36.

AN APOLOGY FOR THE

SEPTUAGINT.

Av «

AN APOLOGY FOR THE SEPTUAGINT, \

IN WHICH ITS CLAIMS TO BIBLICAL

AND CANONICAL AUTHORITY ARE

BRIEFLY STATED AND

VINDICATED.

BY E. W. GRINFIELD, M. A.

EDITOR OF THE HELLENISTIC GREEK TESTAMENT.

LONDON:

WILLIAM PICKERING.

1850.

RIMA et omnium antiquissima est nobilis ilia LXX Seniorum (Versio), ex Hebrseo in Grsecum sermonem traducta, sub Ptolemseo Philadelpho, annis ante Christum 277. Quse, non sine spe- ciali Dei Providentia facta est in linguam om nium latissime per orbem propagatam : ut, ante ortum Solis Jus- titiae, quasi Prodromus, orbem tenebris immersum aliquo modo illustraret; et viam pararet pro adventu Salvatoris, qui, pulsis errorum tenebris, omnes gentes radiis Evangelii illuminavit.

Walton. Proleg. v. § 4.

Hoc tempore, quo tanta auctoritas LXX. Interpp. erat attributa, vixit Christus ipse, Apostoli, Apostolorum successores. Apos- toli, qui et Hebraice et Greece loqui noverant, cum Greece scri- berent hac interpretatione usi sunt. Successores Apostolorum et suppares, qui Graece tantum loquebantur, sola hac versione utebantur; qui Latine, hujus Latina interpretatione. Hujus auc- toritate freti, Hellenistas et 2f|3ojU£vouc ad Christianam fidem convertebant. S. Barnabas, opinor, ut et S. Paulus, et Hebrseo et Grseco Codice utebatur; S. autem Clemens, hujus discipulus, Grseco tantum, cujus Versionis plurimas pericopas una nobis Epistola conservavit. Reliqui Graaci Patres Latinique Grseca sola utebantur, aut ejus Versione Latina.

Grabii Proleg. torn. ii. § 19.

INTRODUCTION.

HIS " Apology " may be regarded as a natural sequel to my Hellenistic Edition of the Greek Testament. Whilst acting as an editor, I felt it my duty, to abstain strictly from all general and argumentative reasoning. Trusting solely to the value and amount of the copious materials compiled from the LXX. I never presumed to interpose any comments or observations of my own. A¥hatever of comment or illustration may be found in that Edition, is always stated in the words and language of others.

But the time has arrived, when I may venture to break silence, and give vent to thoughts, which have been long brooding. After such a long and continuous study of the Septuagint, it was natural, that I should have come to some clear and definite conclusion, concerning its Scriptural and Canonical authority. It was not a conclusion formed hastily, nor did it result

viii INTRODUCTION.

from any previous conviction of its universal reception in the primitive Church. It crept on from chapter to chapter, and from year to year. It grew up with thousands, and tens of thou sands of incidental resemblances. I gradually ascertained, that, almost every quotation in the New Testament, was either literally, or substan tially, taken from the LXX. that it was perpetually present to the minds of the Evangelists and Apos tles, nay, that, where I had least expected to find it, the Apocalypse, even there, it constituted the entire staple of thought and expression.

The inevitable inference I could not avoid,— that the authenticity of the New Testament is bound up with the authenticity of this Greek ver sion of the Old — that it stands pledged, not only for its general truth and historic authenticity, but, for its Scriptural and canonical authority.

The New Testament, I felt, was not to be treated, in this respect, like any merely human record. As the immediate offspring of the Divine Spirit, it claims to be so far inspired in its language, as to admit of no material mistake, or error. By its continual appeal to the Greek version of the LXX. it necessarily raises that version, to its own standard. To cite from an uninspired version, thus frequently and statedly,

INTRODUCTION. ix

be to forfeit and annul its own claim to )lenary Inspiration.

This conviction was so impressed on my mind, ;hat, even had no supplementary evidence arisen, [ should have felt it my duty to have laid the result before the public. But, meeting with some recent publications on the Canon, in which, this position was not only controverted, but treated as if it were monstrous and incredible; I was led to take a calm review of all the ecclesiastical facts, belonging to the history of the LXX. — The result of that enquiry, I now most respectfully submit to the judgment of the Christian Church.

As the materials of this " Apology " are too miscellaneous, to admit of the usual formality of a Table of Contents, let me request the reader, to accept the following brief analysis of the argu ment :

1st. That, this Version of the Hebrew Scrip tures was made between two and three centuries, before the Christian era, and that no other version existed before that era.

2nd. That, it was made at a period, when the Hebrew language had suffered much decay, when it was no longer vernacular in Palestine, and had ceased to be understood, by the Jews of "the Dispersion/'

x INTRODUCTION.

3rd, That, this Version was made by Jews of the Dispersion, living at Alexandria, and com posed in that peculiar style of Greek, in which the New Testament was subsequently written.

4th. That, it was universally received by the Hellenists, or Jews of the Dispersion, as authori tative and canonical, being publickly used in their Synagogues, both before and after the Christian era.

5th. That, Jesus was instructed from his child hood, in the knowledge of the Septuagint, the Hebrew text being altogether unknown in Galilee.

6th. That, all his disciples were Galileans and Hellenists, possessing no knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, before the miraculous gift of tongues.

7th. That, Christ and the Apostles, in their references to the Old Testament, make their prin cipal citations in the words of the LXX. and occasionally, where it differs from the Hebrew text.

8th. That, the believing Hellenist Jews were the first converts to Christianity, and constituted the earliest members of the Christian Church.

9th. That, the unbelieving Hellenists continued to use this version, till, pressed by authorities drawn from the LXX. they made (A. D. 200 — 300) the Jewish versions of Aquila, Theodotion, &c.

INTRODUCTION. xi

10th. That, the whole Christian Church, during the first four centuries, received this version, as canonical, and used and read it in public worship.

lith. That, all the ancient versions of the Old Testament, with the exception of the Syriac, were made exclusively from the LXX.

12th. That, when Jerome made a Latin ver sion from the Hebrew text (A. D. 400), which gradually superseded the Septuagintal use of the Italic, the change was not understood by the Church, as abrogating the previous authority of the LXX. but as combining the Original with the Version, in the Canon.

13th. That, the Hebrew language was under stood by none of the Christian Fathers, save Jerome and Origen, and that its study and know ledge continued dormant in the Church, till the era of the Reformation.

14th. That, the Hebrew and Greek MSS.have suffered alike in transcription, and that no argu ment can be raised on that account, to debase the latter, or exalt the former.

15th. That, the Eastern and Western Church unite, in maintaining this conjoint Canon of the Old Testament; and that the Biblical authority of the LXX. has not been abrogated amongst Protestants, by any authoritative decision.

xii INTRODUCTION.

CoroIL i. That, the Scriptural authority of the Septuagint is attested by the ancient Jewish Church, and by the writers of the New Testa ment.

CoroIL n. That, to deny this authority, is to depart from the Canon of the primitive Church, and thereby, to invalidate our appeals to the Fathers of the three first centuries.

CoroIL in. That, to deny this authority, is to endanger the critical study of the Old Testament, and to impair the plenary Inspiration of the New.

CoroIL iv. That, the Church of England de mands no such denial, adhering to the primitive Church, by retaining the LXX. version of the Psalms in her Liturgy and Prayer Book.*

At the close, will be found an Appendix, con taining the principal authorities, on which this "Apology" is founded; with such miscellaneous matter, as could not conveniently be introduced into the genera] statement.

* A deeply interesting question is now pending, which would seem either to confirm, or invalidate, this assertion. Should the Legislature decide, on legalizing the marriage of a deceased wife's sister, with her late husband, it will annul the Vatican LXX. Deut. xxvii. 23, liriKaraparoQ 6 KOtjua^uevoe jutra rr\q aSeA- 0*?C Trig yvvaiKog aurou, a text, which has hitherto influenced the whole Western Church. — But the entire passage is a gross inter polation, introduced probably by Romish Canonists, to justify the sale of matrimonial Dispensations. See Postscript, p. 191.

AN APOLOGY FOE THE SEPT U AGIN T.

CORRIGENDA.

Page 41. this church, read the church.

Page 52. Peter, read Philip.

Page 57. Gessenius, read Gesenius.

Page 177. Wardworth, read Wordsworth.

Page 191. The statement respecting Dr. Holmes's collations requires the following modification. It was not 136, but 72 MSS. which were collated for the Pentateuch. Of these, 33 apparently omitted, and 39 admitted the interpolated passage. But the statement is so obscure, that it is difficult to arrive at the exact numbers.

"* v *•*••"•" "£3 VJ-»»XJAV^J.*.I J

those, which were held by all the Christian Fathers, till the days of Jerome.

In all matters of faith and doctrine, as well as of dis cipline, a temperate appeal to the sentiments of the primi tive Church of the first three centuries, has hitherto been regarded, as a fair and legitimate mode of enquiry. The value of the writings of Bull, Pearson, Grabe, Waterland, Horsley, Lardner, &c. is chiefly to be estimated by such

xii INTRODUCTION.

Coroll. i. That, the Scriptural authority of the Septuagint is attested by the ancient Jewish Church, and by the writers of the New Testa ment.

Coroll. IT. That, to deny this authority, is to depart from the Canon of the primitive Church, and thereby, to invalidate our appeals to the of t.hft thrp.fi first centuries.

* A deeply interesting question is now pending, which would seem either to confirm, or invalidate, this assertion. Should the Legislature decide, on legalizing the marriage of a deceased wife's sister, with her late husband, it will annul the Vatican LXX. Deut. xxvii. 23, liriKaraparog 6 jco^w^tvoc fttra rf/e ac^A- (j)rjg ri?e yvvatKos aurou, a text, which has hitherto influenced the whole Western Church.— But the entire passage is a gross inter polation, introduced probably by Romish Canonists, to justify the sale of matrimonial Dispensations. See Postscript, p. 191.

