaks of the Verfion being made not only by the Command of Philadelphus, but also under the Direction of Demetrius Phalereus. But we are told this could not be, for Philadelphus, as foon as he came to the Crown, committed Phalereus to Prison, because he had endeavoured to perfuade Ptolemy Lagus, the Father of Philadelphus, to fettle the fucceffion to the Crown on one of his Sons by Eurydice, and not upon him; and that foon after his Imprisonment he was bit by an Afp, and died: Therefore he could have no Concern in a Translation made in the Reign of Philadelphus. This Story Diogenes Laertius tells from one Hermippus. But the fame Diogenes allo tells us that Sotion, in his Epitome of Succeffions, fays Demetrius only counselled Lagus not to make any Son King fo long as he lived; faying, "A λλ dus où xïs. Which Counfel, as it expreffed no ill Will to Philadelphus, could not be greatly refented by him, at leaft no more than might easily be reconciled during the two Years Ptolemy Lagus lived afterwards: Or which Philadelphus, out of his great Love to Literature, might eafily forgive: Since there was no Man fo well qualified as Demetrius (the greatest Grammarian, Orator and Philofopher of his Age) to furnish his Library with Books. And as Hermippus gave a wrong Account of the Counfel given by Demetrius in the former Part of the Story, it is reasonable to believe his Account may be wrong as to the latter Part. And we have no Reason upon so weak an Authority to reject the Teftimony of fo many Jewish and Chriflian Writers, who speak of Demetrius Phalereus as having the Care and Direction of this Verfion in the Reign of Philadelphus.

But fays the learned Dean," Clemens Alexandrinus is the first Author "that mentions him. But if there had been any fuch Commentaries, "Philo and Jofephus could not have efcaped making Ufe of them." But why not? Ariftobulus was a Peripatetic Philofopher, and Philo was a Platonift: Their Notions were therefore different, and for that Reason Philo might not make Ufe of him. Jofephus was an Hiflorian, whofe Bufinefs was to relate Matters of Fact. And he had no Occafion to meddle with Commentaries on the Law, except when Matters of Fact might happen to be related in it. And though Ariftobulus does speak of the Tranflation of the LXX, yet as Jofephus fuppofed Arifteas to be

genuine,

genuine, and as he was, upon that Suppofition, the eldeft and the most authentick, and had moft fully written the Hiftory of that Verfion, he took what he thought proper to fay from him, and fo had no Occafion to mention Ariftobulus.

He then Objects the different Times in which both Clemens and Eufebius fay Ariftobulus lived. For, fays he, "Sometimes they tell us "he dedicated his Book to Ptolemy Philometer, at other Times to Pto"lemy Philadelphus and his Father together. Sometimes they will have "it, that he is the fame who is mentioned 2 Maccab. i. 10. And "fometimes they make him one of the feventy-two Interpreters 152 "Years before." It is very difficult to account how Authors fall into fuch Contrarieties in their Works, and even in historical Matters fay in one Book the contrary to what they have wrote in another. The most probable Account I can think of, is, that fometimes they write by Memory, without confulting the Author they received their Information from, and their Memory fails them. Thus Clemens and Eusebius, when they had Ariftobulus before them, and read how he addreffed himself to the King in his Dedication, faying, The whole Interpretation of the Law was made under King Philadelphus your Ancestor, they rightly ĺpoke of the Book as dedicated to Philometer. At another Time, having Occafion to mention Ariftobulus, and not looking on the Dedication, but trusting to their Memory, they mistook the King to whom the Dedication was made, and called him Philadelphus; and Anatolius finding him spoken of as living in the Reign of Philadelphus, might fuppofe him to be one of the feventy-two Interpreters: But Clemens and Eufebius, knowing that he lived in the Time of Philometor, might very well think him the fame with the Ariftobulus spoken of 2 Maccab. i. 10.

