De Moor II:11: Against the Authenticity of the Samaritan and Septuagint, Part 2

What is now to be found concerning the Authenticity of the GREEK VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, which is commonly called the SEPTUAGINT—VIRALIS, ought to be stated:  concerning which CARPZOV, Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter II, pages 481, 482, exhibits an entire catalogue of learned Men that are able to be consulted; to which Men add GERHARD, Confessione catholica, book II, special, part I, article I, chapter II, thesis IV, pages 123-130; SPANHEIM, Dubiis Euangelicis, part I, doubt XXIII, § 21, pages 164-168; BUDDEUS, Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 5, tome 2, pages 1517-1525a:  while CARPZOV himself discusses this Version in Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter II, pages 481-551.

              Speaking of this Greek Version, our AUTHOR asserts that it is commonly called the Septuagint—Viralis (but from a fable, it is added in his Medulla Theologiæ).  That name has been drawn from the narration of ARISTEAS in an Epistle to his brother Philocrates, which is found after the works of Josephus in the Edition published at Cologne, and also printed separately, and of which the one related by Walton, Carpzov, and others is the best.  Demetrios of Phaleron, superintendent of the Library of Philadelphus, King of the Egyptians, enlarging it to an enormous extent with books selected from all over, relates to the King that he also discovered that the Laws of the Jews are altogether worthy to be transcribed, and to be preserved in his library; only they should be translated out of the vernacular Language of the Jews into Greek.  These things the King takes upon himself, that he is going to write unto the High Priest of the Jews, that those things that were proposed might be accomplished.  At this point Aristeas, as royal minister, opportunely intervenes, advising his lord that, being about to send Legates to the High Priest, he first release all the Jews that had been led away into captivity by his Father as free men unto their country.  The King gives his assent, and, after he understood that there were more than one hundred thousand Jews bound to servitude in Egypt, he redeems the individual captives from their masters for twenty drachmæ, and releases them unto liberty, so that the sum of the λύτρου/ransom grew beyond six hundred and sixty talents.  With these things accomplished, he commands Demetrios to publish in writing his purpose concerning the transcription of the books of the Jews; who urged the King that he ask for himself from the High Priest of the Jews both an exemplar of the Law, and six Translators from each tribe, excelling in honesty of life, experience and expertise in their laws, so that the translation of many might more readily obtain confidence.  Therefore, the King sends two Spokesmen, among whom also was our Aristeas, furnished with splendid gifts and royal letters; who, having dwelt at Jerusalem most honorifically, easily obtain their request.  Indeed, seventy-two choice Elders, highly skilled in Hebrew and in Greek, Eleazar joins as companions to the spokesmen, and sends, together with an Epistle and parchments, which contained the Law written in golden letters, to the King.  The King most kindly receives the Legates, and in awe of the Law bows seven times; and, because at the same time he won a naval victory against Antigonus, he announces that it was going to be a solemn day and feast yearly; and, refreshing those Elders with a banquet of seven days, he tries each with difficult and weighty questions, who, answering most wisely, demonstrate their prudence to the King, each receiving from him a gift of three talents.  Three days afterward, the Elders are escorted by Demetrios to the nearby island of Pharos, and they, having been put in a splendid house, give themselves to translation unto the ninth hour, with Demetrios discharging the office of Scribe.  And so, with the exemplars compared, they, having been gathered together, complete the translation in the space of seventy-two days.  Demetrios read the entire translation to all the Jews then present, who both honored it with the highest praises, and with common consent utter dire curses upon any that would add or take away anything to this Version, or would dare to change anything in it.  The King, when he had heard the recitation, marveled at the wisdom of the Lawgiver, and sent the Elders home with most ample gifts and offerings, intended for Eleazar the High Priest.  This is a summary of the narration of Aristeas, whence the name, the Septuagint—Viralis, has adhered to this Version.  Excerpts of this narration are also given by EUSEBIUS, Præparatione euangelica, book VIII, chapters II-V.

Jerome

              When our AUTHOR in his Compendio adds concerning this Version, both such as what exists today principally from the Fourfold Edition, and such as formerly in the beginning was prepared; in a word he was pleased to note that formerly there existed the Septuagint Version, which they were calling κοινὴν/koine/common or Vulgate, vitiated to a significant degree, which ORIGEN accordingly purposed to emend and to publish a more accurate edition, whence the Origenian Edition of this Version arose, found in the fifth column of his Hexapla.  JEROME thus relates in his Epistola CXXXI, opera, tome 3, page 80, ad Suniam et Fretelam:  “Now, the Κοινὴ/Koine, that is, the common edition, is the same as the Septuagint.  But this is the difference between them, that it is an edition of the κοινῆς/Koine, corrupted according to the times and places, and according to the inclination, of the Old Scribes.  But this, which is found in the ἑξαπλοῖς/Hexapla, and which we translate, is the same as the uncorrupted and immaculate translation of the Seventy Interpreters, which is preserved in the books of the learned.”  ORIGEN’S Tetrapla and Hexapla, although they vanished after his death for nearly fifty years, finally were found by PAMPHILUS[1] in the Library at Cæsarea, or were from elsewhere, perhaps from Tyre, transferred there, while Pamphilus was restoring the Library, who with EUSEBIUS (who afterwards was Bishop of Cæsarea, and to whom on account of familiarity Pamphilus gave his name[2]) corrected the κοινῆν/Koine Version out of the Hexapla of ORIGEN, and bequeathed this emended Version to the Churches of Palestine:  whence this Edition of the Greek Version, which was the same with the Origenian, was thereafter also called that of Pamphilus and Eusebius, likewise also the Palestinian, because there it was found, and prepared anew, and bequeathed to the Churches there for the first time, and was used by them.  Moreover, the Version of the Septuagint, called κοινῆν/Koine, was reviewed, and both with the help of copies more ancient and of approved fidelity, and unto the norm of the Hebrew text, was purged from numerous errors, which had crept in over a long stretch of time, by LUCIAN, a presbyter of Antioch, learned in Hebrew, martyr under Diocletian and Maximian, flourishing at the end of the Third Century.  At nearly the same time, HESYCHIUS, an Egyptian Bishop, and martyr in the tenth persecution according to EUSEBIUS’ Historiam Ecclesiasticam, book VIII, chapter XIII, pages 307, 308, gave himself, as did Lucian, to the correction and emendation of the copies of the Greek Septuagint:  and this edition JEROME cites under the title of Alexandrian exemplars, because the Churches of Alexandria and of all Egypt embraced it.  And this thrice corrected Edition of the Septuagint—Viralis in the time of JEROME was getting the upper hand everywhere in the Church, according to that distribution which he points out, in Epistle CIV ad Chromatium, which is the preface upon the book of Chronicles, opera, tome 3, page 19:  “Alexandria and Egypt, in the matter matter of the Septuagint, commend the author Hesychius.  Constantinople, all the way to Antioch, approves the exemplars of Lucian the martyr.  The middle provinces between these read the Palestinian Codices, which, having received the labors of Origen, Eusebius and Pamphilus published.  And the whole world by this threefold difference is agitated within itself.”