AN APOLOGY FOR THE SEPTUAGINT.

HE various and conflicting opinions which have so long prevailed amongst Christians, concerning: this Greek version of the ancient

o

Scriptures, must render an enquiry into its real rank and importance, amongst the most interesting topics of Biblical investigation. As the entire phraseology of the New Testament is formed on the peculiar style of the LXX, as all our doctrinal terms are taken from its vo cabulary, whilst by far the greater number of its quotations are transferred from its text; it becomes of the utmost moment to decide, whether the primitive Christians were right, or wrong, in their opinions concerning it, and whe ther we are warranted in maintaining opinions contrary to those, which were held by all the Christian Fathers, till the days of Jerome.

In all matters of faith and doctrine, as well as of dis cipline, a temperate appeal to the sentiments of the primi tive Church of the first three centuries, has hitherto been regarded, as a fair and legitimate mode of enquiry. The value of the writings of Bull, Pearson, Grabe, Waterland, Horsley, Lardner, &c. is chiefly to be estimated by such

4 AN APOLOGY FOR

meritoriously, in undertaking a Latin version from the Hebrew. He has deserved and received the thanks of the universal church, for thus demanding its attention and re verence to that Divine Original, from which the Septua- gint itself was translated. But this Latin version, however valuable, could not invalidate the previous fact, that the Greek version had been de facto canonized, as the pro vidential medium of preparing both Jews and Gentiles for their reception of the gospel ; that it had been largely in corporated with the New Testament, ratified by the cita tions of Evangelists and Apostles, and sealed with the indelible stamp of ecclesiastical consent of four hundred years.*

Yet it should ever be remembered, that the reverence and respect which were paid by ancient Fathers to this Greek version, implied no disregard or degradation of the Hebrew archetype. They were prevented by providential arrangements, from consulting the Hebrew text. They could not read or study a language, which, for so many ages, had ceased to be vernacular. But this reverence of the version, must always have implied an equal, if not superior reverence of the original — Ego, pro meo modulo, saith Augustine, vestigia sequor Apostolorum, qui ipsi utra- que testimonia posuerunt. They believed, that for wise and gracious purposes, this Greek version had become to the Gentiles, what the original Hebrew had been to the Jews, during the first age of the Jewish economy; and consequently, that when Jews and Gentiles were brought

* Grabe's Prolegom. torn. ii. prop. 3.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 5

into the same fold, both the original and the version should be regarded of co-ordinate authority, and forming con jointly the Canon of the Ancient Scriptures.*

Now, this is the basis on which we propose to erect the following* enquiry. Far from aiming to introduce any novelties of doctrine or opinion, we desire only to assert the same Biblical standard, as that which belonged to the universal Church, till the days of Jerome. To expel the Greek version from that rank which it held so long? in the primitive Church, is virtually to change the pri mitive Canon. If we proclaim, that the Canon of the Old Testament depends solely on the Hebrew text, whilst they admitted the Greek version to a conjoint alliance, we practically set up our own standard against theirs. We also declare the whole Greek Church to hold a false Canon. The Greek Church still adheres strictly to the usage of the primitive Church.

This mutilation of Canon can never be justified. The Greek Church asserts no more than what Augustine and the early Fathers maintained and believed. We are at full liberty in our public worship, to prefer the Hebrew original, to the Greek version of the Old Testament ; but we have no right to denounce that version as uncanonical. The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge has lately dis persed 1500 copies of the LXX amongst the poor Greek Clergy in the Levant. It acted wisely and discreetly, and gave a sanction to the principle which we now advocate.

The later Canonists have thought proper to depart from

* Appendix, No. 5.

6 AN APOLOGY FOR

this wise and comprehensive accordance with primitive Christianity, and have thereby thrown insurmountable ob stacles, in the way of any general ecclesiastical re-union between the Eastern and Western Church. It would be deplorable, if the Church of England should indirectly countenance this schism. We have hitherto been distin guished for moderation, and especially for our attachment to the ecclesiastical authority of the Fathers of the three first centuries — I trust, that we shall not be thought to differ from them on this fundamental question. But it is vain to disguise the popular feeling amongst many zealous Protestants — that the Septuagint version of the Old Tes tament has no longer any claim to be considered of Scrip tural authority — that it is superseded by the Hebrew Text.

Whilst this essential discrepance on the Canon continues popular, I fear that unbelievers will find a plausible ground of attacking the outworks of Christianity. They will na turally object, that if we do not refer to the same scriptural record as the primitive Church, we cannot fairly appeal to her authority, on any matter relating to the doctrines or facts of the Old Testament. Nor can we, I think, consistently defend the plenary inspiration of the New Testament, if we admit that it comprises such a large portion of uninspired material. As most of its quotations are taken from the LXX, the infidel will always object, that by our own confession, both Christ and his Apostles have founded their appeals to Patriarchs and Prophets on a version, which we assert to be merely human.

Nor are we less assailable, on the same ground, to the attacks of the Romish Church. She may reasonably af-

THE SEPTUAGINT. 7

firm, that we abjure the primitive Canon, by reducing the Greek version to the level of a translation simply human. We are at liberty, like the Romanist, to prefer the Hebrew to the LXX, in our public worship ; but we are not at liberty to renounce and condemn the latter, as unscriptural or uncanonical. We are right in condemning Rome, on the subject of the Apocrypha ; but we are not justified in con demning her, for her reverence and veneration of the Septu agint. She may justly reply, You not only disregard the authority of the primitive Church, but you invalidate the plenary inspiration of the New Testament. If you object to me, that I have corrupted the Canon, by the addition of Apocryphal matter, I object to you, that you have inva lidated the Canon, by cutting off one of its co-ordinate members.

It is on such grounds, that we now most respectfully solicit public attention to a candid and deliberate exami nation of this momentous subject. Let us calmly consider, whether we are at liberty to disavow the known and ac knowledged belief of all Christian antiquity : whether, as churchmen, we can consistently disregard the sanction of the primitive Church. Above all, let us reflect as Chris tians, whether we do not weaken and invalidate the inspi ration of the New Testament, by blending it with a version of the ancient Scriptures, which we proclaim of secular and uncanonical authority.

It is painful to contrast the low estimation to which this version has now fallen, when compared with that high rank and station, which it held in the first and purest ages of Christian antiquity. The early Fathers resorted to it, as

8 AN APOLOGY FOR

the basis of all their scriptural interpretation. They sa luted it as the ostium of the Gentiles. St. Chrysostom speaks of its origin, as " that rare and singular miracle by which divine truth was circulated amongst the Gentiles" (Horn. 4, in Gen.). St. Austin views it, as " the founda tion of that immense Temple, which was afterwards to be raised for the worship of all people" (De Doct. Christ, lib. 2. cap. 15}. But now, Professor Stuart, in an express treatise on " The Canon of the Old Testament," scarcely deigns even to notice its existence. He never alludes to the fact, that centuries rolled away, when no other Old Testament could be studied or consulted. Even Doctor C. Wordsworth, so well known and so distinguished for his high attachment to Ecclesiastical antiquity, describes it as " a blessing turned into a bane;" and as the means employed by the Tempter, to draw off the attention of the Church from the Jewish Scriptures, by the belief of its inspiration.* "No one amongst the Moderns," says M. Gaussen in his Thtopneustia^ p. 79, " will now con tend (as was done in times past), that the Alexandrian in terpreters were inspired. Would any one still venture to affirm, that this version, human even in the time of Jesus Christ, has by the mere fact of Apostolical quotations ac quired a divine character, which did not previously belong to it ?" He then derides the supposition, u as on a par with canonizing the Vulgate." " Would it not," adds he, " re semble the absurd infallibility of Sixtus V. who declared his edition of 1590 to be authentic? Or that of Clement

* Wordsworth On the Canon, p. 82.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 9

VIII. his successor, who, finding the edition of Sixtus V. intolerably incorrect, suppressed it in 1592, and substituted a very different, still however, an authentic edition?"

Now, with all due respect to these learned and orthodox divines, I beg to be considered as protesting against this modern mutilation of the primitive Canon of the Old Tes tament. It can indeed be no reproach to hold the same opinions, as were universally held during the first three centuries. I repeat, that it appears subversive of all ap peal to ecclesiastical antiquity, should we admit that the Church could have held an erroneous text of the Old Tes~ lament, during this long period. If the Church be " the pillar and ground of the truth," as the keeper of the Sacred records, it is impossible that she could have been mis taken on this Scriptural question. What is the value of Patristic Theology, if interpretations founded on a reve rential deference to the LXX, are now discovered to have been based on uninspired authority ? The Scriptural in terpretations of Theophylact, of Theodoret, of Chrysos- tom become worse than useless, if based on a merely secular and secondary standard.

In the valuable Appendix which Dr. C. Wordsworth has affixed to his Hulsean Lectures, he adduces the autho rities of a series of the most ancient Jewish and Christian writers, to verify the Protestant Canon, as distinguished from that of the Romanists, established by the Council of Trent. But, by the great majority of these ancient wit nesses, the scriptural authority of the LXX is always either expressed, or implied. It is not to be supposed, that Philo or Josephus repudiated that Greek version, which they

e

10 AN APOLOGY FOR

constantly cited, and appealed to in their writings. The united testimonies of all the Fathers till the days of Jerome, are directly opposed to any such hypothesis. In citing the books of the Old Testament, they invariably combined the Greek version with the Hebrew original. This is appa rent, not only from their direct acknowledgments and ci tations, but also, from their belief of its supernatural origin and formation.*

The same inference may also be drawn from the simi lar Appendix of Professor Stuart. The earliest of all the Christian writers, who has given a list of the Old Testa ment books, is Melito (A. D. 170). He gives their names in the Septuagintal titles. It will apply also to the lists of Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, £c. £c.

