In the third place, we observe that these translations and the collection of them, (ovvayoor) were accomplished before the time of Christ. Proof of this is supplied in the fact of the citation of them by the Lord, by the Apostles, and by the Evangelists, when they have occasion to quote the Old Testament. From these observations, I conceive we shall easily arrive at the truth of the inquiry in hand. The diligence of the Jews in the study of their sacred books is too well known to need extended proof. They read no other books but their own, and upon these they expended no little application. Men, women, the aged and the young, soldiers, artificers, doctors, all, of every condition, were in the habit of frequently perusing the sacred Scriptures in their own, that is, the Hebrew tongue. But after the Babylonian captivity, the Scriptures were rendered into Chaldee for the common use. Afterward, when by means of Alexander's dominion the Greek language had extended its sway to the East, and came to be taken up in Judea, then either for their own private use, or for the sake of others, certain of the Jews began to turn this and the other book into the vulgar tongue, the Greek, as we read that the son of Sirach did, who translated the Book of Ecclesiasticus into Greek, according to the statement in his prologue: "I therefore thought it good and necessary both myself to add some diligence, and the labor of interpreting this book." So also did Lysimachus the Book of Esther, as Calmet satisfactorily proves. The number of these versions was increased after Judas Maccabeus had carefully sought out the books that had been saved from the impotent rage of Antiochus Epiphanes, and had them bound in a volume: especially, as from that period Hellenism struck such deep root in Judea, as we have proved above. (Part I. chap. ii.

13: Part III. chap i. § 3.) As they then spoke and wrote Greek, and this was the language in common use, many private persons began to turn the Sacred Books into the

1 Calmet, Proleg. ad Librum Esther, p. 462.

2 Lib. 2 Machabæorum, c. 2.

vulgar tongue, so that in a short time various versions of the several books sprang into existence, precisely in the same way as, in the early ages of the church, when the Latin language flourished in the West, many translations of the Greek books. of the New Testament were made into Latin, as Augustine reports: "Whenever a Greek Codex came into the hands of any one in early times, who had ever so small a portion of knowledge of either tongue, he straightway attempted a translation." Just so do I conceive it to have happened in Judea, when the Greek prevailed to such an extent after the age of the Maccabees, that a number of Greek translations were made by private hands. Then were executed in Greek, versions of the books of Judith, Tobias, Job, Chronicles, and many others which we now have, the certainty of their execution by private individuals being proved by our utter ignorance of the names and circumstances of their authorship.

From the period, however, in which the Chaldee tongue began to fall into disuse, and the people ceased to understand it as well as the Hebrew, as amid such a host of Greek versions many would be wanting in the qualities of fidelity and neatness, the greater Sanhedrim I conceive would take care to collect into one volume for the use of the commons, the most approved translations of the several books, or rather perhaps would stamp with their approbation some collection already made by some private person, appoint it to be read in the Synagogues, and thus it would naturally receive the sanction of Christ, and fall into use with the apostles and the Catholic Church. But as this greater Sanhedrim (by whose approbation it was received, or by whose permission it was used in public) consisted of 70 or 72 elders, hence it came to pass that this particular collection came to be known as that of the 70 elders, as Simon has very happily conjectured. Here then is the origin of the fable of the 70 interpreters, namely that this translation came forth under the sanction of the college of 70, and thus made its way into common use. But long after this

event, some short time posterior to Christ, (a period but too fertile in spurious writings,) some few, finding that the history of this collection had never been made public, made this bold invasion upon truth, and to increase the glory of his nation forged the tale of Aristeas. Enough has been said to explain the time, place, and circumstances of this celebrated translation, and to show the ground on which the Pseudo-Aristeas built his fanciful story.

§ VI. You are now, gentle reader, in possession of what has occurred to me in the shape of observation and argument in support of my novel opinion up to this period. If any thing should appear to thee imperfectly wrought out, and scarcely in harmony with the rigid requirements of criticism, whatever fails to commend itself to thee in approval of this exercitation, pardon: bethinking thee of the poverty of our human genius, as well expressed by Tully: Nihil esse simul et inventum et perfectum.

LICENSES.

Illustriss. ac Reverendiss. Dominus D. Salvator Filucci Can. hujus Metropolitanæ Eccl. S. Th. Prof. et Curiæ Archiep. Exam. Synodalis revideat, et in scriptis referat. Datum die 27, Decembris, 1766.

PHIL. EP. ALLIFANVS, VIC. GEN.
JOSEPH SPARAnvs, Can. Dep.

EMINENTISSIME PRINCEPS,

Eminentiæ tuæ jussu "Dominici Diodati Exercitationem," quæ est "De Christo Græce loquente," cum ea, quæ par erat diligentia evolverim; tum nihil, quod aut bonis moribus, aut catholicæ fidei absonum reperi. Quin gratulandum huic juveni est, quem licet non sit ex Ecclesiasticorum ordine, cum juris scientia socias fecisse sanctorum voluminum scientiam, atque orientalium linguarum peritiam, atque ad communem Christianorum utilitatem, ac quæstum tot sæculorum intercapedine ignotam hanc sacræ historiæ potissimam, ac principem partem sane quam erudito commentario, et evidentissimorum monumentorum ac rationum ope aperuisse, ingentemque nomini suo famam conquisivisse. Quare quantocius usuræ publicæ libellum hunc faciendi libenter danda est potestas. Neapoli, die 15 Februarii, 1767.