              Now, today’s Fourfold Edition, of which our AUTHOR makes mention is:

              1.  The Complutensian, under the auspices of Cardinal Ximénez, first published in the Complutensian Polyglot in the Year 1515, and afterwards republished a number of times:  but in which the Editors supplied what things were in the Hebrew text, if they were wanting in the Septuagint, from another translation; but what things were superfluous in the Greek, they often trimmed off; indeed, from the collated exemplars both of the Biblical Books and of Greek commentaries, when various Readings were presenting themselves, they approved and retained that which more nearly approaches to the Hebrew.  Whence this Edition recedes some distance from the ancient Greek Version.

              2.  The Venetian or Aldine, which went forth, together with a Greek New Testament, published at Venice in the Year 1518, from the press of Aldus Manutius,[3] prepared from a collation of the most ancient exemplars:  but of the Codices, of which they made use in the preparation of this edition, no reason is given.

              3.  The Roman, more excellent than either of the preceding, which, modeled after the most ancient Codex of the Vatican Library, was published at Rome in the most elegant type, under the auspices of Pope Sixtus V, but by the care and labor of Cardinal Antonius Carafa,[4] in the Year 1587, with excellent annotations added.

              4.  Finally, the Anglican Edition has carried a somewhat dubius first place above the Roman exemplar, both published in the London Polyglot,[5] and by the study of John Ernest Grabe, at Oxford in folio and octavo form beginning in the Year 1707, and copied from that most ancient and famous Codex Alexandrinus, sent to King Charles I of England as a gift.[6]

              Unto which fourfold Edition all the others, which today are extant, are to be recalled as copies.

              Now, concerning this Greek Version, both as it is now read, and as it existed formerly and was first prepared, it is asked, whether it is to be held as infallible and authentic, and whether an independent authority is to be attributed to it?

              This many Papists maintain, among whom, with respect to the first preparation of this Version, Bellarmine, in book II de Verbo Dei, chapter VI, Controversiis, tome I, column 102, writes:  “The Seventy Interpreters translated optimally, and in a peculiar manner had the assistance of the Holy Spirit, lest they should err in anything, so that they might appear to have been, not so much translators, as Prophets.”  Gretser teaches that these things are to be understood in such a way that we believe that after the manner of the Canonical writers they did not so much act as were acted upon.

              The Scope of the Papists is to prejudice against the Hebrew text, and to support the Latin Version.

              The θεοπνευστίαν/inspiration of this Version is also asserted by ISAAC VOSSIUS everywhere in his libro de translatione LXX Interpretum; and he contends that from the same, as far purer, the Hebrew Codices, where dissonant, are to be corrected.  Thus in chapter XXV among other places he asks, yet with no sufficient argument adduced:  “If there be any Version that deserves to be called θεόπνευστος/inspired, is there any other to be sought besides that which the Seventy Interpreters, Men by far the most skillful in the Hebrew Tongue, as native to themselves, and agreeing among themselves, prepared in accordance with ancient and untainted Codices, whose labor was approved and followed by the Apostles, the universal Christian Church, and even the more ancient Jews?”  And here and there elsewhere he extols that Version with extravagant praises.  Compare BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 3, tome 2, page 1446.

              On the contrary, we, with our AUTHOR, deny Authenticity to this Version.

              α.  For what Version was prepared by human art and labor is not Authentic:  but the Septuagint—Viralis Version was prepared by human art and labor.  The reason for the Major is that nothing human is able to be Authentic in divine things, as things which depend upon the authority of God alone.  The Minor is proven, 1.  from this, that the Seventy lived after the age of Malachi according to tradition; but Malachi was the last of the Prophets, with whom Prophecy expired, as even the Jews acknowledge in Seder Olam Zuta,[7] and here and there elsewhere; see Seder Olam Zuta, page 109, out of the edition of the Most Illustrious MEYER,[8] and his Notes on that passage, page 1144; Reverend BEELS’[9] Bybeloeffeningen, pages 21, 22, in the Notes; that there were no Authentic Books published after the times of Artaxerxes, JOSEPHUS acknowledges in book I contra Apionem, page 1036.  2.  The History of Aristeas, which is brought forward to extol this Version with praises, also speaks against the θεοπνευστίᾳ/ inspiration of the same:  a.  For there you read that the Interpreters consulted among themselves, disputing and discussing among themselves concerning whatever matter, until they all finally agreed:  which things they rendered, as they were able, most learnedly and elegantly:  so that what things were disposed by the consent and counsel of all were delivered into the hand of Demetrios, pages 97, 98.  But, as BRIAN WALTON, Prolegomeno IX in Bibliis Polyglottis, § 8, pages 57, well observes, If they conferred among themselves, they did not prophesy.  For the sacred writers never conferred with others, disputing concerning whatever matter they wrote; but, as they were taught by the Holy Spirit, without any inquiry or delay they committed all things to writing.  b.  Also, if they, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote, that number of Interpreters, mentioned by Aristeas, would have been superfluous, since one would have been sufficient.  Neither, c.  would men distinguished with respect to learning, and expert in the Hebrew and Greek languages, have been necessary, if without human study and helps the Version might have been prepared.