If then we set aside the authority of these Canonists on the subject of the Greek version, it may be reasonably questioned, whether we do not subvert their authority on the subject of the Apocrypha. If Tertullian, Cyril, Hilary, or Augustine could have been mistaken in their belief, that the Septuagint was of divine and scriptural authority ; how can we rely on their judgment or jurisdiction, when they distinguish the Apocryphal books from the Canon ical?

But before we enter on this important enquiry, I feel it my duty to declare, that I have no desire to awaken any controversy, concerning the relative importance of the Hebrew original, and the Septuagint version. All such comparisons appear to me fundamentally Unscriptural. It

* Appendix No. 5.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 11

is my object, not to contrast, but to combine ; not to lower the Hebrew, but to raise the Septuagint. The caution of Jesus respecting the conjugal union may be reasonably applied to the object of our argument. The whole value of the version must depend necessarily on the truth and authenticity of the archetype. To raise up any dispute concerning their relative importance, were only to stir up " vain jangling, and oppositions of science falsely so called."

Yet, in defence of every caution it will be urged, — The Septuagint is only a version, and therefore can never be esteemed of the same rank and value, as an original. Such is the popular objection, but is not this begging the ques tion at issue ? Whenever a version is made by the same authority as the original, it surely becomes of equal force and authority. Thus it is with our own Articles ; the Latin and the English are both of equivalent authority. If the original Syro-Chaldaic of St. Matthew's Gospel had been now extant (admitting that hypothesis), it would not have been superior to the present Greek version. Or if we had the Hebrew archetype of the " Jewish Wars" of Josephus, it would not be of higher value than our present Greek translation.

Indeed it deserves the serious consideration of every Biblical critic, whether, if this objection be deemed valid against the inspiration of the Septuagint, it may not also be adduced against the plenary inspiration of the four Evangelists, and the greater portion of the New Testa ment. It is now generally acknowledged, that we have not the original words of Jesus or his disciples, recorded

12 AN APOLOGY FOR

in the language in which they were spoken. It is scarcely credible that the poor woman, who came out of the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, could have uttered her cries and la mentations in Greek. She spoke the native language of her country. It was Syro-Phcenician or Syro-Chaldaic, and the same mixed language, with some variety of dialect, prevailed at that time over Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. There seems the highest probability that most of our Sa viour's conversation with the Scribes and Pharisees, and that all his addresses to the common people, were spoken in this vernacular tongue. But, when it was subsequently ordered that the New Testament should be composed in Hellenistic Greek, they were enabled by that divine power, which we term Inspiration, to convert this provincial and transient dialect into its present fixed and enduring form.

Now this kind of Inspiration seems closely analogous, though of a higher grade, to that which the early Fathers attributed to the translators of the Septuagint. The first were enabled to translate, without any important error, the exact meaning of Syro-Chaldaic words into their present Greek form. The other were enabled to translate their native Hebrew into expressions, which should hereafter be received and accommodated to the Greek of the New Testament. We should ever speak with much reserve and humility on this mysterious subject. But, as far as our conceptions can reach, it would appear that the kind of supernatural aid was in some measure similar, and that the circumstances of both may be brought to illustrate and explain each other.

Much of the discredit, which attaches to the Septuagint,

THE SEPTUAGINT. 13

simply on account of its being a version, would be instantly removed by considering, that in no other way than as a canonical version of the Hebrew, could it have brought about the great objects, for which it was ordained. The Hellenistic Jews, when they ceased to be able to read their native Hebrew, could not have been addressed in any other manner. It was only by a version of their ancient scriptures, that they could retain a knowledge of the pro mises made to their ancestors. And why should that ver sion be deemed of inferior authority, if it was designed not only for their personal benefit, but to carry forward the ulterior purposes of the Christian dispensation? Why should the version be deemed inferior to the original, when the original itself, without that version, would have been utterly unintelligible, and thus incompetent to bring about the final purposes of the Jewish economy ?

The force of this reasoning will be at once apparent, if we suppose for a moment, that the Septuagint had never existed. The Hebrew language would then have ceased

o o

to be vernacular several hundred years before the Chris tian era ; but no Greek version could have aided to sup ply its place. In that case, the Jews would have wandered far and wide over the east and west ; but they would have had no Scriptures to remind them of their patriarchs and prophets. It must have all depended on unwritten tra ditions, and on dubious historical reminiscences. In the fulness of time, the era of Christianity would have arrived; but where would have been the people, awaiting its ad vent, and prepared to welcome its tidings ?

The Gospel is preached in Judaea by Christ and the

14 AN APOLOGY FOR

Evangelists in the native dialect, and various references are made to Moses and the prophets, to prove that " the Great Prophet had come into the world." But how were they to verify these allegations, when they could not con sult the Hebrew text ? The Apostles travel into Asia Minor, and Greece, and they publish the same tidings in the Greek tongue. But who are to be their hearers? The Jews? — they had no intelligible Scriptures in their hands. The Gentiles — to whom such Hebrew-Greek, on this hy pothesis, would have been equally unintelligible ?

The New Testament is subsequently composed in this peculiar Greek, with all its references to the Old Testa ment exclusively directed to the Hebrew. Who is there able to read and interpret it? — The Syro-Chaldaic dialect passes away, or is confined to the knowledge of a few ; how then are the tidings of the Gospel to be proclaimed to the heathen world ?

Versions no doubt, after a while, would be made of the Old Testament, both Greek and Latin, but of what autho rity would they be, either to Christians, or to unbelievers ? Being made subsequently to the coming of Christ, they could not be adduced, as any evidences of his Divine Mis sion ; and as taken from a language, which none but the Jews understood, their fidelity must have entirely depended on such translators as Aquila or Theodosion. — But it is useless to pursue the supposition. — It is evident, that by the sole want of the Septuagint, the entire progress of Christianity would have been arrested, and all its evi dences obscured and darkened.

Nor is the value and importance of this version to be

THE SEPTUAGINT. 15

tested by that of any other, whether ancient or modern. Others are national, confined to time and place, and adapt ed to the language and circumstances of some particular people. But the version of the LXX has influenced all other versions, from the Italic of the first century, down to the latest attempt to carry the tidings of the Gospel to some barbarous tribe. By its Psalter, it has furnished the instrument of praise and thanksgiving to every people. Even the versions which profess to differ from it, when examined, will be found to bear witness to its value. The Vulgate is perpetually illuminated by its lustre ; and our English translation could never have attained its com parative perfection, if it had not continually been aided by its interpretations. The single fact, that the LXX version was anterior to the Christian era, and previous to the existence of the New Testament, places it in a distinct category, and makes it, as it were, an original, as well as a version. To borrow an illustration from the language of the Feudal system, the LXX version holds its fief in capite^ immediately from the Hebrew; whereas all other versions are held under it, and possess only subordinate and servile tenures.

But if the objection against the Septuagint, that it is a version, be pushed to its full extent, it will also apply to that entire system of Providential mediation, which forms one of the main pillars and supports of "The Analogy" of Butler. The aid and assistance which we daily derive from each other, is only a constant exemplification of the same all-pervading principle. The greater part of our knowledge comes to us from secondary instruments, and

16 AN APOLOGY FOR

for one, who studies an original, multitudes are indebted to a version.

The fallacy of supposing that we can gain a more ac curate knowledge of the Scriptures, from the exclusive study of the Hebrew, than from a collation of the Hebrew with the LXX, is so monstrous, that it scarcely deserves an answer. Who that knows anything of the difficulties and obscurities of the Hebrew text, is not rejoiced to lay hold of assistance, like that provided by the Alexandrian ver sion ? To insist on the exclusive inspiration of the Hebrew text, is to insist on that of which no man can form any conception, as it relates to himself. Is doubt, or difficulty, or uncertainty, Inspiration ?

This version of the Hebrew Scriptures has been provi dentially held out for our assistance — It comes to us re commended by its own origin and antiquity — by its use amongst the Jews 250 years before the Christian era — by its adoption in the Church, for 400 years after it, — and by its continual citation in the New Testament. You say, It is but a version. Is this any objection to its being of sacred and divine authority ? May not interpreters be in spired, as well as Prophets ? Was not the miraculous gift of " the interpretation of tongues" (1 Cor. xii. 10), an ex emplification of this species of Inspiration ? To attempt to debase the Septuagint on account of its being a version, is to impugn the whole system of Providential intercourse, and to throw contempt on every argument of Divine medi ation. If Infidels employ such objections, Christians, at least, should abstain from them.

But it should also be considered, whether the fact, that

THE SEPTUAGINT. 17

it was by means of this version the Gentiles were prepared for the advent of Christ, and for the reception of the Gos pel, be not indicative of the corresponding fact, that it is by means of versions of the Scriptures, that the knowledge of Christianity has been published amongst all nations? Since the manifold wisdom of God (»f *-«Au*Wx&*f a-opiat, rov @fou) has seen fit to render the progress of divine know ledge dependant on Biblical versions, it cannot be objected that he chose the version of the LXX, as the prototype and pattern of all succeeding translations of the Scriptures, thereby dignifying and consecrating their office to the end of the world.

Above all, the example of Christ himself should be re membered — He humbled himself, as a child, to learn his knowledge of the Scriptures from this Greek version, and as " he grew in stature and in grace," he became daily more conversant with its sacred phraseology.* How con tentedly may the poor, in all ages of the Church, rely on the instruction to be gained from versions of the Bible, when even Jesus himself was taught to read from the LXX, and when he continued to use that version, in most of his appeals to Moses and the Prophets ! Or, to touch on an example more within our reach, — who can doubt, whether knowledge the most profound, and faith the most firm, and love the most pure and ardent may not be attained from a Biblical version, when Augustine could study no other Bible, than that which is embodied in the theme of this Apology ?