There is no Miftake therefore made by Clemens and Eufebius, when they speak of Ariflobulus as living under, and dedicating his Commentary to, Ptolemy Philometor, as appears by the Words of Ariftobulus himself, which Eufebius cites from him: And therefore their putting him down under Ptolemy Philadelphus must be looked upon as fuch a Mistake as a Man may easily commit in a large Work. But I must obferve that Clemens does not fay (whatever Eufebius may have done, whose Book De Præparatione I have not to confult) that Aristobulus dedicated his Book to Philadelphus and his Father, as the Dean represents him to have done. His Words are, 'Αριτοβούλῳ δὲ τῷ κατὰ Πτολεμαῖον YeyorÓTI Tòr Dihadingor, that is, Aristobulus, who was at, in, or with Ptolemy Philadelphus, or who lived in his Time. And fo it is interpreted by the Latin Tranflator of Clemens, who renders it, Ab Ariftobulo autem qui fuit tempore Ptolemæi Philadelphi: And then adds, that be is mentioned by him who epitomized the Acts of the Maccabees. However, the Miftake here might eafily proceed from the Carelesness of a Tranfcriber, who might eafily write Philadelphus for Philometor, the three first Letters being alike, and having perhaps Philadelphus in his Thought. Or if it was thus written by Clemens himself, then, as I obferved before, the Miftake might proceed from a Failure in his Memory: For he here quotes nothing particularly from Ariftobulus; only fays in general, that he wrote feveral Books to shew that the Peripatetic Philofophy was taken

from

from the Law of Mofes, and other Prophets. And whereas the learned Dean further urges, that the two first Chapters of the fecond Book of Maccabees, where Ariftobulus is mentioned, are all Fable and Fiction; yet the Author of that Fable and Fiction would hardly have put the Name of Ariftobulus into his Fable, if there had never been fuch an eminent Few as Ariftobulus in the Court of Philometor and Physcon: I cannot therefore be of the learned Dean's Opinion, that all these Things put together create a juft Sufpicion, that the Commentaries of Aristobulus were forged under his Name by fome Hellenistical Jew long after the Date they bear: Confequently he is a good Witnefs of the Tranflation of the whole Old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek by feventy-two Interpreters in the Time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, which was the unanimous Belief of Jews and Christians for more than 1500 Years, a few Talmudical Jews only excepted; and was never called in Question until within 200 Years paft: St. Jerom himself, though no Friend to the Tranflation, making no Question about it.

There is no Reason why we should not believe that these seventytwo Interpreters had a moft correct Copy of the Hebrew Bible, from whence they might make their Tranflation. The Original, written by Ezra, an infpired Writer, which was afterwards destroyed by Antiochus Epiphanes, remained then in the Temple, from which they might, and no Doubt did, take a most correct Copy, which Arifteas (if he may be believed in any Particular) affures us they did. And therefore we have no Reafon to question but they made a faithful Tranflation, though not perfectly literal; for no Language will always bear a direct literal Tranflation from another. And had we this Tranfiation now as faithfully delivered to us by Tranfcribers, as it was made by the Interpreters, we might certainly prefer it to the prefent Hebrew Copies, as pointed by the Maforites. It was very highly efteemed about 400 Years by the Jews first, and afterwards by Chriftians. It was read in all the Synagogues of the Jews in all those Parts of the World where the Greeks and Macedonians had fpread their Language; even in Judea and Jerufalem itself the Scriptures were read in diverse Synagogues, not in the Hebrew, but in the Tranflation of the LXX: Our Saviour and his Apoftles, as appears from the New Testament, made use of it, the Citations there from the Old Teftament being frequently made according to this Verfion. And it was in high Efteem in the Chriftian Church during that and the following Age: And feveral Translations into other Languages were made immediately from it, the Original Hebrew not being confulted.

The Jews were the first who funk the Reputation of the LXX, through their Hatred of the Chriftians, and the Chriftian Religion. This appears, 1. From the Author of a New Verfion of the Old Testament into Greek. A little before the Middle of the fecond Century, Aquila, who had been a Chriftian, but caft out of the Church for fome Mildemeanor, became a Jewish Profelyte, and was circumcifed. And having then learned the Hebrew Tongue, he made a New Translation of the Old Teftament into Greek, in Oppofition to the LXX, trandating many Paffages concerning the Meffiab otherwife than they had been rendered by the LXX, that they might not be applied to the Holy

Jefus.

