"cited." And is ninety an improbable Age for a Man to live? Muft not a Man be at a Lofs for Argument that ufes fuch a one as this a Who has lived in the World that has not feen or heard of a Man ninety Years old, or more? The 188th Year of the Era of Contracts, the Dean tells us, was 152 Years after the Verfion of the LXX was! made. Ariflobulus was then ninety Years old, confequently born about. fixty-two Years after that Verfion was made; and as Greck was his Mother-Tongue, and he a few, bred to the Reading of the Scriptures, he must know by the Time he was ten or twelve Years old, whether the Jews had all the Scriptures in the Greek Language or not; and before he was twenty, might have Opportunity to fee that Copy which was repofited in the Mufaum. This will make but about eighty Years from the Time of making the Tranflation of this LXX.

Now the Dean places the making the Tranflation to the eighth Year of Philadelphus, 277 before Chrift. Ariftobulus was capable of examin ing this Tranflation fo far as to know what Books were tranflated within eighty Years after, and he tells us they were all the Holy Scriptures. Thefe eighty Years fubtracted from 277, bring down Ariftobulus's Teftimony to the Year before Chrift 197. This was at least ten Years before Antiochus Epiphanes prohibited the reading of the Law in the Jewish Synagogues, which brought them to the Cuftom of reading the Prophets in their Synagogues of Judea. From whence the Dean fuppofes the Alexandrian Jews took up that Cuftom alfo; and then, and not till then, tranflated the Reft of the Scriptures intà.Greek, haring only a Tranflation of the Law until that Time. But the pofitive Teftimony of Ariftobulus fully refutes the Conjecture.

But another Objection is," If he had been Præceptor to Ptolemy Phyfcon, how came it to pafs, that he fhould dedicate his Book of "Commentaries on the Law of Mofes to Ptolemy Philometer, who reigned before Physcon ?" If we could give no Reason for this, it is certainly a very weak Argument to prove a Book to be fpurious, because the Author has dedicated. it to one Man, and we think be fhould rather have dedicated it to another. Do we know what private Reafons an Author has to choose one Man for his Patron, rather than another? And fuppofe we could not at this Distance of 2000 Years tell why Ariftobulus dedicated, his Book to Philometer rather than to Phy/con, would that be any Reason to reject it as fpurious? A Man must be at a great Lofs for Arguments, who ufes fo weak a one as this, Yet even at this Distance Reafons may be given why Ariftobulus chofe, to dedicate to Philometer rather than to Phyfcon, notwithstanding Phyfcon had been his Pupil. For, in the firft Place, it is moft reafonable to believe that Ariftobulus wrote his Book before he was seventy Years of Age, until which Time Phyfcon reigned only in Lybia and Cyrene, and Philometer reigned in Egypt, where Ariftobulus lived: And it is more likely that a Man would choose to dedicate to his own King, than to a King of another Nation. And in the next Place, though Phyfcon had been Pupil to Ariftobulus, yet he proved fuch a cruel and vicious Tyrant, that Ariftobulus might very well have more Respect for his Brother than for him.

Another Objection is, " As to what he is faid to have written in

thofe Commentaries, of there being a Greek Verfion of the Law be"fore that of the LXX, and that the Greek Philofophers borrowed "many Things from thence, it looks all like Fiction." I grant it to have been a miftaken Conjecture. Ariftobulus in reading the Greek Philofophers, particularly Pythagoras, who lived before the Rife of the Perfian Empire, and Plato, who lived before Alexander the Great, had faid many Things which, he conceived, they could learn only from the Holy Scriptures; this induced him to think that fome Parts of the Scriptures must have been tranflated into Greek before their Time: But confidering, as the learned Dean rightly observes, that "The "Light of Reafon, or elfe Tradition, might have led them to the say"ing of many Things, efpecially in moral Matters, which accord

with what is found in the Writings of Mofes; and if not, yet there "were other Ways of coming at them without such a Verfion. Con"verfe with the Jews might fuffice for it, and particular Inftruction "might be had from fome of their learned Men for this Purpose: "And fuch, Clearchus tells us, Ariftotle had from a learned few in the "Lower Afia." Ariftobulus thought not of thefe Reafons, and from thence was drawn into a groundless Conjecture. But becaufe a wrong Argument, and from thence a wrong Conclufion, appears in a Book, does it therefore follow that it must be fpurious, and not belong to the Author whofe Name it bears? If this be an Argument to reject a Book, and condemn it as fpurious, what human Writing can efcape? But though Aristobulus has made fuch a Mistake in what he has written concerning ancient Times, he has given us no Reason to question the Truth in Matters wherein he could not be mistaken. He could not but know whether all the Scriptures of the Old Teftament were translated into Greek before he was born: And as he was born but fixty Years after the LXX Tranflation was made, the Tradition concerning that Tranflation was of fo short a Date, that no Man bred to Learning, as he was, could be imposed upon, and made believe, that the LXX did tranflate the whole Scriptures, if they had tranflated the Law only. As foon as he could read, he faw the whole Scriptures written in Greek; when he was admitted into the Museum, he saw them in the Library, and was informed by his Tutors who they were that tranflated them. They, queftionless, were fome of them old Men, who if they were not theinfelves of an Age to remember the Making of the Verfion, yet might be just born at the Time it was made: And therefore as foon as they could read, could not but know whether they had only the Law in Greek. And if they had the reft of the Scriptures alfo, no Doubt but the LXX tranflated the Whole. These Men could not be deceived in the Matter, and from them Ariftobulus had his Information.