* Appendix, No. 17. D

18 AN APOLOGY FOR

The question at issue, therefore, cannot be determined by the bare fact, that the one is the original and the other the version. It must be decided by all the historical cir cumstances and events attending both the original, and

O O '

the version. Unless we can show from sacred and profane history, that the Hebrew Canon required this alliance of the Greek version, as its support and assistant, our argu ment will necessarily fall to the ground. We are willing to admit, that nothing but the exigency of the case, and its overwhelming importance, can justify the prerogative which we claim for the Septuagint.

But, whilst we willingly make this admission, it is only just that the reader should divest himself of all prejudice, and enter on this enquiry with that candour and imparti ality, which its importance demands. We therefore re quest his attention to the following scriptural facts.

First, that about 700 before the Christian era, the ten tribes of Israel were carried captive into Assyria and Me dia, from whence they never returned to their native land. " Then the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight : there was none left but the tribe of Judah only." 2 Kings xvii. 18. The King of Assyria sent colonies to take possession of Samaria, and the rem nant of the Israelites became incorporated with these fo reigners, and acquired their language.

Secondly, that about a century after the destruction of Israel, we may date the commencement of the Babylonish Captivity. "And the Lord said, I will remove Judah out of my sight, as I have removed Israel." 2 Kings xxiii. 27. After 70 years, they were permitted to return,

THE SEPTUAGINT. 19

in number about 50,000. They found their land had lain desolate. They had lost the use of their native He brew, and acquired the language of their masters.

Thirdly, that Ezra applied himself diligently some time after their return A. c. 460, to correct the canon of the Scriptures. During this long captivity they were in much danger of losing the knowledge of that canon, nay even the original record. He succeeded however, in restoring their public worship to something like its original purity. But the fact to be kept in view is this — the pure and Biblical Hebrew was no longer vernacular, it was not even intelli gible to the people at large, without Syriac Targums. Hence the canonical books, after the Captivity, are con siderably mixed with Syriac and Chaldee. — The Scrip ture history closes about the year A. c. 430.

For our knowledge of Jewish history, during the next 130 years, we must consult Josephus and the Apocryphal books. About the year A. c. 330, Alexander the Great peaceably entered Jerusalem. He soon after built Alex andria. There he placed many Jews, to whom he granted numerous privileges and immunities. It was about this period, the Jews of the Dispersion began to hellenize, i. e. to adopt the Greek language, and to become conversant with Grecian manners and opinions.

From this brief sketch, it will appear, not only that the pure and genuine Hebrew of the Ancient Scriptures had ceased to be vernacular, but that everything, which had hitherto kept the Jews a separate and distinct people, was fast passing away, and dissolving into the more ge neral purposes of the Christian dispensation.

20 AN APOLOGY FOR

It was during this critical period of the Jewish polity, (A.C. 250-280) that it seemed good to Almighty Wisdom, to bring about the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Jewish or Hellenistic Greek.* The Alexandrian Jews besought Ptolemy to send for authentic MSS. from Jeru salem, and every motive of policy, of ambition, and of literary renown conspired to render him favourable to their request. The language of our own Bible translators on this subject is so beautiful and appropriate, that I shall need no apology for the following extract from their Pre face :

" While God would be known only in Jacob, and have His Name great in Israel, and in none other place ; while the dew lay on Gideon's fleece only, and all the earth besides was dry ; then, for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew, was sufficient. But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of Righteousness, the Son of God, should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in His blood, not of the Jew only but also of the Greek, yea of all them that were scattered abroad ; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek prince (Greek for descent and language), even of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among

* Appendix, No. 1.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 21

the Gentiles, by written preaching ; as St. John the Bap tist did among the Jews, by vocal. For the Grecians, being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabi tants in Asia, by reason of the conquests that there the Grecians had made ; as also by the Colonies, which thither they had sent. For the same causes also, it was well un derstood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too. Therefore, the Word of God, being set forth in Greek, be- cometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house ; or, like a procla mation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that lan guage was fitted to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by."

Such are the wise and deliberate opinions of our ex cellent translators, and though they proceed in some degree to qualify them, by reciting the opinions of Jerome ; yet they allow quite as much as could be expected from Protestant translators, avowedly professing to follow the Hebrew text.

It is unnecessary to enter into any minute account of the circumstances attending this Greek translation. As to the narrative of Aristeas, it is now generally supposed the forgery of some Hellenistic Jews, who were desirous

22 AN APOLOGY FOR

of magnifying the reputation of this version in the eyes of their Palestine brethren. But, when every deduction has been made for what is fabulous, it leaves deep con viction, that this translation came abroad with some strong marks and attestations of its providential origin, and that it was received with profound veneration, by those for whose advantage it was more immediately designed.*

Whilst then we are ready to concede, that the history of Aristeas is not to be received without much suspicion, we infer, that even as a counterfeit, it betokens some portion of latent truth, and that it evinces the full conviction of the Hellenistic Jews and of the early Fathers, that this version was made under the superintendance of an extraordinary Providence. Nor is it easy to account for the concurrent testimonies of Aristobulus, Philo, and Josephus to the main facts of Aristeas, but on the supposition that this belief was generally prevalent and widely disseminated. They thought it highly credible, that as the " Lord had stirred up the spirit of Cyrus" to rebuild the Temple ; so, in the language of our translators, " he had stirred up the~spirit of Ptolemy" to bring about this translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Believing this, they could not doubt that the same Divine aid was granted to the translators, to enable them to carry that object into effect. This Providential in terference, they thought was fully justified by the urgency of the crisis. The Hebrew language had already ceased to be vernacular. It was becoming less and less under stood, even by the Jews of Palestine ; whilst it was totally

* Appendix No. 14.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 23

obsolete amongst the Jews of the Dispersion. It was of the utmost importance, that its peculiar idioms should be embalmed in the great literary and commercial language of the world ; especially as it was designed, that this lan guage should be subsequently adopted as the literary vehicle of the New Testament

The situation of Alexandria was also admirably adapted for carrying out these Providential designs. It was the port of Egypt which communicated with all the shores of the Mediterranean, and had commercial intercourse with nearly all those nations, who are mentioned as sending up deputies to Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost. What then could be more worthy of Almighty wisdom, than to select such Hellenistic Jews, to become the translators of Moses and the Prophets, on behalf of themselves and of all the nations of the earth ? What more conducive to the advent of Christianity? what more confirmatory of its evidence to the end of time, than to make Jewish Elders the heralds of the Messias, and Jewish interpreters the Commentators to the Gentiles ?

Such were the Egyptian Jews of Alexandria, who had mingled largely with the Macedonian armies, and whose descendants formed a considerable portion of the commer cial population. It was to attach these colonists to his throne and government, that Ptolemy Philadelphus en couraged a design which, under Providence, was intended for the subsequent benefit of the universal Church to the end of the world.

The court of Ptolemy was distinguished for its patron age of learning and elegant literature. Alexandria could

24 AN APOLOGY FOR

boast of one of the largest libraries. The names of Deme trius Phalereus, Lycophron, Theocritus, Aratus, Nicander, Apollonius, Callimachus, and several other distinguished writers, were amongst the ornaments and cotemporaries of this celebrated era.

The style and phraseology of the Jewish translation corresponded to that, which is now understood by the term Hellenistic,* Whilst considerably influenced by what is peculiar to Macedonic Greek, it has blended also the Alexandrian terminations with those Hebraic forms, which could not fail largely to enter into any version of the Scriptures made by Jews entertaining the highest vene ration of the original text.f It is probable that their first labours were confined to the Pentateuch, and that it was not till twenty or thirty years subsequently, that the whole of the Old Testament was completed. We may therefore state in general terms, that it was finished A. c. 250.

The most remarkable and important feature of this ver sion consists in its regular selection of the same doctrinal words and expressions, as those, which were subsequently adopted by the Evangelists and Apostles. Jhe terms Re pentance, Faith, Righteousness, Justification, Redemption, Sanctification, &c. together with the titles of Lord, Christ, Saviour, Holy Spirit, £c. are the very same in the Alex andrian version, as in the New Testament, and they are used precisely in the same meaning. It is this identity

* Appendix, No. 16.

f See the two learned Sermons of Bp. Maltby preached before the Uni versity of Durham. London, 1843.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 25

of doctrinal terms and expressions, which constitutes the unity, and which secures the continuity of faith and doc trine, in the Old and the New Testament.*

Now, without divine Inspiration acting on their minds, it is scarcely possible, that Alexandrian translators should have uniformly chosen such doctrinal terms and expressions, as were subsequently adopted by the Holy Spirit, for the ends and objects of the Christian Covenant.f It suggests something more than human to behold Jews of Egypt, above two centuries before the birth of the Redeemer, making use of the exact language and terminology, which is pe culiar to the New Testament. It is not enough to reply, they had the Hebrew original before them, and therefore they naturally expressed themselves in Hebraic Greek. We are not now discussing the mere grammatical idioms of the Greek version, but its constant, undeviating doctrinal phraseology. J Merely human translators will always more or less vary their interpretation even of the same words in the original. They will sometimes give a more forcible, at others, a more lax and gentle expression to the same thought. But in this sacred version, at least in its doctrinal and prophetic department, we have the same usus et norma loquendi which we find everywhere adopted in the New Testament, without which, no written Revelation of God to man, could retain the same precise and permanent sig nification, amidst every subsequent variety of language.

To test the force of this observation, let any one take

Appendix No. 13. f Appendix, No. 15.

£ See Stuart on the Canon, p. 315.