              But, moreover, β.  as our AUTHOR argues, the super-abounding Errors of this Version are evident, in its less suitable expression of the sense, addition, subtraction, mutation, through an incorrect reading of the letters, through incorrect punctuation, signification of the words, inverted construction of the words, etc., just as Bellarmine himself, in book II de Verbo Dei, chapter VI, Controversiis, tome I, columns 102-105, acknowledges, and demonstrates that this Version is now corrupted in a variety of ways, and that it is no longer extant in its integrity; so that it is not now safe to emend the Hebrew or Latin texts out of the Greek codices.  But a consideration of those errors, which defile this Version, teaches that a great part of those is to be ascribed to the Interpreters themselves; to which, nevertheless, far more were able to be added thereafter by injury of time, ἀβλεψίᾳ/blindness and sleepiness of scribes, etc.  See this Version’s entire forest of Faults, reduced unto certain classes, both in CHAMIER’S Panstratia Catholica, tome I, book XIII (which wholly treats of the Greek Septuagint—Viralis Version of the Old Testament), chapters VIII-XI, pages 230-242; and in HOTTINGER’S Thesauro Philologico, book I, chapter III, section III, question 15, pages 354-377; and in CARPZOV’S Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter II, § 4, 6, pages 501, 504, 513-521.  But whatever Version now fails to harmonize and agree in words or substance with the Hebrew Edition of the Old Testament is not Authentic:  for all the confidence and authority of a Version consists in its συμφωνίᾳ/harmony and agreement with the Original Edition.  But the Septuagint—Viralis fails to harmonize in substance and words with the Hebrew Edition of the Old Testament.  Therefore.

              They object, 1.  that, not only the Hellenistic Jews, but also the Ancient Christians and Fathers of the Church made use of this Version with great Elogies.

              Response α.  I acknowledge that the Hellenistic Jews, living outside of Palestine and dispersed throughout Egypt and other quarters of the world, to whom the Greek tongue was native, or at least well known by use, that Version, because they understood and knew how to read it, extol with great praises, and suppose to have been composed in an all but miraculous manner and by the singular assistance of the Holy Spirit:  nevertheless, 1.  they do not make it altogether equal with the Founts; even supposing that they were reading this Version aloud in their Synagogues, yet they did not read it alone (according to the opinion of the most reputable Men), but in conjunction with the Hebrew text; so that the Greek Version, having been added to the Hebrew Scripture, was merely serving in the place of a support to help those that were not understanding the text previously read in Hebrew.  2.  Indeed, after the beginning of the second Century from the Birth of Christ, the same Jews began to call into doubt the authority of this Version, as not sufficiently true to, and not quite consonant with, the Hebrew text.  The reason was that Christians were wont to fetch weapons against the Jews from this Version:  so that they might avoid these darts, the Jews were appealing from this Version to the Hebrew text.  And only thus were they appreciating that some things that were found in the Greek were wanting in the Hebrew, and other things were altogether incompatible with the Hebrew text.  Whence this translation began to be disparaged and to come into contempt among the Hellenistic Jews also.  3.  Moreover, it is well known that the Palestinian Jews and however many were untutored in Greek letters judged even less benignly concerning this Version.  These were indignant that their Law and the mysteries of their religion were divulged to the Gentiles in this manner; wherefore they were hurling abuses upon it, and were studiously noting its blemishes and errors.  Indeed, this Translation was so hated by them that in the Talmud they compare its preparation with the μοσχοποιΐᾳ, making of the calf, when they write in Masekhet Soferim,[10] chapter I, halacha 7,והיה היום קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה עגל, and that day was grievous to Israel, like the day on which the calf was made:  but they also proclaimed a solemn Fast because of the making of this Translation, falling on the eighth day of the month Tevet, which answers to our December; as it is said in Magillat Taanit,[11] page 50, column 2, where it is at the same time added that at that time also, when the Version was finished,וההשך בא לעולם שלשה ימים, darkness came upon the world for three days.  That these three days of darkness were improperly to be understood of the Fast continued for three days, JOHANN BENEDICT CARPZOV[12] drives home out of Rabbi Gedaliah, ad Schickardi Jus regium, chapter II, theorem V, page 107.  And although John Morinus, Hody,[13] but also the Most Illustrious WOLF in his Bibliotheca Hebraica, part II, pages 443, 444, call the very Fast itself into doubt and refer it unto the fables of the more recent Jews; JOHANN GOTTLOB CARPZOV, on the other hand, judges in his Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter II, § 7, page 525, that there is no sufficient reason to deny this, and to oppose the many witnesses of this event among the Jews.

