observer might be tempted to regard this as not strictly Hellenistic, since the same may be
noted, and indeed is much more consistently carried out, in the Targum of Onkelos. Perhaps
such alterations had even been introduced into the Hebrew text itself.37 But there is this vital
difference between Palestinianism and Alexandrianism, that, broadly speaking, the Hebrew
avoidance of anthropomorphisms depends on objective - theological and dogmatic - the
Hellenistic on subjective - philosophical and apologetic - grounds. The Hebrew avoids them as
he does what seems to him inconsistent with the dignity of Biblical heroes and of Israel. `Great is
the power of the prophets,' he writes, `who liken the Creator to the creature;' or else38 `a thing
is written only to break it to the ear' - to adapt it to our human modes of speaking and
understanding; and again,39 the `words of the Torah are like the speech of the children of men.'
But for this very purpose the words of Scripture may be presented in another form, if need be
even modified, so as to obviate possible misunderstanding, or dogmatic error. The Alexandrians
arrived at the same conclusion, but from an opposite direction. They had not theological but
philosophical axioms in their minds - truths which the highest truth could not, and, as they held,
did not contravene. Only dig deeper; get beyond the letter to that to which it pointed; divest
abstract truth of its concrete, national, Judaistic envelope - penetrate through the dim porch into
the temple, and you were surrounded by a blaze of light, of which, as its portals had been
thrown open, single rays had fallen into the night of heathendom. And so the truth would appear
glorious - more than vindicated in their own sight, triumphant in that of others!
35. The extravagant computations in this respect of Frankel (both in his work, Ueber d. Einfl. d. Paläst.
Exeg., and also in the Vorstud. z. Sept. pp. 189-191) have been rectified by Herzfeld (Gesch. d. Vol. Isr.
vol. iii.), who, perhaps, goes to the other extreme. Herzfeld (pp. 548-550) admits - and even this with
hesitation - of only six distinct references to Halakh oth in the following passages in the LXX.: Gen. ix. 4;
xxxii. 32; Lev. xix. 19; xxiv. 7; Deut. xxv. 5; xxvi. 12. As instances of Haggadah we may mention the
renderings in Gen. v. 24 and Ex. x. 23.
36. Dähne and Gfrörer have in this respect gone to the same extreme as Frankel on the Jewish side. But
even Siegfried (Philo v. Alex. p. 8) is obliged to admit that the LXX. rendering,
η δεγη ην αορατος ακαι κατασκευαστος Gen. i. 2), bears undeniable mark of Grecian philosophic
views. And certainly this is not the sole instance of the kind.
37. As in the so-called `Tiqquney Sopherim,' or `emendations of the scribes.' Comp. here generally the
investigations of Geiger (Urschrift u. Ueberse z. d. Bibel). But these, however learned and ingenious,
require, like so many of the dicta of modern Jewish criticism, to be taken with the utmost caution, and in
each case subjected to fresh examination, since so large a proportion of their writings are what is best
designated by the German Tendenz-Schriften, and their inferences Tendenz-Schlüsse. But the critic and
the historian should have no Tendenz - except towards simple fact and historical truth.
38. Mechilta on Ex. xix.
39. Ber. 31 b.
In such manner the LXX. version became really the people's Bible to that large Jewish world
through which Christianity was afterwards to address itself to mankind. It was part of the case,
that this translation should be regarded by the Hellenists as inspired like the original. Otherwise it
would have been impossible to make final appeal to the very words of the Greek; still less, to
find in them a mystical and allegorical meaning. Only that we must not regard their views of