26 AN APOLOGY FOR

up the Latin version of Castellio, or the English New Tes tament of Harwood, and he will be at once convinced, not only that the dignity of manner, but the accuracy and pre cision of thought are altogether sacrificed. When Patri archs and Prophets are represented as acting and con versing in the ordinary style of the world, our religious feelings are shocked and offended. But this, it may be said, is a matter of taste and sensibility. Let us then con sider the far more serious consequences attached to the truths and discoveries of a Divine Revelation. Would the doctrines of Redemption, Faith, Repentance, Righteous ness, Sanctification, or Justification continue of the same weight and import, if lowered down to expressions, which do not convey the same distinct meaning ? Can the doc trines peculiar to Christianity, be preached or explained by a vocabulary merely secular? Is not the unity and per manence of our faith, associated with the unity and per manence of our doctrinal phraseology ?

Hence it has been wisely and providentially ordered, that every ancient version of the Old Testament, with the single exception of the Syriac, should have been formed on the basis of the Greek Septuagint — that the writings, quotations and interpretations of the early Fathers should correspond to it. — Even now, no modern version can be made, either of the Old or New Testament, which is not mainly indebted for its doctrinal phraseology, to this archetype version.

The ground of this assertion may be thus briefly veri fied. Previous to Jerome's Latin translation from the Hebrew, there existed the Italic version from the LXX,

THE SEPTUAGINT. 27

which was generally read and received by the Western Church. This version as a whole has unfortunately perished, except in the Psalms — but there it remains with only occasional corrections. Now, in this Italic version of the Psalms we have the same doctrinal expressions, which we find adopted in the New Testament, as we may learn from our own Prayer Book translation.

But this argument may be still further developed from remembering, that Jerome did not venture upon any fresh version of the New Testament. He left the Italic, with only some occasional corrections. Now, the Italic of the New, must have corresponded to the Italic of the Old Testament — they constituted one version. The inference is plain and undeniable — that Jerome, in his Latin version of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, must have adopted the doctrinal phraseology of this previous Italic, from the LXX. This reasoning is verified also, by the remains which we find of the Italic, in the writings and quota tions of the Fathers.

In this statement I am supported by the testimony and authority, even of those who disparage the LXX to exalt the Hebrew text. Spearman was a professed, un flinching disciple of Hutchinson,* and he composed his "Letters on the Septuagint" with the express aim and object of depreciating its value and authority. He makes the following striking acknowledgment : " Had there not been a translation of the Old Testament into Greek before this time, I do not see how they could have wrote the

* See Appendix, No. 3.

28 AN APOLOGY FOR

New Testament, in Greek ; for as they must have used Greek words, in a different sense from what they were used in Greek authors, there could have been no standard by which to have tried them, had not the LXX version been made. — I think I am justified in saying, that, if there had not been a translation in Greek of the Old Testament, made and received by sufficient authority, a proper time before the advent of our Saviour, I do not see how the penmen of the New could have written in Greek ; — which is saying as much as any of the ad mirers of the LXX translation can say of it, without the glaring absurdity of giving it the preference above the original Hebrew." p. 430. As we have no wish or desire to give any such preference, and disclaiming all such unnatural and absurd comparisons, we are heartily con tent with this most honourable and candid confession.

Let us now revert to the thread of our narrative. The Septuagint Version, being made 250 years before the Christian era, became by means of the Hellenistic Jews, the main instrument of preparing the Gentiles for the advent of the Messias. It was publicly read in their Synagogues, and dispersed as they were over every part of the East,* there grew up a general expectation from the predictions of the Old Testament, that some remark able personage would appear about the time of the nativity of Jesus. This is acknowledged, even by profane histo rians, such as Tacitus and Suetonius. But, it is still more evident, from the mighty and rapid progress of

* See Hody, p. 2:24, &c.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 29

Christianity amongst the Hellenistic Jews and their nu merous proselytes, when the Gospel was first published. It is not too much to assert, that, during the first century, these Hellenistic Jews and their Gentile Proselytes, formed the principal seedplot of the Christian Church. Whilst Scribes and Pharisees, who adhered rigidly to the use of the Hebrew ritual and the Hebrew tongue in their pub lic worship, were disputing and cavilling at the person of Christ, andathe truth of the gospel [See Matt. xvi. 1-3. Mark Hi. 22. vii. 1, 7.], these Jews of the Dispersion and these Gentile Proselytes joyfully listened to the preaching of Jesus and the Apostles. [Matt. &\ii. 9. Mark .vii. 37.] They gladly embraced those promises and doctrines, which they had more obscurely anticipated through their previous reading of the Septuagint.

If the Hebrew language had always maintained its original power and prerogative, it may be questioned, how far the gracious design of making the Gentiles fellow- heirs of the promises given to the Patriarchs, could have been carried into effect. The ancient Hebrew was strictly suited to a theocracy, to the privileges of a sepa rate and exclusive people, set apart from all other nations of the earth. Without supposing the Jewish power and polity to have extended more' or less over all countries, it does not appear, how the Hebrew Scriptures could have influenced the faith and manners of the Pagan world. The decline and fall of the Hebrew tongue in the Jewish and Christian Church is tacitly assumed in the reasoning of the Apostle, concerning the grafting of the Gentiles on the stock of Israel. The pride of the Jew, as

30 AN APOLOGY FOR

the lineal descendant of Abraham, could never have been broken down, if he had retained the language and speech of Abraham. The hope of the Gentile could never have been realised, if he had been compelled to read the Old Testament in its original language. It was needful to bring both Jews and Gentiles to one common focus. It was necessary to employ a common medium for a common end. It is no degradation of the Hebrew, to have been made subservient to the purposes of the gospel, through the Greek version. It is the glory alike of the Hebrew and the Septuagint, to have found their consum mation in the New Testament.

But to effect this object, and for ever to place this version on a parity with the original, it seemed good to Divine Wisdom, that the founder of Christianity should be born and educated in a part of Palestine, where no knowledge of Hebrew had existed for many hundred years, and where the Hellenistic Greek had been preva lent, from the time of the Ptolemies. In the Synagogues of Galilee, it is incredible that they used the Hebrew Scriptures, when even at Jerusalem they were explained by Syriac Targums. It is against all probability, that either Joseph or Mary could read the Hebrew text. When Jesus went into the Synagogue at Nazareth, he opened the book and read the passage almost verbatim as we now find in the LXX ; had he read it in the He brew, not a single individual could have comprehended its meaning — and it could not "have been fulfilled in their ears/' Out of the thirty-seven quotations made by Jesus himself from the Old Testament, thirty-three agree

THE SEPTUAGINT. 31

almost verbatim with the LXX, two agree with the He brew, and differ from the LXX, one differs from both, and one agrees partially with both. Only six agree ex actly with the Hebrew. From this enumeration, it is plain, that our Lord constantly used and quoted the ver sion.*

Galilee, according to common repute, was the Bceotia of Palestine, — " Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." The provincial dialect was of the most rustic kind, but from the time of the Maccabees there had been a large body of Hellenistic Jews and Proselytes, mixed with the Gentile inhabitants. During the thirty years which our blessed Lord had passed in Galilee before his ministry, he had be come most intimately conversant with the Greek version, and this knowledge he evinced in all his teaching, both in his own country and in Judaea.

From the popular prejudice to magnify the Hebrew and to degrade the LXX, this important fact has been passed over in silence. I am at a loss to mention a single writer, who dwells on the indisputable fact, that the Hebrew Scriptures were neither read nor understood by the Ga lileans, and that if Jesus was instructed by his parents in the knowledge of the Scriptures, they must have in structed him out of the Septuagint version.

His disciples were all Galileans, " they were un learned and ignorant men" (Acts iv. 13), and till the day of Pentecost, not one of them could read the Hebrew

* See the analysis of these quotations in The Journal of Prophecy, October, 1849, and the extract, Appendix, No. 17.

32 AN APOLOGY FOR

text. But they were well read in the Septuagint, and they quote it on every occasion. I think there are not less than twenty-eight distinct quotations from that ver sion, in Stephen's speech before the Jewish Council.*"

Of all the apostles, St. Paul was the only one who had received a regular and learned education. Born and educated at Tarsus, he there acquired a profound know ledge of Hellenistic Greek, and when he went to Jeru salem, to finish his studies " at the feet of Gamaliel," he no doubt became thoroughly conversant with the Hebrew Scriptures. But, though a " Hebrew of the Hebrews," he seldom refers to the Hebrew text, and he delights to quote the version. Charmed by the example of Jesus, he forgets the Pharisee, and becomes the Hellenist. The eloquence of Paul, as Valckenaer has remarked, is quite of another kind from that of the Greek orators. He dis claims all enticing words of man's wisdom. His voca bulary is chiefly confined to the LXX, and those who would comprehend his arguments or appreciate his ex cellence, must give their days and nights to the study of the Septuagint.

In accounting for the rapid progress of Christianity during the first century, sufficient justice has not been paid to the mighty effect produced on the minds of the early converts, when they heard the Apostles discoursing in the very words and language of this Greek version of the Old Testament. It must for ever justify and explain the wisdom of God, " in stirring the heart of Ptolemy," and

* Appendix, No. 2.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 33

directing the minds, hearts and hands of these Jewish translators, when we behold the sublime and beneficial purpose, to which this version became subservient, as the great channel for the propagation of Christianity. The power of miracles would itself have passed away, had it not been sustained by the enduring and endearing form of the Gospel, thus preached and recorded in Septu- a<nntal language. It came home to their business and

o o o

bosoms, when they heard Jesus, and the Evangelists and Apostles, reiterating the testimonies of their own Patriarchs and Prophets in the very words and syllables, in which they had been accustomed to read them in private, or to hear them in their Synagogues. We are often told of the u indirect accommodations " of this version, and of its being " sufficiently good for their purpose." — But it was evidently made and designed for that purpose. We are told that the Apostles did not intend to sanction and authorize its authority, by thus continually preaching and quoting it. But no man can read the New Testament and credit such assertions. Its sound hath gone out into all lands, and its words even to the ends of the world.