I know the learned Dean and others fuppofe Ariftobulus to have taken his Account of this Matter from Arifteas; That Book, it feems, fays he, having been forged before his Time. Now that the Book which bears the Name of Arifteas was forged by an Hellenistical Jew, I do not dispute : But that it was forged before the Time of Ariftobulus, I deny. For Men dare not offer fuch Forgeries to the World while there are living Witnefies to contradict them; and there were certainly many fuch

living

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 Arifteas? He only tells us, as Arifteas 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 Arifleas and feveral others afterwards added many fabulous Circumftances. For Du Pin, no Friend to the general ancient Opinion of the 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 leaft not publifhed in Writing before his Time. But Ariftobulus fpeaks 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 Prifon, because he had endeavoured to perfuade Ptolemy Lagus, the Father of Philadelphus, to fettle the Succeffion 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 Tranflation made in the Reign of Philadelphus. This Story Diogenes Laertius tells from one Hermippus. But the fame Diogenes alfo tells us that Sotion, in his Epitome of Succeffions, lays Demetrius only counfelled Lagus not to make any Son King fo long as he lived; faying, "Ay a dus où x. Which Counfel, as it expreffed no ill Will to Philadelphus, could not be greatly refented by him, at least no more than might cafily 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 fo weak an Authority to reject the Teftimony of fo many Jewish and Chriftian 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 firft 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 Platonist: Their Notions were therefore different, and for that Reason Philo might not make Ufe of him. Jofephus was an Hiftorian, whose 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 fpeak of the Tranflation of the LXX, yet as Jofephus fuppofed Arifteds to be genuine,

་་*

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

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 hiftorica! Matters fay in one Book the contrary to what they have wrote in another. The moft 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 Eufebius, when they had Ariftobulus before them, and read how he addreffed himfelf to the King in his Dedication, faying, The whole Interpretation of the Law was made under King Philadelphus your Ancestor, they rightly fpoke 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 fpoken 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 Philometer, might very well think him the fame with the Ariftobulus fpoken of 2 Maccab. i. 10.

There is no Miftake therefore made by Clemens and Eufebius, when they speak of Arijisbulus as living under, and dedicating his Commentary to, Ptolemy Philometer, as appears by the Words of Ariftobulus himfelf, which Eufebius cites from him: And therefore their putting him down under Ptolemy Philadelphus must be looked upon as fuch a Miftake as a Man may eafily commit in a large Work. But I must obferve that Clemens does not fay (whatever Eufebius may have done, whofe Book De Præparatione I have not to confult) that Aristobulus_dedicated his Book to Philadelphus and his Father, as the Dean reprefents him to have. done. His Words are, ̓Αςιτοβούλῳ δὲ τῷ κατὰ Πτολεμαῖον geyorótı töv Pinadéxpor, that is, Ariftobulus, who was at, in, or with Ptolery 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 he is mentioned by him who epitomized the Acts of the Maccabees. However, the Mistake here might eafily proceed from the Carelefnefs of a Tranfcriber, who might eafily write Philadelphus for Philometer, the three firft 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 firft 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 Jew as Ariftobulus in the Court of Philometer and Phyfcon: I cannot therefore be of the learned Dean's Opinion, that all these Things put together create a juft Sufpicion, that the Commentaries of Ariftobulus were forged under his Name by fome Hellenistical Jew long after the Date they bear: Confequently he is a good Witness of the Tranflation of the whole Old Teftament out of Hebrew into Greek by feventy-two Interpreters in the Time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, which was the unanimous Belief of Jews and Chriftians 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 Queftion about it.

There is no Reafon why we fhould not believe that these feventytwo 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 deftroyed by Antiochus Epiphanes, remained then in the Temple, from which they might, and no Doubt did, take a moft 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 Tranflation 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 Christians. was read in all the Synagogues of the Jews in all thofe Parts of the World where the Greeks and Macedonians had fpread their Language; even in Judea and Jerufalem itself the Scriptures were read in diverfe Synagogues, not in the Hebrew, but in the Tranflation of the LXX: Our Saviour and his Apoftles, as appears from the New Teftament, 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 several Tranflations into other Languages were made immediately from it, the Original Hebrew not being confulted.

It

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 Christian, 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 Tranflation of the Old Teftament into Greek, in Oppofition to the LXX, tranflating many Paffages concerning the Melfiah otherwife than they had been rendered by the LXX, that they might not be applied to the Holy

Jesus.