SALVATOR CANONICUS FILUCCI.

Attenta relatione Domini Revisoris imprimatur. Datum die 19 mensis Februarii, 1767. PHIL. EP. ALLIFANVS, VIC. GEN. JOSEPH SPARANvs, Can. Dep.

Adm. Rev. D. Januarius Giordano in hæc Regia Studiorum Universitate Professor revideat, et in scriptis referat. Datum Neapoli, die 1 Augusti, 1766. NIC. EPISC. PUT. CAP. MAJOR.

ILLUSTRISS. ET REVERENDISS. DOM.

Perlegi librum, cujus epigraphe est 'De Christo Hellenista Exercitatio Auctore Dominico Diodati;" atque ex ejus lectione summam animo voluptatem cepi. Nihil in eo reperi, quod vel bonis moribus, vel Augusti Regis Nostri sacro-sancto juri noceat. Præterea acre ingenium, ingentem eruditionem, styli elegantiam, et Latinæ, Græcæ, Hebraicæque, &c. linguæ scientiam, ostendit hic Auctor supra ætatem suam, et supra opinionem omnium; novamque de Christo Hellenista sententiam exquisitis argumentis tuetur, atque confirmat. Equidem nova sententia multos excitare solet adversarios; sed hoc commodum rei literariæ accidit, ut collatis cognitisque utriusque partis argumentis veritas facile eruatur atque affulgeat. Quare hunc librum, ex quo magna utilitas processura est, publicis typis edi posse puto, si idem tibi arriserit. Neapoli XI. Kal. Jan. an. 1767.

Obsequentissimus, tibique Addictissimus,

JANUARIUS GIORDANO, SAC. CAN. ANT. REG.

Die 18 mensis Februarii, 1767, Neap.

Viso Rescripto Suæ Regalis Majestatis sub die 7 currentis mensis et anni, ac relatione Rev. D. Januarii Giordano, de commissione Rev. Regii Cappellani Majoris ordine præfatæ Regalis Majestatis ;

Regalis Camera Sanctæ Claræ providet, decernit, atque mandat, quod imprimatur cum inserta forma presentis supplicis libelli, ac approbationis dicti Rev. Revisoris; verum in publicatione servetur Regia Pragmatica hoc suum.

GAETA.
DE FIORI.

VARGAS MACCIVCCA.

Ill. Marchio Citus Præses S. R. C. et Ill. Caput Aulæ Dux Perrelli, tempore subscriptionis impediti.

Reg. fol. 127 t.

CARULLI.
ATHANASIUS.

ARTICLE VIII

REPLY TO MR. WILSON'S REVIEW OF COMMON SCHOOL HISTORIES.

In the July number of the Repository, there is a criticism on American Common School Histories, by a gentleman, who, being about to publish one himself, very naturally seeks to destroy public confidence in his rivals, and that the most strenuously where the most annoyance is apprehended.

Mrs. Willard's Histories of the American Republic, especially the abridged one, appears to have received this distinction. These works have been commended by those who have used them, for the diffusive glow of patriotic, moral, and religious feeling which pervades them. On this point, Mr. Wilson has said nothing. The only fact of any consequence, in which he accuses Mrs. Willard of error,' is where she asserts that the territory first discovered by the Cabots was Newfoundland. Here Mrs. Willard is right, and Mr. Bancroft, whom Mr. Wilson follows, in a different statement, is in error. That Mrs. Willard's assertion is correct, is shown from the name "Prima Vesta," given to the island at the time of its discovery, and never changed; and also, by the concurrent testimony of all historians since, until within the last twenty years; when the specious writer of a "Memoir of Sebastian Cabot," in making a furious attack on Hackluyt's history, undertook to unsettle this point. But this writer has been conclusively answered, (and probably since Mr. Bancroft penned the first part of his history,) by Mr. Tytler, the well known author of the "History of Scotland."

Mr. Wilson asserts that Mrs. Willard pursues in her history the synchronistic method of arrangement, which, as he says, is unsuited to the purposes of instruction. Mrs. Willard does not pursue this method, neither does she confine herself to the ethnographical, but, after a clearly defined plan, she unites both, with a view to avoid the inconveniences and combine the excellences of each.

Mr. Wilson makes great account of the confusion of dates, which he says all English and American histories have fallen into, from the exchange of old style to new and he is at a loss to account for the indifference of later writers to the sub

ject. We suppose the true reason of this to be, that the time when this confusion occurs, is now so distant, that they have

We make no account of Mr. W.'s grave comments on the accidental exchange of the word east for west, by which he infers an attempt to show that Delaware was settled in New Jersey.