There is one observation which deserves especial atten tion. It will be remembered there are several arguments of our Saviour and his Apostles, in their citations from the Old Testament, which depend on the force and mean ing of a single word. These passages are adduced by M. Gaussen to prove the verbal Inspiration of the New Testament. But they will equally prove the Inspiration of the Septuagint, for they are each and all literally taken

34 AN APOLOGY FOR

from that version. I shall exhibit them seriatim, in the words of M. Gaussen.*

" In the first place, turn to Heb. ii. 8, and observe how, after having quoted ' Thou hast put all things un der his feet/ the sacred writers reason on this word all (™Vra, LXX). Ps. viii. 4-6. "

" In the eleventh verse of the same chapter, in quoting from the twenty-second Psalm, he dwells upon the ex pression, ' my brethren/ (ro*V a&ApoiV pov. Ps. xxi. 22. LXX,) to exhibit from it the human nature which the Son of God assumed."

" Observe in chap. xii. 27, in quoting the Prophet Haggai, he reasons upon the use of the word once — ' Yet once more.'" (fa £**£, ii. 7, LXX.)

" From ver. 5 to 9 of the same chapter, remark how he enlarges on the expression, ' My Son/ from chap. iii. 11, 12 of Proverbs, (uis p-n oXiyupu won$ti*$ Ku/uou, X.T.A. LXX) ' My son, disregard not the chastening of the Lord.'"

" In chap. x. 5-7. quoting Psalm xl, he dwells on the expression, c Lo I come/ as meeting 'Thou wouldest not.' (IJou i'xw — oJx tj'O&uo-aff, LXX Ps. xxxix. 6, 7.)

" In chap. viii. from ver. 8 to 13, quoting Jer. xxxi. 31, he reasons upon the word new. (LXX, Jer. xxxviii. 31,

32, ^laOnVo/xcu — §KX,§YIKW xatw.)

" In chap. iii. from v. 7 to 19, and in chap, iv, from ver. 1 to 11, with what earnestness, quoting Ps. xcv, does he rest on the word c to-day/ the expression, < I have sworn/ and especially on ' my rest/ introducing as a com-

* Theopneuttia, chap. vi. sect. v.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 35

mentary the words from Genesis, 'And God did rest from his labours."' Every one of these expressions is taken verbatim from the LXX, Ps. xciv. 7-11. Gen. ii. 3.

" From verse 2 to 6 of chap, iii, observe how he dwells on the words servant and house, taken from the book of Numbers (chap. xii. 7), ' My servant Moses, who is faithful in all his house' " (LXX o QzptzTrw ^ou Mwuo-??, iv

TW OJXW XOU 7Ti(TTO? £<TTi

" But especially remark in chap. v. 6, vi. 13, 14, and vii. 21, the use he consecutively makes of all the words of the ex. Psalm, (LXX, cix. 4.) 'The Lord sware/ ' He sware by himself,' ' Thou art a priest/ ' A priest for ever/ ' of Melchisedec, king of Zedec/ and of ' Melchi- sidec, king of Salem." Every one of these expressions, (except " king of Zedec" which is not in the Epistle) is taken from the LXX. Conf. Gen. xiv. 18.

It would have been only fair in M. Gaussen, to have stated them as Septuagintal quotations. But if so, how could he have justified his derision of the sentiments of the primitive Church ? See pp. 8, 9. — Should the reader desire to see multitudes of similar quotations, he may find them arranged in the Citata, appended to my Hellenistic Greek Testament.

Perhaps the most important doctrinal term in the New Testament, illustrated by the LXX, is Ku/no?, when used as denoting the proper divinity of Jesus. The Greek translators were probably led to the version of Ku'/>iof, for mm, from the Jewish scruples respecting the rgrpaypa^- POITOV. But this solution does not affect our position — that we learn this peculiar use of the word from the LXX,

36 AN APOLOGY FOR

and that, without their authority, we should scarcely have been able to ascertain the full force of such passages in the New Testament.

Now this rendering of KU/HOJ, for Jehovah, not only pervades our own translation, which professes to be de rived from the Hebrew ; but it is found in the Vulgate of Jerome, in the Syriac, and in all the ancient versions of the Old and New Testament. It rests however exclusively on the authority of the LXX, corroborated by the New Testament. — The inference is plain and undeniable. It may be stated in the words of St. Austin, when replying to the assertion of Jerome, that the Greek translators were interpreters, but not Prophets — " Spiritus, qui in Prophetis eraty quando ilia diver lint ; idem ipse erat in LXX viris, quando ilia interpretati sunt" De Civitat. Dei, lib. xviii. cap. 43.*

The practical truth of this inference may be still fur ther elucidated, by the following criterion. — It was by the constant use of the Septuagint version, that all the ante- Nicene Fathers arrived at the sublime truth so amply ex hibited by Bp. Bull, that the Son of God is consub- stantial with the Father, that all the manifestations of the Divinity in the Old Testament, were the manifestations of Jesus Christ, in a pre-existent state. This doctrine they chiefly derived from inferring, that the Kupio? o ®zo<; of the LXX, was the Kvpios xal Xpia-ros of the Evangelists and Apostles. This sublime and Evangelical doctrine is now much obscured. There are many, who consider the

* Appendix, No. 5.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 37

Jehovah of the Old Testament, as quite distinct from the Kupto? of the New. We are willing, that the In spiration and Scriptural authority of the LXX be tested by this standard of sound doctrine.* The early Fa thers believed, that when Jesus said, u Before Abraham was, I AM," he appealed to this divine mystery — that when he affirmed "Abraham rejoiced to see my day, he saw it, and was glad," he intimated the same truth. — We have now lost, by our neglect of the LXX version, the plain and Scriptural method of arriving at the same con clusion.

We need not then be surprised, that the primitive Church received this translation as canonical, when they found it thus acknowledged and recognized by Jesus and the Apostles. The number of direct quotations from the Old Testament in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles may be estimated, I think, at about 350, of which, not more than 50 materially differ from the LXX.f But the indirect verbal allusions would swell the number to a far greater amount. Though there be not a single professed quotation in the Apocalypse, it teems with verbal refer ences in every chapter. The memories of the writers of the New Testament, or rather the suggestions of that Di vine Spirit who superintended them — seem to have brooded over all their words and expressions, till they thought and spake the very language of the LXX.

For the strict and literal truth of these assertions, I must refer to the pages of the Hellenistic Greek Testa-

* Appendix, No. 13. f Appendix, No. 2.

38 AN APOLOGY FOR

ment ; but for the force of the general argument, I may appeal to any man's honest convictions. We behold the Saviour of the world, resting his claims to the Messiaship, on the express words and declaration of this Greek trans lation. We hear his Evangelists reiterating the same as sertion from the same authority. We listen to his Apostles explaining and illustrating the doctrine and evidence of Christianity by numerous passages literally extracted from this version, and yet we hesitate to admit its inspiration ! By some, we are told they only took it as they found it ; by others, that only so much as they cited is inspired, but nothing more. — Is not this "juggling and paltering with us in a double sense ?" What should we think of any claimant to an estate, who relied on one part of an ancient record, and who denied the value of the rest? If Jesus founds his claim to Divinity on the term KJ/»of, and if that word be peculiar to the LXX, as equivalent to o "nv, or Jehovah, is not this canonizing and consecrating the language of the LXX? — " Quis rov Kup*o>," asks Bp. Pearson, "pro Domino Deo, accipiendum putaret, nisi ita Seniores locuti wnt, quibus Ku'/uo? est o '\Qi>;" Praef. Pa- rsenet. See " Exposition of the Creed." Artie. 2, vol. 2. To the Apostles succeeded the primitive Fathers, and on that account they are styled the Apostolic Fathers. Their language and thoughts are of the same Septuagintal complection. The first Epistle of Clemens Romanus, the most authentic document of the early Church, is almost entirely composed of citations, adduced from the LXX* He quotes nearly the whole of the 53d of Isaiah, and of the 22d Psalm, § 16, of the 33d § 22, and of the 51st § 18.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 39

I have examined the quotations of Barnabas, who has been reckoned an exception, and has been commonly thought to draw his Scriptural references from the He brew text ; yet I cannot find more than three or four, which materially differ from the LXX. Indeed, from his strange blunder of confounding Cyrus with Kvpiog (Sect. 12.), it is evident, that he could not have understood a word of Hebrew.*

The same remark will also apply to Justin Martyr, from his absurd etymology of Israel, nomen hoc Israel, signi- jicat homo vincens virtutem : isra enim homo est, el autem virtus! See Hody, p. 281. The quotations of Justin form the only exception amongst the early Fathers, of any considerable deviation from the text of the LXX. This, I think, may be accounted for, from his originally being a Samaritan. He appears also to have trusted very much to his memory, and occasionally, to have inclined to wards the version of Aquila. In his Dialogue with Try- pho, he charges the Jews with having wilfully corrupted their Scriptures. Hody is of opinion, that this charge was solely brought against the LXX; but his expres sions seem rather to relate to the Hebrew text. By as senting to the extraordinary accounts of Aristeas, respect ing the composition of the Greek version, it is plain, that he asserted its joint inspiration with the original. He sharply reprehends some who questioned its authority. Ol rwtq ToA^uwcrt Xtytiv ryv Ityyww YIV l%Yiyy<r<x,i/TO ol ' 7r/3£<rj3uT£poi Trapa UroXspotiu) TW TCOV AlyvTrrioov

Iv T*<n* aArjOri. Audaciam Judtfonim sui

* Grabii Prolog, torn. u. cap. 1. § 19.

40 AN APOLOGY FOR

temporis notat, qui putarunt earn versionem in aliquibus veritatem non attigisse. Grabii Prolog, torn. 2, cap. 1, §20.