Augustine

              Response β.  With respect to the Christians, I likewise acknowledge that these esteemed the Version τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, of the Seventy, to be of such great value that AUGUSTINE, in book XVIII de Civitate Dei, chapter XLIII, opera, tome 7, column 397, testifies of the Greek Church, “Although there were other interpreters also, that translated those sacred oracles out of the Hebrew tongue into Greek, such as Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, etc.:  nevertheless, the Septuagint, as if it were alone, the Church thus received, and of it the Greek Christians make use, the majority of whom is ignorant whether there be any other.”  The Latin Church also until the times of Jerome made use of various Latin translations of the Bible, among which the Itala or Vulgate was preeminent, which all were translated from the Septuagint—Viralis Greek Version.  And with such great praises the Fathers of the Church everywhere extolled this Version unto heaven, and clearly treated it as θεόπνευστον/inspired; this is evident in the passages of their writings cited by BRIAN WALTON in his Apparatu Biblico, Prolegomena IX, § 8, page 57; HOTTINGER in his Thesauro Philologico, book I, chapter III, section III, question 12, page 342; HODY in his de Versione LXX—Viralis, chapters III, IV, VI-VIII.  But, on the other hand, we note:  1.  that the Church, both Greek and Latin, however excessively it was extolling this Version, nevertheless made use of it freely; to such an extent that even the most ancient Doctors of the Greek Church, and among those IGNATIUS, departed from this Version.  They made no less use of the Version of Theodotion, to such an extent that ORIGEN has almost conflated the two into one in his Hexaplis, which the Greek Churches received with applause.  The Latin Church also admitted Jerome’s correction of their Version translated from the Septuagint—Viralis; indeed, JEROME testifies that the Version of Theodotion upon Daniel was admitted into more common use by the Churches.  2.  The Fathers that were the greatest admirers of this Version were ignorant of the Hebrew tongue, and so blind judges were giving sentence concerning colors.  They were relying on a false hypothesis concerning the making of that Greek Version by divine miracle, according to the common narration:  but undermine that support, etc.  Those same Fathers that are the most illustrious proponents of this Version, as often as that Version is considered ἀπλῶς/frankly, nevertheless speak cautiously, when these rivulets are compared to the Hebrew founts.  Thus AUGUSTINE, book XV de Civitate Dei, chapter XIII, opera, tome 7, column 298, discussing the discrepancy between the numbers in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Septuagint Version, writes:  “I would in no way doubt it rightly to be done, that when anything diverse is found in both codices, indeed, when both are not able to be true to the integrity of the matters conducted, confidence is rather to be given to that tongue from which translation is made into the other through interpreters.”  In the Commentaries of the Fathers even they often prefer other Greek Versions as better and more accurate.  Only they were unwilling that a new Version should replace that of the Septuagint in public reading before the Christian congregation, to prevent the scandal of novelty and commotions arising hence; thus AUGUSTINE, Epistle LXXXII, ad Hieronymum, chapter XXXV, opera, tome 2, column 153, “Now, therefore, I desire that thy translation from the Septuagint be read in the churches, that…they might understand, but not thy translation from the Hebrew, lest we, as preferring anything new against the authority of the Septuagint, perturb the people of Christ with great scandal, whose ears and hearts have become accustomed to hear that translation, which was also approved by the Apostles.”  3.  It is especially evident from ORIGEN and JEROME that even they, either conforming to their time and place, or before they were instructed in the knowledge of the Hebrew tongue, spoke honorifically enough concerning the Septuagint—Viralis Version; but that nevertheless in the exposition of the Scripture they always had a better regard for the Hebrew founts.  Hence ORIGEN reviewed once again the Septuagint—Viralis Version, and, where either it was falling short or was receding somewhat further, undertook to recall it to the Hebrew founts.  Now, a youthful JEROME did indeed correct the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament from the Septuagint Version:  but later he forged a new Version of the Bible from the Hebrew founts; thus, because he dared to recede so much from the Greek Version received in the Church, he kindled great hatred toward himself.

              They object, 2.  that the Apostles and Writers of the New Testament made use of this Version also.

              Response:  α.  I concede that the citations of the Old Testament in the New Testament quite frequently agree with the Septuagint—Viralis Version, even in passages of this sort, where the Greek Version appears to turn from the Hebrew verity:  for example, Acts 13:41, where out of the Septuagint is read οἱ καταφρονηταί, despisers, and in the place of בַגּוֹיִם, among the nations,[14] the translators appear to have read בּוֹגְדִים, those acting treacherously; thus in Acts 15:17 is read οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, the residue of men, while the Hebrew hasאֶת־שְׁאֵרִית אֱדוֹם , the remnant of Edom,[15] where in the place of אֱדוֹם/Edom the translators appear to have read אָדָם/man.

              β.  Yet this is not consistent, since the Apostles in the Version of Passages of the Old Testament sometimes recede somewhat both from the Hebrew text and from the Septuagint Version:  often also, with the Septuagint—Viralis Version abandoned, they adhere closely to the Hebrew text:  thus in Matthew 2:15 it is ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου, out of Egypt have I called my son, as the text of Hosea 11:1 has לִבְנִי, my son; but in the Septuagint Version it is μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ, I have summoned his children.  In Matthew 8:17, it is likewise in accordance with the Hebrew text, Αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβε, καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses:[16]  but in Isaiah 53:4, the Septuagint has it quite differently, οὗτος τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει, καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ὀδυνᾶται, He bears our sins, and is pained for us.  And thus in other passages also.

              γ.  When the Writers of the New Testament follow the Septuagint, they do not do it so that they might procure αὐθεντίαν/ authenticity for this Version; but so that in the same sense, and with the substance adduced more than the words, or words not fit for the scope, they might accommodate themselves unto the common usage and tongue:  and so that they might turn from the minds of their hearers that suspicion that they either impose upon the cited oracles, and twist them unto their own opinion; or that the Version is not anywhere correct and is to be altogether rejected, of which Version they had been making use to that time, and from which alone they had drawn the mysteries of religion.  “It is to be noted,” says FREDERIC SPANHEIM, in his Dubiis Euangelicis, Part III, Doubt XIX, § 3, on Matthew 3:3, pages 48, 49, “that the Evangelists followed the Septuagint Version in a great many things, which was both of the greatest authority among the Hellenists, and at the disposal of many, when it was able to be done with the substance of the Prophetic words unharmed, both so that they might show their liberty, and so that they might not in a matter trivial and indifferent furnish any occasion of scandal to the weak, and of cavils to the wicked.”