Jefus. This was the Defign of the Tranflations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion (of whom I thall have Occafion to speak again) as St. Jerom, who faw their Tranflations, informs us, qui multa Myfteria falvatoris fubdola Interpretatione celarent. Nothing therefore is more certain than that this fecond Verfion, and the two others that followed it, which were made by Judaizing Hereticks, as St. Jerom calls them, were made out of Hatred to Chriftianity. This alfo appears in the next Place from the Jews changing the Feast, which they had kept in Memory of the Tranflation of the LXX unto the Time that Chriftianity began to be received, into a Faft, on Account that such a Tranflation had been made. For Philo the Jew, who lived in the Time of Caligula the Roman Emperor, when the Apostles were going about and publishing the Gospel in all Parts, tells us, in his Life of Mofes, that to that Time they yearly kept a feast in the Ifle of Pharus, in Memory of the Scriptures having been there tranflated into Greek by the Seventy-two Interpreters. But after Philo's Days, the Jews turned that Feaft into a Faft, Jamenting that fuch a Tranflation had been made. And Dean Prideaux, though no great Friend to the LXX, tells us, that "As this "Verfion grew into Ufe among the Chriftians, it grew out of Credit "with the Jews. For they being pinched in many Particulars urged "against them by the Chriftians out of this Verfion for the evading "thereof, they were for making a new one, that might better serve "their Purpofe."

But that which justly depreciated the Septuagint, and made it of less Authority even among the Chriftians as well as the Jews and Judaizing Hereticks, proceeded not from any Unfaithfulness or Ignorance in the firft Tranflators (as fome pretend) but from the Ignorance, Boldness, and Carelefnefs of Tranfcribers. An ignorant Tranfcriber, copying from a Book in which many marginal Notes have been written, might think they belonged to the Text, and accordingly bring them into it. A bold Tranfcriber, meeting with a Paffage which he thought did not express the Senfe he took it in, might alter the Words in order, as he fuppofed, to make it plainer: And a careless Transcriber might heedlefly write one Word for another, and alfo leave out, not only Words, but whole Sentences. And as Chriftianity spread, Multitudes of Copies were written for the Ufe of the Numbers that were daily converted; and as in the Times of Perfecution, the Heathens deftroyed all the Copies they could get, and thereupon new Transcripts were made; fo many Tranfcripts made, fometimes by ignorant, bold and careless Copyers, caufed the LXX to become fo faulty, that the Chriftians judged it needed Correction.

Hereupon Origen, in the former Part of the third Century, put out a new Edition of the LXX, made with great Labour and Accuracy: Yet not fingly by itself, but joined with other Greek Tranflations. For, as obferved before, Aquila, an Apoftate Chriftian, and afterwards a Jewish Profelyte, and, not long after him, Symmachus, a Samaritan by Birth, (who firft turned Jew, then Chriftian, then Ebionite, or Judaizing Chriftian) and about the fame Time Theodotion, (who for fome Time had been an heretical Chriftian and afterwards became a few,) all these made Tranflations of the Old Teftament out of the Hebrew into Greek.

Greek. Origen therefore made a Tetrapla of these four Verfions, which he placed one against the other in four different Columns. To these he added two Columns more, containing the Hebrew Text twice write ten, one Column in Hebrew, and the other in Greek Letters. This containing fix Columns, Epiphanius calls it Hexapla. Afterwards he put out another Edition of two Columns more, adding thereto two other Greek Verfions; the one found at Nicopolis, a City near Alium in Epirus, and the other at Jericho in Judea. These were called the fifth and fixth Verfions, which, being added to the other, made an Olapla in the Columns; and a feventh Tranflation of the Pfalms being also added, made it there an Enneapla. But as the two Editions made by Origen generally bore the Names only of the Tetrapla and Hexapla, Dr. Grabe judges they were fo called, not from the Number of the Columns, but of the Versions, which were fix, the feventh containing the Pfalms only. How the whole was difpofed in this Edition of Origen will be best understood by the following Scheme.

Origen himself tells us in his Comment on St. Matthew (Tom. I. Oper. Græco-Lat. p. 381.) "That his Purpose was to correct the "Differences in the feveral Copies of the Old Teftament; ufing the "other Translations for a Rule whereby to form his Judgment, pre66 ferving what he found agreeable to them. And fome Paffages which " he did not find in the Hebrew Text, he noted with an Obelisk, not 66 daring wholly to omit them: And fome he marked with an Afterifk, "because he found them not in the LXX, but were placed there by "himself, being taken from the other Verfions according to the He"brew Text. And he that will, may admit of them; but if any think "not fit to receive them, he may do as he pleafes.'

The Obelisks which he speaks of were fuch a Mark as this, either a ftrait Line, or a little bending at each End: The Afterifk was a Crofs made thus .x, with four Points. The Obelisk noted fuch Words or Sentences as were in the LXX, but not in the Hebrew: The Afterifk noted fuch as were in the Hebrew, but not in the LXX, at least not

in