Irenaeus may be adduced, as the next of the Fathers, who expressly acknowledges his belief in the Inspiration of the Septuagint. He attests the entire account of Aristeas, and expressly affirms, that the Evangelists and Apostles chiefly confided on the authority of this version. " Et- enim Petrus, et Joannes, et Matthceus, et Paulus, et rdi- qui deinceps, et horum sectatores, prophetica omnia ita annuntiaverunt, quemadmodum Seniorum Interpretatio continet. Unus est idem Spiritus Dei, qui in Prophetis quidem prceconavit, quis et quails esset advent us Domini, in Senioribus autem interpretatus est bem" 8$c. Adv. Hseres. cap. 25. Edit. Lutet. 1639.

Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata, lib. 1, speaks in the most decided manner, respecting the Inspiration of the LXX. He terms it " the work of the Holy Spirit," and gives his full attestation to the history of Aristeas.

Tertullian in his Apology, cap xviii, commemorates this version and the circumstances attending it, in a way, which can leave no question of his opinion concerning its divine authority. — See also Chrysost. Orat. 1, cap. 6, cont. Judeeos.

Hippolytus usually expounds the Scriptures according to the text and sentiments of the LXX.

Ambrose in his Commentary on Psal. cxviii. 13, ex pressly asserts, LXX virorum sententias magis sequitur Ecclesia. Cf. Walton, Prolog, ix. sect. 56.

Hilary expressly asserts that the LXX were enabled

THE SEPTUAGINT. 41

to transfer into their version all the hidden mysteries of the original text. Tract, in Psalm, and Cyril of Jerusalem directly asserts their Inspiration.*

Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 8) gives a compendious narrative of the whole transaction relating to the Alexan drian version, from Irenseus ; and then adds his own as sent to the general testimony of his predecessors.

Even Jerome occasionally forgets his prejudices, and joins in the general acclamation of this version. Jure LXX Editio obtinuit hi Ecclesiis, vet, quia prima est, et ante Christ i advent um fa eta ; vel, quia ab Apostolis (in quibus tawen ab Hebra'ico non discrepat) usurpata. Epist. 57. 11, ad Pammach. p. 314. Edit. Vallars.

The limitation, which he here mentions, is known to be altogether erroneous. There are several passages in which Christ and the Apostles adhere to the LXX, even when it distinctly varies from the original.f

From these and similar testimonies, we may clearly infer, that the Fathers of this Church, till the days of Jerome, were unanimous in their belief of the Scriptural authority and Inspiration of the Greek version. They considered it, in conjunction with the original, as form ing the united canon of the Old Testament.

It must be allowed, that Hody in his elaborate and ex cellent work, argues very ably against this conclusion, and labours to show that there had always been a decided

eirriov

Ou yap evpEffiXoyici, KCtt (carcuntcvi) ffo^toyzarwv aVOpwTrtvwv r/r TO evo*', aXX' ei: Tlvlvfiaros *Ay/ow r; TO) 'Ayia> Tlvevfjiari \a\r)0 ypafywv epfjLrjveia <rvvET£\e~iTO. Catech. ix. cap. 34. f Appendix, No. 5.

42 AN APOLOGY FOR

preference of the Hebrew original. But as far as I can judge, he has failed in establishing any such preference, till after the time of Jerome. He was naturally led to take this ground. He was arguing against the opposite extreme of Morinus. It was the natural tendency of Pro testants to dispute every point against Romanists. But Hody was a moderate, learned, and sound divine, and I have little doubt, that he would have admitted of a com promise between the contending parties. He would not probably have been indisposed to return to the sentiments of the primitive Church, — viz. that the Hebrew original and the Greek version are to be received as constituting

o

conjointly, the canon of the Old Testament. Indeed, nearly all the early authorities which he has collected, would have naturally led to this comprehensive conclu sion.

The work of Hody, it should be remembered, was ex pressly composed to qualify the assertions of some distin guished Romanists, who in opposition to the Protestant Reformers, had the audacity to exalt the LXX, to the dis paragement of the Hebrew text. He went forth as a pro fessed antagonist to their extreme opinions, and success fully confuted their errors. He proved his point, that the Hebrew text must ever challenge the right of an original. But in proving this proposition, like most other advocates, he went somewhat beyond the truth, and rashly threw out insinuations against the co-ordinate value and authority of the LXX. I would respectfully submit, that Walton, rather than either Hody or Usher, pronounced the correct and orthodox decision. To hold the middle course be-

THE SEPTUAGINT. 43

tween extreme Romanists and extreme Protestants, neither to debase the LXX, nor to exalt the Hebrew, this is to maintain the canon of the primitive Church, apart from all the controversies of succeeding ages.

Before we proceed, it may be proper to advert to two important writers, who stand in a class of their own. Philo and Josephus, though they can scarcely be reckoned either amongst ecclesiastical or classic authors, are both held in high estimation, as bearing a direct and independent evidence to the truth and authenticity of the Jewish Scrip tures. It has been matter of controversy, whether Josephus appeals chiefly to the Hebrew text, or to that of the LXX. As far as I can judge, he seems to rely equally on both, and to attribute to both a divine authority. He relates the history of the LXX, without mentioning the fable of the cells.* In this omission, he was preceded by Philo, who is unquestionably the most important of all authorities (sav ing that of the N. T.), in attesting the value and authenti city of the LXX. Surprising as it may sound, his quota tions, inclusive of repetitions, are about 2300, of which about 1500 may be reckoned as separate and independent passages. He very seldom deviates from the exact words of the LXX, and I think generally agrees with our pre sent text, according to the Vatican. There is probably no other instance of such a multitude of citations, from any volume, contained in the same compass. The New Testa ment, considering its relative size, may be esteemed how ever as almost its rival, in the number of Septuagintal

* See Stuart On the Canon, p. 209. London, 1849.

44 AN APOLOGY FOR

citations and allusions. They amount, as we have before stated to about 350, of which, about 300 belong substan tially to the LXX ; but its incidental coincidences of thought and language are almost indefinite. Since the publication of my Scholia (1848), I have collected several hundred additional examples.

We have now arrived at that important epoch (390— 400), when Jerome published his Latin version, translated immediately from the Hebrew. Previously there had ex isted many Latin versions by private individuals; but only one, the Italic, was publicly read and recognised by the church. It was made probably in the Apostolic age, or very soon afterwards, and was a strict and literal translation of the LXX. This ancient version is now un fortunately lost, except fragments cited by the early Fathers, which are incorporated by Nobilius in his Latin version of the Septuagint.

The Book of Psalms forms a singular exception. — Such was the veneration of the laity for their own favourite manual of devotion, that it was not deemed advisable to set forth any new translation. Our own Prayer-Book version represents the Septuagintal Italic, with some occasional corrections, in a few striking deviations from the Hebrew. Whoever compares the Bible version with that in the Prayer-book, will at once perceive the difference. In the great majority of instances, the New Testament literally adopts the LXX in its citation of the Psalms, and occa sionally even when they differ from the Hebrew.*

* See Brett On the Versions, p. 135. Appendix, No. ix.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 45

There is one example of this kind, which is too remark able to be overlooked. It occurs Ps. xvii. 17, They pierced my hands and my feet. Now, if Jerome or our own translators had here followed the Hebrew text, they would not only have obscured a plain prophecy, and darkened two important passages in the New Testament (John viv. 3, Apoc. i. 7); but they would have introduced words, which are altogether devoid of meaning.

It may be safely affirmed indeed of Jerome's Latin version, that it never could have been accomplished, with out the previous assistance of the LXX. The Jews, from whom he acquired his knowledge of Hebrew, would have been neither willing nor able, to instruct him in the more obscure parts of the ancient prophets. It was the peculiar phraseology of the LXX, illustrated by the corresponding terms of the New Testament, which enabled this illustrious man to exhibit the Vulgate in its present form. This is evident from the existing remains of the Italic.

It may be reasonably questioned, whether Jerome's di rect knowledge either of Hebrew or Greek, was more than barely respectable. The numerous errors of which he has been convicted by Bp. Pearson,* Grabe, and Le Clerc, prove that it was not profound. He deserves however the utmost gratitude of the Church, for under taking this laborious and indispensable work. The Vul gate, with all its imperfections, forms a noble monument of his learning and piety.

Had he been content to have prosecuted this object,

* Prsefat. Paraenetic. Appendix viii.

46 AN APOLOGY FOR

without any derogation of that version, which had hitherto been the sole guide of the church, it is probable that nei ther Augustine nor Ruffinus would have risen up to oppose him. But, with many virtues, he was a man of strong and vehement passions. He had acquired that knowledge of Hebrew, which none of his brethren, except Origen, possessed. In his correspondence with Austin, he shows himself sufficiently elated by this superiority. But what is far less defensible, he often changes his ground. Some times he professes the highest regard for the LXX ; at others, he speaks of them with contempt : now, he pro fesses only to amend their version, and now, he decries it as utterly corrupt and depraved. He endeavours to re commend his own labours, not so much on account of their utility, as because it was a point of honor , that the Latin church should possess a version made immediately from the Hebrew ! *

But these are only the pardonable failings of a great and good man, nor should I have thought of alluding to them, if his character had not been recently depicted in a strain of eloquent panegyric, which might seem to justify his depreciation of the Greek version.^ It would have been far more happy for the church, and not less creditable to himself, if Jerome had prosecuted his own object, without any disparagement of the Septuagint ; if he had uniformly acknowledged its imperishable claims

* Appendix No. v. Du Pin's Life of Jerome, and Gregory's History of the Septuagint. Lond. 1664.

f See Dr. C. Wordsworth's Lectures on the Canon, pp. 82-85.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 47

to canonical authority, and had endeavoured to harmonize the version with the original, instead of delighting to place them at variance.