              δ.  Finally, some even deny that the Apostles in citing the oracles of the Old Testament made use of this or any other Version, contending that they rather translated the passages of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek:  and although αὐτοψία, the testimony of one’s own eyes, relates that in such a great number of Passages there is an exact agreement of the New Testament with the Septuagint-Viralis Version, they conclude that some introduced those expressions from the New Testament into that Version:  indeed, thus it is supposed by LAMBERT DANÆUS,[17] Responsione ad Bellarmini Disputationes theologicas, controversy I, book II, chapter VI; by JOHN OWEN,[18] in Theologoumenois, page 401, § 3 (who expresses his mind in these words:  “Especially pleasing is the opinion of those that affirm that the Holy Spirit, the Author of the entirety of Scripture, expressing His own mind according to His own will, translated the testimonies from the Old Testament into the New, making use of the words that pleased Him; but that the Christian copyists of the Greek Version gradually inserted those very words into it”); by the anonymous Author of dissertatiunculæ subjectæ Ludivici Cappelli Criticæ Sacræ, pages 489-506; likewise by TACO HAJO VAN DEN HONERT,[19] Viis Dei veris, book VI, chapter IV, § 31, page 1199, lines 4-7.  Indeed, in favor of this opinion more than one reason appears to fight:  1.  This might appear to be beneath the dignity of the θεοπνεύστων/ inspired men, to consult in their proofs a human Version.  2.  It is not necessary that the Apostles, in making use of the Septuagint Version, accommodated themselves to those that were using the Septuagint Version, so that thus they might more easily procure for themselves authority and acceptance:  for even those that made use of the Greek Version in the Synagogues were employing it only by way of Translation, always reserving the greater reverence for the Hebrew Codex, which they willed to be recited in the first place in the Synagogues.  In those to be converted, the Spirit Himself was exciting due reverence for the preaching of the Apostles as λόγῳ Θεοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώπων, the word of God and not of men,[20] an even greater reverence than any Version of the Old Testament was able to have among them.  But if Apostolic authority and urging were not able to drive Reprobates to faith, a human Version would not accomplish it.  3.  If the Version, called the Septuagint—Viralis, exists today from the conflated Version of Lucian, Hesychius, and Origen; which also the last mentioned published from the κοινῇ/ koine/common Edition, corrected both according to the Hebrew text, and from a comparison with the Version of Theodotion:  in what manner shall it be proven that the Passages, in which the citation of the Writers of the New Testament agreed with this Version, was already formerly thus read, and not rather that the Greek translation of the Old Testament was corrected out of the New Testament in various places, because the Apostolic translation was infallible?  But, that this was not done in all the passages cited in the New Testament out of the Old, this is able to be attributed to a carelessness of this sort among the correctors.  Otherwise, we imagine our θεοπνεύστους/inspired Men copying a human writing, in a similar manner as we in Latinity propose Cicero or Terence to be worthy of imitation by us.

Brian Walton

              On the other hand, WALTON, in his Apparatu Biblico, Prolegomena in Bibliis Polyglottis IX, § 38, page 66, calls this opinion, a completely pitiful flight and an indication of a desperate cause, and a vain fabrication.  Now, he brings forth to the contrary, 1.  That not in all passages, but only in some, was this alteration made; while the cause was the same that it might be done so in all.  2.  That it is completely unbelievable that all the Greek Codices throughout the entire world, which were either in the hands of the Jews, or in the hands of the Christians, were quickly made agreeable to some such Codex.  3.  That the Jews would have brought this as a reproach against the Christians, that they falsified the Septuagint Version; when they, disputing against them, alleged passages from the Septuagint Version, while the Jews read otherwise in their Codices.  To which, 4.  it can be added that in multiple passages, where the Writers of the New Testament with the Septuagint recede from the Hebrew Reading, one is able to smooth out the human failing in one closely related Hebrew letter read in the place of another, or in the order of the same being changed.  Let the prudent reader consider diligently, and judge concerning the same χωρὶς προκρίματος, without prejudice.

              They object, 3.  that this Version is not only the Most Ancient, but inspired by a heavenly Miracle.

              Response:  α.  With respect to the Antiquity of this Version, 1.  We are unwilling to protest against the more common opinion of learned Men, who everywhere admit that this Version is the Most Ancient of all, so that the Chaldean Paraphrases are roughly three centuries later than this, and similarly this Septuagint Version leaves the other Greek Versions several centuries after itself.  Neither do they acknowledge the traditions either of Aristobulus[21] in CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA’S Stromata, book I, page m. 342, and in EUSEBIUS’ Præparatione euangelica, book XIII, chapter XII, page 664, concerning a more ancient Greek Version, even before Alexander and the Persian Empire; or the Jewish tradition concerning the Chaldean Version, which might reach the age of Ezra himself:  nor the conjectures of the Learned of the more recent age, concerning some other, more ancient Greek Version, which conjectures are built upon too slight a foundation by FRANCIS JUNIUS, in Bellarmini Controversiam I, book II, chapter V, opera, tome 2, column 449; and by JOHN WEEMS,[22] in The Christian Synagogue, written in English, chapter V, § 2; likewise by GOUSSET,[23] in Commentariis linguæ Hebraicæ, page 823a:  consult HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum Philologicum, book I, chapter III, section III, question I, pages 282-285; PRIDEAUX’S History of the Jews, part II, book I, columns 743, 752, 753, 761; BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VI, § 12, tome II, page 833b; and also BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 5, tome 2, page 1516; and CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter II, § 8, pages 490, 501, 520, 521, 544, chapter III, page 552.

              2.  But from the Antiquity of this Version its Divinity does not follow:  even if we should also admit the tradition of the Ancients concerning this Version, that is, with respect to its Beginning, which gave the occasion for the preparation of this Version, namely, the recommendation of Demetrios and the curiosity of the King; with respect to the Choice of the Translators, made by Eleazar; with respect to the Helps ἐμπειρίας τοῦ νόμου, of acquaintance with the law, and of expertise in both tongues; and also with respect to the solitary Place sought out for this work; all which savor of something human, rather than divine.

              3.  Apart from the fact that these and like circumstances were first obtained from the singular narration of Aristeas, whom our AUTHOR not without reason calls Pseudo-Aristeas:  for, a.  It is indeed able to be admitted that the Epistle of Aristeas, which is read to this day, is ancient enough, and perhaps reaches to the times of the Ptolemies in Egypt.  b.  That also the Greek Version of the Bible was prepared about those times at Alexandria, and was also brought to the Alexandrian Library of the Ptolemies.  c.  Nevertheless, not without reason do the Learned assign the tradition of Aristeas to the fables, fabricated by a Jewish Hellenist under the name of Aristeas, so that he might obtain greater authority for this Version.  Upon which matter, learned Men observe, a.  That that book by manifest indications argues a Jewish Writer, one also devoted to the Jewish rites; not a Greek Writer, embracing gentile superstition.  b.  That this Aristeas openly conflicts with other Historians of good faith; which is demonstrated both by many other instances, and also from this, that he is not able to be reconciled with the ancient manners and testimonies of the Jews, as Pseudo-Aristeas relates, following Josephus, page 20, and in the octavo Oxford edition, page 57, that ἐγγεγραμμένους τοὺς νόμους χρυσοῖς γράμμασι, the Law written with letters of gold was sent by the High Priest through the Elders.  Consult HODY’S Dissertationem contra Aristeam, chapter XIX, § 4, pages 284-286.  c.  That those vast expenses, which Ptolemy is said to have laid out in order to obtain the Law, undoubtedly smell like a fable:  see ARISTEAS’ Historiam LXXII Interpretum in octavo, pages 5-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21-30, 102.  Which things see, at length derived and confirmed by CARPZOV in his Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter II, pages 487-491:  compare TRIGLAND’S[24] Syllogen Dissertationum; Dissertationem de Librorum Apocryphorum Appellatione, § X, pages 24, 25.

