This Translation in ancient times was of great authority, by this many of the Heathens received some notions of the Creation and the mighty works of God; This in express terms is often followed by the Evangelists, by the Apostles, and by our Saviour himself in the quotations of the Old Testament. This for many years was used by the Jews themselves, that is, such as did Hellenize and dispersedly dwelt out of Palestine with the Greeks; and this also the succeeding Christians and ancient Fathers observed; although there succeeded other Greek versions, that is, of _Aquila_, _Theodosius_ and _Symmachus_; for the Latin translation of _Jerom_, called now the Vulgar, was about 800 years after the Septuagint; although there was also a Latin translation before, called the Italick version. Which was after lost upon the general reception of the translation of Saint _Jerom_ [SN: Præfat. in Paralipom.]. Which notwithstanding (as he himself acknowledgeth) had been needless, if the Septuagint copys had remained pure, and as they were first translated. But, (beside that different copys were used, that _Alexandria_ and _Egypt_ followed the copy of _Hesychius_, _Antioch_ and _Constantinople_ that of _Lucian_ the Martyr, and others that of _Origen_) the Septuagint was much depraved, not only from the errors of Scribes, and the emergent corruptions of time, but malicious contrivance of the Jews; as _Justin Martyr_ hath declared, in his learned dialogue _Tryphon_, and _Morinus_ hath learnedly shewn from many confirmations.

[Sidenote: De Hebræi et Græci textus sinceritate.]

The Works of Sir Thomas Browne (Volume 2 of 3) — Part 182

Whatsoever Interpretations there have been since, have been especially effected with reference unto these, that is, the Greek and Hebrew text, the Translators sometimes following the one, sometimes adhering unto the other, according as they found them consonant unto truth, or most correspondent unto the rules of faith. Now however it cometh to pass, these two are very different in the enumeration of Genealogies, and particular accounts of time; for in the second intervail, that is, between the Flood and _Abraham_, there is by the Septuagint introduced one _Cainan_ to be the son of _Arphaxad_ and father of _Salah_; whereas in the Hebrew there is no mention of such a person, but _Arphaxad_ is set down to be the father of _Salah_. But in the first intervail, that is, from the Creation unto the Flood, their disagreement is more considerable; for therein the Greek exceedeth the Hebrew, and common account almost 600 years. And 'tis indeed a thing not very strange, to be at the difference of a third part, in so large and collective an account, if we consider how differently they are set forth in minor and less mistakable numbers. So in the Prophesie of _Jonah_, both in the Hebrew and Latin text, it is said, Yet forty dayes and _Ninevy_ shall be overthrown: But the Septuagint saith plainly, and that in letters at length, τρεῖς ἡμέρας that is, yet three dayes and _Ninevy_ shall be destroyed. Which is a difference not newly crept in, but an observation very ancient, discussed by _Austin_ and _Theodoret_, and was conceived an error committed by the Scribe. Men therefore have raised different computes of time, according as they have followed their different texts; and so have left the history of times far more perplexed than Chronology hath reduced.

The Works of Sir Thomas Browne (Volume 2 of 3) — Part 182