A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

SEPTUAGINT. The Greek version of Scripture, which was received both by the Jews and the primitive Christians. The first account which we have of the origin of the Septuagint, is that which is given us by Aristeas. It is to this effect. Ptolemy Philadelphus, by the advice of Demetrius Phalereus, having determined to enrich his library at Alexandria with a translation of the books of the Jewish law, sent Aristeas, his minister, accompanied by Andrew, a person of celebrity, to Eleazar the high priest of the Jews, that he might obtain both a copy of the original, and persons duly qualified to render it into Greek. The request was complied with. A copy of the Mosaic law written in golden letters was sent, with seventy-two men, six from each tribe, to translate it. The translators, persons skilled both in Hebrew and Greek, were honourably received by the king of Egypt, and by him were sent to the isle of Pharos; and there, in the space of seventy-two days, they completed their work, mutually assisting each other, and dictating their translation to Demetrius. This version was afterwards read in an assembly consisting of Jewish priests and other learned men, and being stamped by their approbation, was placed in the library of Alexandria.

This account, given us by Aristeas, is sometimes appended to the editions of Josephus, and is also edited separately. It is worthy of remark, that in this description nothing of the marvellous is introduced, and it would clearly seem that the reference is to the Pentateuch, and to that only.

Josephus, in the twelfth book, s. 1, of his “Antiquities,” for the most part agrees with this account by Aristeas. But in the life of Moses, by Philo-Judæus, we find both variations and additions. Agreeing with Aristeas in his assertion, that certain learned Jews were sent from Jerusalem to Alexandria to translate the books of Moses, and that they were lodged by Ptolemy in the isle of Pharos, he tells us in addition, that all the translators were kept apart from each other; but that, notwithstanding this, their translations, upon comparison, were found exactly to correspond, as it were, by Divine inspiration. From Justin Martyr we find, that in his time the story was that the seventy-two translators were shut up each in a separate cell, where no intercourse could possibly take place; but that the translations, when produced, were found to agree not only in sense but verbally, not varying even in a single syllable. Here we certainly find a miracle implied; and in the time of Justin the story must have been well established, since he mentions his having seen the cells himself. With respect to the number of the cells, however, there must have been, as there easily might be, some uncertainty, for Epiphanius mentions only thirty-six. But the story had been made to shape itself according to the fact; and it was reported in his time, that, instead of a cell being allotted to each translator, two were shut up in each cell, who having been employed from sunrise till the evening, translated in order, not merely the Pentateuch, but each of the books of the Old Testament, and they so completed their work, that there was not to be found the slightest difference in any of the thirty-six versions; an astonishing harmony, in which a singular miracle of Divine providence could not fail to be traced.

Now, if to these statements implicit credit be given, the question is decided as to the miraculous origin and consequent inspiration of the Septuagint. But to these stories there are several obvious objections. We do not for a moment assent to the principle of that objection which is urged by the learned and candid Dupin, who, among the Romanists, is almost singular in opposing the Divine origin of the LXX., when he asks why there should be seventy-two translators when twelve would have sufficed? For this is the very spirit of rationalism: “I do not see why such should have been the case; and therefore it was not the case.” To such an objection the answer of the equally learned Dr. Brett, among Protestants the chief vindicator of the Divine origin of the Septuagint, is more than sufficient, when he urges that we might as well deny that, on our authorized English version, fifty-two persons were employed, when by twelve, or even by two, the work might have been accomplished. Nor would he insist, with Dean Prideaux, that the stories must be rejected, because the Septuagint is written in the Alexandrian dialect; and that, therefore, it could not have been effected, according to the supposition, by Jews sent from Judea; for there is no reason to suppose that the Greek spoken in Palestine was much different from that used in Egypt, that language having been introduced into both countries only about fifty years before by the same people—the Macedonians. Indeed, a comparison of the language of the New Testament with that of the Septuagint will disarm this objection of its force. We may, indeed, afford to give up another objection, which has very plausibly been urged, though its character is rationalistic, viz. that to collect six learned men from each tribe would have been difficult, if not impossible, the ten tribes having been dispersed after the taking of Samaria; for we know that many individuals belonging to these tribes were incorporated with the Jews, and there may have been means still left for distinguishing them. But, after all these allowances, there is strong internal evidence against these stories, arising from the difference of the manner and the style in which the several books are translated. In some the Hebraisms are said to preserved, in others not; some books (the Pentateuch for instance, the Proverbs, Ezekiel, Amos, Judges, Kings, and many of the Psalms) are well executed, while the translation of Isaiah is bad, and that of Daniel was so decidedly incorrect, that it was rejected by Origen, and its place supplied by the version of Theodotion. Now, is it probable that, if the Septuagint had been, according to the accounts already given, the work of the same men, at the same time, and acting under a miraculous inspiration, such very material difference should exist between the several books? Our own authorized version, though made by different persons, and though some of the books may be more correctly rendered than others, nevertheless preserves a uniformity of style which stamps it as being all the work of the same age. And the fact that this is not the case with respect to the Septuagint, is a presumption against its being the work of the same men living at the same time. And this is a consideration which prepares us to regard the external evidence with some suspicion. When, indeed, we look to the external evidence, we find that the authority which was at first assumed only for the Pentateuch is gradually assumed for all the books of the Old Testament. In Aristeas we read of no miracle: the miracle was evidently gradually introduced and enlarged upon, until subsequent writers believed it to be a fact. And we are always and most justly suspicious of a story which thus