              4.  Hence the various circumstances to learned Men remain so much the more Uncertain, in which ancient tradition also varies:  for example:

                             a.  With respect to the Time, in which the Version was prepared, whether under Ptolemy Lagus,[25] as it is in IRENÆUS, book III contra Hæreses, chapter XXV or XXI, page 215, cited by EUSEBIUS, book V Historia Ecclesiastica, chapter VIII, pages 173, 174; or under Philadelphus his son,[26] as it is everywhere related; while CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, as uncertain, hesitates between the two opinions, Stromata, book I, page 342; or under Ptolemy Lagus and Philadelphus at the same time, as it is furnished for gathering out of EUSEBIUS’ Historia Ecclesiastica, book VII, chapter XXXII, page 287.  And certainly this quarrel could be composed in such a way that this Version might be said to have been completed within that two years, in which Ptolemy Philadelphus reigned with his Father;[27] but this work was especially ascribed to Philadelphus, either because the management of the whole work was left by the Father to the prudence of Philadelphus, or because after the final departure of his Father the Version was carried on to its completion:  see HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum philologicum, book I, chapter III, section III, question 2, pages 285-288; VALESIUS’ Annotationes in Eusebii Historia ecclesiastica, book V, chapter VIII, page 94b; CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter II, § 3, pages 495, 496; BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VI, § 14, tome 2, pages 902b-904a.

                             b.  With respect to its first Extension, whether to all the Scripture, or unto the Law only? of which the first is affirmed by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius out of Aristobulus.  The latter is confirmed out of Aristeas, Josephus in the preface to his Jewish Antiquities, Jerome, and the Talmud of the Jews:  to what extent the testimonies of some may appear to vary or may be doubtful because of the broader or stricter acceptation of the word νόμου/Law, consult VALESIUS’ Annotationes in Eusebii Historia ecclesiastica, book V, chapter VIII, page 94b.  Now, the latter opinion, which maintains that at first only the Pentateuch was translated into Greek, appears to agree most nearly with the truth, if you attend to the conspicuous difference of style that is manifest between the Translators of the Pentateuch and of the remaining Books.  With which it agrees that, in the time of Ptolemy Lagus and Philadelphus, only the Mosaic Law was read publicly in the Synagogues; to which a public recitation of the Prophets was at last added under Ptolemy Philometor:[28]  see HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum philologicum, book I, chapter III, section III, question 6, pages 310-316; LAMBERT BOS’ Prolegomena in Versione LXX Interpretum, chapter I; CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter II, § 3, pages 497-500.

                             c.  “With respect to the Seventy-two Translators, sent to Ptolemy in equal number from all the tribes, with all the circumstances.”  Certainly that number is matched to the character of the Jews, and it betrays that the composition of Aristeas has, not a Gentile, but a Jewish author; while it relates that Demetrios of Phaleron was the proposer/ author to the King, that he send for Seventy-two elders at Jerusalem, six from each tribe:  whether that number was actually derived only from the number and distinction of the tribes, or at the same time was fabricated in accordance with the example of the Great Sanhedrin, which commonly was believed to have consisted of Seventy-two men.

See ARISTEAS’ Historiam LXXII Interpretum, pages 14, 16, which Seventy-two Interpreters, six chosen from each tribe, and sent by Eleazar the High Priest into Egypt, were also in that place reckoned by their names one after another, pages 19-21.

Out of the Jerusalem Talmud in tractate Sopherim, chapter I, § 7, opposite testimony is produced, where this Version is called, מעשה בחמשה זקנים, the work of Five Elders, who for Ptolemy transcribed the Law into Greek.  With regard to which the Learned sweat over the complex reconciliation of so diverse a number of Translators:  see CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter II, § 2, pages 491, 492; indeed, the Most Illustrious RELAND’S Antiquitates Hebræorum, part I, chapter X, § 9; and also the Most Illustrious BOS’ Prolegomena upon Versionem LXX Interpretum—Viralem, chapter I, verso *3:  they maintain that this Version was called the Septuagint—Viralem because, when it was completed, the Seventy Translators delivered the same to the Virali/Noble Alexandrian Sanhedrin to be reviewed and examined, by whom it would then be approved:  which was able to provide a surname to this Version, in much the same way that the Princes’ commendation of the New Dutch Version caused the name of Staten-Bybel to adhere to this Version.[29]  Consult NICOLAAS HINLOPEN’S[30] Historie van de Nederlandsche Overzettinge des Bybels, page 176.  From which opinion RICHARD SIMON, in his Historia critica Veteris Testamenti, book II, chapter II, page 191a, differs only in this, that in the place of the Alexandrian Sanhedrin he names that of Jerusalem, by which this Version was approved and hence thereafter denominated.  It would doubtlessly be safest at this point ἐπέχειν, to reserve judgment:  unless it might be agreeable at least to affirm this as certain, that the selection of elders from whatever tribe does not particularly agree with the condition of those times.  For, even if some from the other tribes were dwelling in Judea with the men of Judah and Benjamin; nevertheless, the remaining tribes were not rooted so distinctly in their ancient and ancestral seats, inasmuch as the greatest part of those tribes were already formerly deported, neither are they mentioned to have returned out of captivity into their own country in great numbers afterward; whence Elders are not related to have been received in equal number from each tribe into the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem in the time following the Babylonian Captivity:  consult HODY’S Dissertationem contra Aristeam, chapter XIX, § 2, pages 273-278.

