History of the Jews (Vol. 1-6). Graetz Heinrich
to this, the translation was probably used as a guide for the interpreter on the Sabbaths and Holy Days, and it depended upon his taste, learning, and discretion to make what changes he pleased. And, in fact, the Greek text is full of additions and so-called emendations, which later on, in the time of the conflicts between Judaism and Christianity, became still more numerous, so that the original form of the translation cannot always be recognised in its present altered state. Nevertheless the Alexandrian Judæans of later generations believed so firmly in the perfection of this translation, that by degrees they deemed that the original could be dispensed with, and depended entirely upon the translation. Thus they came to look upon the mistakes which had crept into the Greek Bible either through ignorance, inability to cope with grammatical difficulties, or arbitrary additions, as the word of God, and things were taught in the name of Judaism which were entirely foreign or even contrary to it. In a word, all the victories which Judaism gained during the lapse of years over civilised heathendom, as well as all the misconstructions which it suffered, were the effects of this translation.
The great estimation in which this work was held by the Greek-speaking Judæans, and in time also by the heathens, gave rise to legendary glorifications, which were finally, about a century later, crystallised in a story which relates that the origin of the translation was due to the steps taken by Ptolemy Philadelphus, whose attention had been attracted to the value of the Book of the Law by his librarian Demetrius. Demetrius declared it worthy of a place in the Royal Library, provided it were translated into Greek. Thereupon the king sent his ambassadors to the high-priest Eleazar with costly presents, requesting him to choose several wise men, equally versed in Hebrew and in Greek, and to bid them repair to his court. The high-priest selected seventy-two learned men, taking representatives from the twelve tribes, six from each, and sent them to Alexandria, where they were received with great pomp by the king. The seventy-two delegates finished the translation of the Torah in seventy-two days, and read it aloud before the king and all the assembled Judæans. It was from this legend, looked upon till recently as an historical fact, that the translation received the name of the Seventy-two, or more briefly, of the Seventy, Septuagint.
A beginning having been made, it was natural that a desire should arise to render the other literature of Judaism accessible to Greek readers, and so, by degrees, the historical books of the Jews also appeared in a Grecian garb. On account of the greater difficulties they offered, the poetical and prophetical books were the last ones to find their way to the Greek world. These translations gave birth to a new art in the Egyptian community—that of pulpit oratory. Was it, perhaps, customary in Judæa, when the Law was read, not only to translate the portion into the language then in use among the people (the Chaldæan or Aramæan), but also to explain it for the benefit of the ignorant, and was this practice also introduced into the houses of prayer of the Egyptian Judæans? Or was it adopted by the latter because the Hebrew language had become foreign to them? However, whether it was an imitation or whether it originated with the Egyptian Judæans, this custom of translating and explaining obscure verses and portions not easily understood created a new art. The interpreters, with the fluency of speech derived from their work, were not satisfied with merely rendering the original text, but expanded it, adding reflections thereon, and drawing from it applications to contemporary events, and notes of admonition and warning. Thus out of the explanation of Scripture arose the sermon, which, in the Greek spirit of giving to all things an attractive and beautiful form, came by degrees artistically to be developed. Pulpit oratory is the child of the Alexandrian-Judæan community. It was born in its midst, it grew up and was perfected, becoming later a model for other nations.
The charm which the Hellenistic Judæans found in the Biblical writings, now made accessible to them, awoke among the learned the desire to treat of those writings themselves, to bring to light the doctrines contained in them, or to clear up their apparent crudities and contradictions. Thus arose a Judæo-Greek literature, which spread and bore fruit, influencing an ever-widening circle. But little is known of the infancy of this peculiar literature which held, as it were, two such repellent nationalities in close embrace. That literature appears also to verify past experience, that rhythmic and measured sentences are more pleasing than simple prose. There are still some fragments of these writings extant which relate, in Greek verse, the old Hebrew history. This literary activity re-awakened in Egypt the old anger of the Samaritans against the Judæans. These two peoples agreeing in their adherence to the Law, in their recognition of one God, and in their condemnation of idolatry, still retained their old hatred against each other. Although the Samaritans, like the Jews, were forced by the officers of Antiochus to renounce the worship of the God of Israel, yet they did not assist the Judæans to fight their common enemy, but rather sided with the latter against their own co-religionists.
During the religious persecutions many Samaritans appear to have emigrated into Egypt, and to have joined the descendants of their own tribe who had been established there since the time of Alexander. These Egyptian Samaritans had, like the Judæans, adopted the customs and the language of the Greeks which prevailed in Egypt, and now the enmity which had existed between the adherents of Jerusalem and of Gerizim was transferred to a foreign land, where they opposed each other with that furious zeal which co-religionists in a strange country are wont to exhibit in support of cherished traditions. The translation of the Torah into Greek, under the patronage of the king Philometor, appears to have cast the firebrand into their midst. How fiercely must the anger of the Samaritans have been provoked by the omission in the text of the Septuagint of that verse which they looked upon as a proof of the sanctity of their Temple, "Thou shalt build an altar in Gerizim"! The Samaritans in Alexandria desired to make a protest against the translation, or rather against the alleged falsification, of the text, and as some of their number were in favour at court, they induced the mild Philometor to appoint a conference between the two religious sects, at which the question of the superior sanctity of the Samaritan or of the Judæan Temple should be decided. This was the first religious dispute held before a temporal ruler. The two parties chose the most learned men among them as their advocates. On the side of the Judæans appeared a certain Andronicus, the son of Messalam, whilst the Samaritans had two champions, Sabbai and Theodosius. In what manner the religious conference was carried on, and what its consequences were, cannot now be ascertained, the accounts that have come down to us having assumed a legendary form; each party claimed the victory, and both exaggerated its effects. Religious disputations have never yet achieved any real results. The Judæan historians pretend that an arrangement had been made to the effect that it should be the right and the duty of the king to put to death those who were defeated in argument—a statement for which there is no foundation. When the Jewish advocates pointed out the long roll of high-priests from Aaron down to their own time who had officiated in the Temple at Jerusalem, and how that Temple had been enriched by holy gifts from the kings of Asia,—advantages and distinctions which the Temple at Gerizim could not boast, the Samaritans were publicly declared to be vanquished, and according to agreement they were put to death. The Samaritan accounts, which are of a much later date and more confused, ascribe the victory to their side.
This controversy respecting the superior sanctity of Jerusalem or Shechem was, it appears, carried on in Greek verse. A Samaritan poet, Theodotus, praised the fertility of the country round Shechem, and in order to magnify the importance of that city he related the story of Jacob, describing how he rested there; also the ill-usage which his daughter Dinah received from the young nobles of Shechem, and the revenge taken upon them by her brothers, Simeon and Levi. In opposition to Theodotus, a Judæan poet, Philo the Elder, exalted the greatness of Jerusalem in a poem. He extolled the fertility of the Judæan capital, and spoke of its ever-flowing subterranean waters, which were conducted through channels from the spring of the High Priest. The poet endeavoured to enhance the sanctity of the Temple in Jerusalem, which stood on Mount Moriah, on the summit of which Abraham had been about to offer up his son Isaac—an act which shed everlasting glory upon all his descendants.
Meanwhile, the sky which, during the reign of Philometor, had shone so brightly over the Judæans in Alexandria, became dark and threatening. It seemed as if the parent state and its offshoot were linked together for good or evil. Prosperous and adverse days appeared to visit the two communities almost in the same alternation. Through the misfortune of Jonathan, Judæa had fallen into adversity, and a new reign in Egypt had brought trouble and sorrow to the Judæans in Alexandria. That same Ptolemy VII. (Physcon),