“Mobilitate viget viresque acquirit eundo.”

Each successive writer has added to the marvellous. And we are, therefore, justified in deducting from the account each marvellous addition. And when we have done this, what is the result? We find the simple fact, that, about the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus, a translation into Greek of the Mosaic books was made by persons sent from Judea. We must indeed go a step further, and deduct from the original statement, the assertion that the translation was made “by the direction of Demetrius Phalereus;” for though Demetrius was in great credit at Alexandria till the death of Soter, he was, immediately after that event, “disgraced by Philadelphus, and perished in confinement.” We cannot, therefore, attribute more than the original suggestion to Demetrius. But that, with this necessary deduction, we may fairly admit this, or at least the historical fact that it embodies, appears from the improbability of these stories having no foundation, and from the fact that both Ælian (Var. Hist. iii. 17) and Plutarch (Opp. t. ii. p. 189) inform us that Demetrius was appointed by one of the Ptolemies to preside over the drawing up of a code of laws, and had advised his sovereign to collect all the books he could which treated of political subjects, and in which doctrines were laid down which even their most familiar friends would not dare to mention to kings. It derives strength also from the circumstance, that the Samaritans contended with the Jews for the honour of being the authors of the Septuagint; pretending that Ptolemy, having heard of the disagreement between the two nations, caused a translation to be made of the Samaritan copy of the Septuagint, which he preferred to the copy he received from Jerusalem. Although this story is not corroborated, it is not impossible that a collation of the two copies may have taken place, care having evidently been taken to procure as good a version as possible. It may be proper to mention, that by Clemens Alexandrinus and by Eusebius, a quotation from an Alexandrian Jew and Peripatetic philosopher named Aristobulus has been preserved, in which he affirms that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was in existence anterior to the Septuagint, of which Plato and other Greek philosophers availed themselves. That some small portions of the ancient Scriptures may have been translated is far from impossible; but we cannot attach any weight to the unsupported testimony of a person who lived only 176 years before the Christian æra, and adduced in support of what was at the time a favourite theory with the Jews. His testimony, however, is of some importance, as proving that the Greek version of the Old Testament, which was then in use, was universally referred to the age of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

After taking into consideration all these various circumstances, all that we can satisfactorily say of the Septuagint is, that the Mosaic books were translated into Greek about 285 years before Christ, to which the other books were added from time to time, especially when, on occasion of the prohibition by Antiochus Epiphanes to read the law, the prophets used to be read publicly in the synagogues, and on the restoration of the law became “a second lesson.” It is generally admitted that the work was completed in the main parts prior to the middle of the second century, before the birth of our Saviour; that it was used as a sort of authorized version by the Jews of Alexandria, and by the Hellenistic Jews in general; and that as such it is expressly quoted nearly eighty times in the writings of the New Testament, being indirectly referred to much more frequently. And thus, to adopt the very beautiful and pious language of Dr. Lightfoot, “the greatest authority of this translation appeareth in that the holy Greek of the New Testament doth so much follow it. For as God useth this translation as a harbinger to the fetching in of the Gentiles, so when it was grown into authority by the time of Christ’s coming, it seemed good to his infinite wisdom to add to its authority himself, the better to forward the building of the Church. And admirable it is to see with what sweetness and harmony the New Testament doth follow this translation sometimes beside the Old, to show that he who gave the Old can and may best expound it in the New.”—Works, iv. 32. See Owen on the Septuagint: Hodius de Bib. Textibus Originalibus.

SEPTUM. The enclosure of the holy table, made by the altar rails.

SEPULCHRE. A niche, generally at the north side of the altar, used in the scenic representations of our Saviour’s burial and resurrection, on Good Friday and Easter, before the Reformation, and representing our Lord’s tomb, is called the Holy Sepulchre. It is sometimes quite plain, sometimes gorgeously adorned; the general subjects, where it is much decorated, being the Roman soldiers sleeping, on the base, and angels censing at the top. There is a remarkably fine series of these in the churches of Lincolnshire, and in Lincoln cathedral, perhaps the most beautiful in the kingdom.

SEQUESTRATION. This is a separating the thing in controversy from the possession of both the contending parties.