              β.  If after all these things you should ask concerning the Divinity of this Version, 1.  Above we saw that collapse through the diverse circumstances, which occur in the narration of that Pseudo-Aristeas.  2.  Neither is faith in its Divinity supported, unless you without good reason believe the miraculous cirumstances of the preparation of this Version, for example, a.  That, within the space of seventy-two days, according to the number of Translators, this Version was completed.  b.  That the Seventy-two Translators were shut up in separate Cells, where each separately discharged the whole work of this Version within the aforementioned space of time.  c.  But that, when the Translations of all were thereafter compared among themselves, such and so marvelous a consent among all was discovered, that all to a man made use everywhere of the same phrases and words.  However,

              a.  Although the First of these concerning the swift preparation of this Version is found also in Aristeas, page 99, it is certain that such a work was not able to be completed within such a small amount of time; but, if the Translators enjoyed the inspiration of the divine Spirit, doubtlessly they would have been preserved immune from the commission of so many and so great errors, from which they are not able to be excused.  And, since the work of Aristeas was proscribed above as spurius, it deserves no further confidence among us in its narrations.

              b.  The Second, which is said concerning the seventy-two Cells, a.  Is opposed to the narration of Aristeas, pages 97-99, and Josephus; neither is it mention by Philo the Jew, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Eusebius, or others; who, when they relate the many miracles of this Version, would not have passed by those little lodgings, if they had believed that there really had been such.  b.  JEROME openly ridicules those Cells with greater frequency, for example, in his prologo in Pentateuchum, epistolam CI, opera, tome 3, page 14, he says, I do not know who was the first author to fabricate the lie of the Seventy cells in Alexandria, separated in which they wrote the same things:  since Aristeas, the ὑπερασπιστὴς/champion of the same Ptolemy, and Josephus much afterwards, relate no such thing:  but they write that they, congregated in one basilica, conferred, but prophesied not.  Whom the more learned among the Papists also follow in this matter.  AUGUSTINE, book II de Doctrina Christiana, chapter XV, opera, tome 3, part I, column 21, speaks doubtfully concerning this matter.  c.  And so this tradition is due to the fraud of the Egyptian Jews, who, so that they might obtain authority for their Version, added this fable to the rest; by whom JUSTIN MARTYR allows himself to be imposed upon, who in Parænesi ad Græcos, chapter XIII, opera, page 14, writes that the vestiges and rubble of these little dwellings, which survived, were shown to him on the island of Pharos[31] by the inhabitants:  whose narration CYRIL of Jerusalem, Catechesibus IV, chapter XXI, page 65, and some others, follow; and a quite similar tradition is found in the Jerusalem Talmud, see HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum philologicum, book I, chapter III, section III, question 8, page 320; CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter II, § 2, pages 491, 492.  d.  But EPIPHANIUS differs, who indeed makes mention of distinct Cells, libro de mensuris et ponderibus, chapter III, opera, tome 2, page 161, but he relates that two Translators were shut up in each; and so he maintains that there were only thirty-six little dwellings.

              c.  Finally, the Third, concerning the singular and altogether miraculous Consent of all the Translators among themselves, is indeed handed on by Philo the Jew, and is acknowledged by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others, many of whom hence prove the divine inspiration of this Version.  But, a.  this is an appendix of the fabricated tradition concerning the Seventy-two Cells; and, b.  it is manifestly opposed to the narration of Aristeas concerning the mutual comparison and disputation of the Translators congregated in one place, until finally in this manner they all agreed to one.  c.  Not without acumen is the conjecture of DANIEL HEINSIUS,[32] in which, in Aristarcho Sacro, chapter X, page 795, 796, he repeats the origin of this tradition from the Greek Version, Exodus 24:7; where in verse 7 Moses is said to have brought forth the book of the covenant, and to have read certain things from it before the people, which the Hellenists translate, καὶ λαβὼν τὸ βιβλίον τῆς διαθήκης ἀνέγνω, and, taking the book of the covenant, he read:  then in verse 9 ἑβδομήκοντα τῆς γερουσίας Ἰσραὴλ, seventy of the council of elders of Israel, are said to have gone up with Moses and others; when in verse 11 it follows, וְאֶל־אֲצִילֵי֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א שָׁלַ֖ח יָד֑וֹ, and upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand, in the place of this the Septuagint miraculously has, καὶ τῶν ἐπιλέκτων τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ οὐ διεφώνησεν οὐδὲ εἷς, and of the chosen of Israel not one disagreed.  And because it is said of them, οὐ διεφώνησεν οὐδὲ εἷς, not one disagreed, but the reading in the book of the covenant had preceded, hence he maintains that the exact ὁμόνοιαν/unanimity of these Translators was chiseled out.  And because the word אֲצִילִים/nobles occurring there also denotes κεχωρισμένους, or those separated; hence he thinks that the history concerning these Translators being separated from each other, and each translating the Law separately, derived its origin. Consult CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter II, § 2, pages 485, 486; HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum philologicum, book I, chapter III, section III, question 3, pages 292, 293, questions 8, 9, pages 318-327.

              γ.  Therefore, with those trifles dismissed, thus learned Men began to establish that the dispersion of the Jews among the Nations, under Alexander the Great and his successors, especially in Egypt and Asia, furnished the first occasion for the preparation of this Version; with the Greek language being used at that time everywhere, and hence not a few Jews forgetting by degrees the language of their country.  In order to assist them, pious and prudent men, whether under the public auspices of some Sanhedrin or only private, undertook about the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek speech.  That this was a work undertaken, not by Palestinian, but by Egyptian Jews, appears from the fact that the Alexandrian dialect is everywhere conspicuous in this Version.  But that at first only the Pentateuch was translated, inasmuch as its use was more constant and solemn, even because of the public reading of this alone in the Synagogues; from the manifest difference of style between the Translation of the Pentateuch and the other books, the Learned easily convince themselves.  Nevertheless, to these Books of Moses the rest also would have been gradually added, for from the times of Antiochus Epiphanes on the Prophets also began to be read publicly in Palestine; while the rites of the Palestinian Jews in worship the Egyptian Jews indiscriminately imitated.  But, lest this Greek Version of the Alexandrians should readily be set aside, they believe that the Hellenistic Jews alleged all those fables, received too eagerly by the Fathers by reason of their ignorance of the Hebrew tongue.  In which like things are asserted with our AUTHOR by CARPZOV in his Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter II, pages 492-500; and also by the Great SPANHEIM in his Historia Sacra Veteris Testamenti, epoch VIII, chapter VII, columns 424, 425; by BUDDEUS in his Historia Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VI, § 12, tome 2, pages 840, 841; by HODY in his de Bibliorum Linguis originalibus, Versionibus Græcis, etc.

