[Evangelion]

In the course of the second century, three other complete versions of the Old Testament into Greek were executed: these are of importance in this place, because of the manner in which they were afterward connected with the Septuagint.

The first of the Greek versions of the Old Testament executed in the second century was that of AQUILA. He is described as a Jew or Jewish proselyte of Pontus, and the date commonly attributed to his version is about the year A. D. 126. His translation is said to have been executed for the express purpose of opposing the authority of the Septuagint: his version was in consequence upheld by the Jews. His labour was evidently directed in opposing the passages which the Christians were accustomed to cite from the Septuagint as applicable to the Lord Jesus. The general characteristic of this version is bold literality of rendering: such an endeavour is made to render each Hebrew word and particle into Greek, that all grammar is often set at defiance, and not unfrequently the sense is altogether sacrificed. From the scrupulosity of Aquila in rendering each Hebrew word, his work, if we possessed it complete (and not merely in scattered fragments), would be of great value in textual criticism.

Another Greek translator at a subsequent period in the second century was SYMMACHUS. He is described as an Ebionite, a kind of semi-Christian. His version seems to have been executed in good and pure Greek: perhaps he was the more particular in his attention to this in consequence of the mere barbarism of Aquila.

A third translator in the same century was THEODOTION, an Ebionite like Symmachus, to whom he was probably anterior. His version is in many parts based on the Septuagint. He is less servile in his adherence to the words of the Hebrew than Aquila, although he is void of the freedom of Symmachus. His knowledge of Hebrew was certainly but limited, and without the Septuagint it is hardly probable that he could have undertaken this version.

Thus, before the end of the second century there were, besides the Septuagint, three versions of the Old Testament in Greek, known to both Jews and Gentiles. All this could not fail in making the Old Testament Scriptures better known and more widely read. Although many Christians believed in the inspiration and authority of the Septuagint, yet this could not have been universally the case; otherwise the disuse of the real Septuagint version of the book of Daniel, and the adoption of that of Theodotion in its stead, could never have taken place. This must have arisen from an apprehension of the poverty and inaccuracy of the Septuagint in this book, so that another version similar in its general style was gladly adopted.

We have now to speak of the labours of ORIGEN in connection with the text of the Septuagint. This learned and enterprising scholar, having acquired a knowledge of Hebrew, found that in many respects the copies of the Septuagint differed from the Hebrew text. It seems to be uncertain whether he regarded such differences as having arisen from mistakes on the part of copyists, or from errors of the original translators themselves.

The object which he proposed to himself was not to restore the Septuagint to its original condition, nor yet to correct mere errors of translation simply as such, but to cause that the Church should possess a text of the Septuagint in which all additions to the Hebrew should be marked with an obelus, and in which all that the Septuagint omitted should be added from one of the other versions marked with an asterisk. He also indicated readings in the Septuagint which were so incorrect that the passage ought to be changed for the corresponding one in another version.

With the object of thus amending the Septuagint, he formed his great works, the Hexapla and Tetrapla; these were (as the names imply) works in which the page was divided respectively into six columns and into four columns. The Hexapla contained, 1st, the Hebrew text; 2nd, the Hebrew text expressed in Greek characters; 3rd, the version of Aquila; 4th, that of Symmachus; 5th, the Septuagint; 6th, Theodotion. The Tetrapla contained merely the four last columns.

Besides these four versions of the entire Old Testament, Origen employed three anonymous Greek versions of particular books; these are commonly called the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions. Hence in the parts in which two of these versions are added, the work was designated Octapla, and where all the three appeared, it was called Enneapla. References were then made from the column of the Septuagint to the other versions, so as to complete and corect it: for this purpose Theodotian was principally used. This rescension by Origen has generally been called the Hexaplar text. The Hexapla itself is said never to have been copied: what remains of the versions which it cnotained (mere fragments) were edited by Montfaucon in 1714, and in an abridged edition by Barhdt in 1769-60.

The Hexaplar text of the Septuagint was copied about half a century after Origen's death by Pamphilus and Eusebius; it thus obtained a circulation; but the errors of copyists soon confounded the marks of addition and omission which Origen placed, and hence the text of the Septuagint became almost hopelessly mixed up with that of other versions. The Hexaplar text is best known from a Syriac version which was made from it; of this many books have been published from a MS. at Milan; other books are now in the British Museum amongst the rest of the Syriac treasures obtained from the Nitrian monasteries. This Syro-Hexaplar translation preserves the marks of the Greek text, and the references to the other translations. It may yet be of great use in separating the readings which were introduced by Origen from those of an older date.

There were two other early attempts to revise the Septuagint besides that of Origen. In the beginning of the fourth century, Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch, and Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, undertook similar labours of the same kind. These two recensions (which they were in the proper sense of the term) were much used in the Eastern Churches. From the fourth century and onward, we know of no definite attempt to revise the text of the Septuagint, or to correct the discrepancies of various copies. It is probable, however, that just as the text of the Greek New Testament became in a great measure fixed into the same form as we find it in the modern copies, something of the same kind must have been the case with the Septuagint.

[echad]

EV,

This is very interesting. Did the NT writers (the Apostles, not the later translators) actually quote from the Septuigent or the Masoretic text when writing the Gospels and epistles? How was the Septuigent viewed by Hebrew scholars at that time? Should we trust the Masoretic text more, since it is the original Hebrew from which the Septuigent was translated?

Chris

[Evangelion]

echad -

Quote

Did the NT writers (the Apostles, not the later translators) actually quote from the Septuigent or the Masoretic text when writing the Gospels and epistles?

We know for certain that they used the LXX - and that Jesus did also. I do not know, however, to what extent they used the Hebrew - but there is evidence that Jesus certainly did.

Quote

How was the Septuigent viewed by Hebrew scholars at that time?

It was held in high esteem and used commonly among the Jews of Jesus' day - many of whom were no longer familiar with Hebrew, but instead spoke Aramaic and/or Greek.

Quote

Should we trust the Masoretic text more, since it is the original Hebrew from which the Septuigent was translated?

No. The Masoretic text did not actually exist until long after the LXX was written. The earliest Masoretic documents currently available, date to the 9th Century AD. By contrast, the LXX was written at least a century (perhaps more) before the time of Christ.

Now, while it is true that the general structure of the Masoretic text is well supported by many of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which may suggest that the Masoretes were not inventing a new text, but merely trying to reconstruct an older, pre-existing one), it is equally true that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain many textual variants and - for the most part - actually disagree with the Masoretic text.

Moreover, while the original Masoretic text was originally copied with extraordinary care, it is clear from the textual evidence that corruption and error did creep in over time (and subsequent copying.)