              And so I would that everyone, for the sake of public opinion, would always abstain from the mention of the Septuagint; since we have now seen the entire trustworthiness of the Septuagint to totter exceedingly:  when this Version is to be cited, it is able to be called The Greek Version of the Old Testament κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, par excellence, or The Old Greek Version.  Which, although it is disgracefully stained with errors and polluted with fables, to the present day is not without its manifold uses, of which CARPZOV makes mention in his Criticis Sacris Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter II, § 10, pages 543-551; neither was it formerly of less utility, inasmuch as it was able to be said that it paved the way for the preaching of the Apostles, and in this Version the Gentiles, in a tongue known to them, were able to read those things that were preached by the Apostles, that were formerly preached by the Prophets:  while many that had already previously read the Books of Moses and of the Prophets, having in a certain measure been prepared in this manner, were more easily receiving what was announced by the Apostles.

[1] Pamphilus of Cæsarea (fourth century) was a presbyter of the church at Cæsarea.  He was teacher and colleague to Eusebius, and together they defended the orthodoxy of Origen.

[2] Eusebius is sometimes called Eusebius Pamphili.

[3] Aldus Pius Manutius (1449-1515) was a Venetian humanist and printer.

[4] Antonio Carafa (1538-1591) was an Italian Cardinal.  He was a collector of ancient manuscripts, and he served briefly as the Librarian of the Holy Roman Church.

[5] Published in 1657 by Brian Walton.

[6] Cyril of Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, gave Codex Alexandrinus to King James I for support in his political struggles.  James died before the manuscript reached England, so it was received by Charles.

[7] Seder Olam Zuta, compiled in the early Middle Ages (with a final redaction in 804), is a chronicle composed of two parts:  a record of the generations from Adam to Jehoiakim; and thirty-nine generations of Davidic exhilarchs, beginning with Jehoiachin.  Seder Olam Zuta asserts that, with the passing of Malachi, the age of prophecy ceased, and period of the wisemen began.

[8] Johannes Meier (1651-1725) was Professor of Theology and Oriental Languages at Harderwijk (1684-1725).

[9] Leonard Beels (1674-1756) was a Dutch Reformed minister.

[10] Masekhet Soferim (“The Tractate of the Scribes”) is one of the minor tractates from the Tannaitic period, dealing with topics for which there is no tractate in the Mishnah.  Soferim deals largely with the preparation of holy books, and regulations for the reading of the Law.

[11] The Megillat Taanit (composed in the first century AD) chronicles thirty-five glorious events in Jewish history, which were celebrated as feast days.

[12] Johann Benedict Carpzov II (1639-1699) was a Lutheran theologian and Hebraist.  He served at the University of Leipzig, first, as Professor of Moral Philosophy (1665-1668), then, as Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Languages (1668-1684), and, finally, as Professor of Theology (1684-1699).

[13] Humphrey Hody (1659-1707) was an English scholar and theologian, recognized for his expertise in the Septuagint.

[14] Thus Habakkuk 1:5.

[15] Thus Amos 9:12.

[16] Isaiah 53:4:  “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrowsאָכֵ֤ן) חֳלָיֵ֙נוּ֙ ה֣וּא נָשָׂ֔א וּמַכְאֹבֵ֖ינוּ סְבָלָ֑ם):  yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.”

[17] Lambert Danæus (c. 1530-1596) was a French minister and theologian.  He labored as a pastor and Professor of Divinity at Geneva, and then at Leiden.

[18] John Owen (1616-1683) sided with the Parliament during the Civil War.  However, he did not embrace the Presbyterianism of the Westminster Assembly, preferring Independency.  He won the esteem of Oliver Cromwell, and Cromwell made him Dean of Christ Church, Oxford (1651) and then Vice-chancellor (1652).  He lost the deanery at the Restoration.  After the Restoration, Owen would suffer the vicissitudes that accompanied his convictions, but his was the most persuasive and respected voice for Independency and toleration.

[19] Taco Hajo van den Honert (1666-1740) was a German Reformed Theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Leiden (1714-1740).

[20] See 1 Thessalonians 2:13.

[21] Aristobulus of Paneas (flourished c. 200 BC) was a Jewish philosopher, seeking to reconcile the Hebrew Scriptures and Greek philosophy.  He argues that the early Greek philosophers derived many of their philosophical concepts from the Hebrew Bible.

[22] John Weems (c. 1579-1636) was a Scottish minister and scholar.  In his studies and writings, he gave particular attention to the study of Hebrew and the history of Rabbinic thought, and was even favorable to allowing Jews to settle in Christian lands.

[23] Jacques Gousset (1635-1704) was a French Reformed philologist and theologian.  He studied under Louis Cappel at Saumur, and was ordained to the ministry at Poitiers.  He left France in 1685, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and served as Professor of Greek at Groningen (1691-1704).

[24] That is, Jacobus Trigland the Younger.

[25] Ptolemy I Soter I (c. 367-c. 283 BC) was one of Alexander the Great’s principal generals.  After Alexander’s death, Ptolemy became ruler of Egypt (323-283 BC), and progenitor of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt.

[26] Ptolemy II Philadelphus (309-246 BC) succeeded his father, Ptolemy Lagus, and reigned in Egypt from 283 to 246 BC.

[27] That is, c. 285-c. 283 BC.

[28] Ptolemy VI Philometor (c. 185-145 BC) reigned over Egypt from 180 to 145 BC.

[29] At the request of the Synod of Dort, the States-General of the Netherlands commissioned a new translation of the Scriptures into Dutch, the first from the original languages.  The Staten-Bybel was published in 1637.

[30] Nicolaas Hinlopen (1724-1792) was a civil servant at Hoorn.

[31] A small island, just off the coast of the Nile Delta’s western limit.

[32] Daniel Heinsius (1580-1655) was an eminent Dutch scholar.  He edited many Greek and Latin classical works, distinguished himself for his poetic talents, and contributed to the Elzevir edition of the Greek New Testament.