Such was the wish and desire of Augustine, in his re monstrances with the bold innovating spirit of Jerome. He did not deny the value and importance of Jerome's undertaking ; but he felt alarmed for the peace, harmony, and honour of the church. He thought that the term, Hebrdica vcritas, which Jerome was perpetually repeat ing, was a gratuitous insult on that version, which had been incorporated by Christ and the Apostles in their sa cred writings, and which had been so long prized and venerated by the Christian Church.

Should it be admitted, that one single Father could overturn the authority of all who had preceded him, and that the sanction and usage of the Christian Church dur ing the first three centuries, could be annihilated by the sole power of Jerome, then it would be in vain to plead that authority, on any other occasion. We then set at nought a standard, which has been so often appealed to, not only in matters of church-government, but in the most important facts and doctrines of Christianity. In that case, the noble Defence of the Nicene Creed by Bp. Bull would be shorn of all its influence, and the labours of Horsley against Priestley would cease to be valid. Or, to allude to a more recent work, which has obtained much and deserved celebrity, even the exquisite learning of Theophilus Angllcanus would lose half its value, if the authority of the early Fathers could be thus wantonly impeached.

48 AN APOLOGY FOR

It would appear, that for some time, the Italic and Jerome's version were both in public use. Gregory the Great, who lived in the following century, says that he occasionally used both translations. By degrees however, Jerome's became the favourite, except in the Psalmody. It is much to be lamented, that the use of Jerome's ver sion, was not accompanied with any permanent study of the Hebrew language, amongst the ancient Christians. With the solitary exception of Origen, there is no evidence, that any of the Greek or Latin Fathers could consult the original text of the Old Testament.

This is an important fact, and it demands the atten tion of every Christian student. Had the knowledge of Hebrew in the primitive Church been deemed of that su preme and exclusive value, which has since been ascribed to it, surely many of the Greek and Latin Fathers might have prosecuted that study. The Htxapla of Origen held out a strong incentive for this pursuit, and by the aid of Jews, the means were always at hand for entering on these labours. Such men, as Ambrose, Synesius and Cyprian would easily have mastered all its grammatical difficulties.

The fact remains clear and indubitable, that the He brew was not the study of the succeeding Fathers, and that, amidst all their controversies, they could not appeal to that text of the Old Testament, which is now repre sented amongst Protestants, as the sole Inspired and cano nical standard of the Ancient Scriptures.

Hence, they must have relied entirely on Jerome's Latin version, had not the Septuagint still maintained its rank

THE SEPTUAGINT. 49

amongst the more studious and learned members of the Church. The adoption of Jerome's version in public worship, could never supersede, with such men, the love and study of the LXX. Accordingly we find, that even in the Western Church, it was read and studied, till the northern barbarians sacked Rome and literature. Amongst the Novella of Justinian* (circ. A. D. 550), there is one, sanctioning and recognizing the use of the LXX amongst the Hellenistic Jews in their worship, in opposition to those who were exclusively attached to the Hebrew text. In the Greek Church, its use and authority have always been upheld, as co-ordinate with their veneration of the Hebrew archetype.

Nor was the authority of this version ever called in question, even amongst the unconverted Jews, till they were so pressed by its Scriptural interpretations, that they were compelled to take refuge in new Greek versions, by which, the prophetic language of the Old Testament was obscured in reference to Jesus, as the Messias and the Son of God. Such were the versions of Aquila, Sym- machus, and Theodotion, composed under the reigns of Adrian, Commodus and Severus. But the influence of the Septuagint, as is remarked by our own translators, still remained superior to that of all others, and was used by many of the Jews in their Synagogues, even to the latest period of the Roman Empire. f

It should also be remembered, that if we deny the

* Novell. 146. Walton. Proleg. ix. sect. 15.

f See Grabe's Prolegom. torn. ii. prop, v, vi. Hody, lib. iii. part. I. cap. i. pp. 232-237.

II

50 AN APOLOGY FOR

Scriptural authority of the LXX, we invalidate the au thority of all the versions, which are still read in the Eastern Churches, except those which use the ancient Syriac. Even they have a more modern version, taken from the LXX. In that case, the Armenian, Ethiopic, and Coptic versions are of no Scriptural authority, for they were unquestionably made from the LXX. If we conjoin to these the large body of Christians, which adhere to the Greek Church, we shall be shocked to find, that we have dismantled well nigh one half of ancient and modern Christendom.

Durincr the lono* night of the middle acres, the Latin

O £3 O O '

Vulgate remained the sole directory of the Western Church, and as Latin was little understood even by the clergy, the laity possessed few means of reading the Scriptures. But when the Reformation took place, and learning began to revive, it was not long ere some of the early Reformers betook themselves to the study of the Hebrew. This they accomplished like Jerome arid Origen, by the aid of Jews. Then, alas ! arose afresh the un happy and unnatural controversy, respecting the compara tive merits of the Hebrew and the Septuagint.

Strange as it may appear, the Romanist took part with the Septuagint, though he canonized the Vulgate ; whilst the Protestant took part with the Hebrew, though he de nounced the version of Jerome. The opposition amongst Protestants was heightened by an imprudent intermixture of Apocryphal with Canonical books in Jerome's trans lation, though he placed certain obelistic marks to intimate their inferiority.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 51

It is probable, that Jerome made this unfortunate ar rangement to meet the prior arrangement of the Italic. But he would have acted more wisely and consistently, if he had inserted no Apocryphal books, in the Hebrew Canon. Had this been the case, it is possible that we might have escaped our disputes with the Romanists, concerning the Apocrypha. The circumstance of its being intermingled with the Canonical books in the Septuagint, was altogether accidental, and had no good authority to plead in its favour. Neither Philo, Josephus, nor Melito mention any such spurious additions.

The same assertion may be made of the other previous lists of Canonical books, by Athanasius (A.D. 326), by Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 350), by the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 360), by Gregory Nazianzen (A. D. 370). The distinction between Canonical books and deutero- cano nical, was unfortunate, but it cannot be charged on the LXX. It was recognised, if not invented by Jerome, yet the blame has fallen as much on the Septuagint, as on the Vulgate.

o

But when the dispute had once commenced, the ani mosities of both parties were inflamed. In this contest, all moderation was sacrificed. The usage and authority of the primitive Church were forgotten, and that version of the Old Testament, which had been read in Jewish Synagogues 250 years before the birth of Christ, and 400 years after, — which had been the means of preparing the world for his advent, which was appealed to by Christ and his Apostles — the text of the primitive Fathers, the glory of confessors, the consolation of Martyrs, was now

52 AN APOLOGY FOR

banished from its alliance with the Hebrew archetype, and reproached as a version, based entirely on human authority.

It is in this unnatural state of repudiation and divorce ment from the primitive canon, that I would most earnestly and respectfully plead for the ancient rank and dignity of the Septuagint, as the affianced bride and associate of the Ancient Scriptures. If age, if services, if authorities are of value, I shall not plead in vain. We plead for the restoration of past honours, for the acknowledgment of present benefits, and for the recognition of Divine sanc tions. The early Church could not have received this Greek version, as inspired, unless she had received it on Apostolic authority. She could not have admitted it, as Scripture, unless she had found it incorporated with the New Testament. The grounds of her faith were simple and sublime. She found it sanctioned by Jesus and the Apostles, nor could she hesitate to yield to their supreme authority.

Let us only consider, how the early Christians must have construed and understood the various allusions and exhortations of Jesus and his Apostles, concerning the study of the Ancient Scriptures. Search the Scriptures, says our Lord. Could they possibly exclude the Scrip tures, as set forth in the Greek version, when that version was in far more general use, than the original Hebrew ? — when they knew, that Christ and the Apostles had chiefly quoted from the LXX? Could they exclude that version, which the Ethiopian eunuch was unquestionably reading in his chariot, when he accosted Peter? When

THE SEPTUAGINT. 53

our Lord took up the Prophet Isaiah, in the Synagogue at Nazareth, he must either have quoted immediately from the LXX, as Walton supposes;* or, it was subsequently adjusted to that version, by the authority and suggestion of the Holy Spirit. Conf. Luke iv. 18, 19. Esa. Lii. 1, 2. LXX.

Again ; St. Paul asserts in his Second Epistle to Ti mothy, iii. 16, that all Scripture is given by the Inspira tion of God. Now it is clear, that he must have here alluded primarily to the Greek version of the Old Testa ment, because Timothy's mother and grandmother, who had instructed him in those Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation, were Hellenistic con verts. Timothy was the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed ; but his father was a Greek, Act. xvi. 1. They resided in Asia Minor, either at Derbe or Lystra, where the Greek language was generally spoken. It is utterly improbable, that such females could read the Hebrew text. Both their names are of Grecian origin, and as his mother was married to a Greek (Greek both by birth and religion), she had doubtless instructed him from the Greek version of the Old Testament. We should remember also, that the only two citations, which occur in these Epistles, are in the express words of the iLXX. 1 Tim. v. 18. 2 Tim. ii. 19. Conf. Scholia Hel- lenistica, p. 929.

It is impossible indeed, to account for the universal re ception, amongst the early Christians, of this Greek version, as inspired and canonical, but on the conviction, that they

Prolog, ix. sect. 15.

54 AN APOLOGY FOR

had received it, as such, from Christ and the Apostles. The earliest dispute amongst the first believers, arose be tween the Jewish and Gentile converts, respecting the rite of circumcision, and the observance of the ceremonial law. But there was no dispute, concerning the Divine and Scriptural authority of the Septuagint version. The Hellenistic Jews had already been accustomed to read that version, for nearly 300 years. The Gentile converts were naturally led to its adoption, from its congeniality with the New Testament. But it never entered into the minds of either Jew - or Gentile, to suppose, that this version had been quoted by Christ or the Apostles, out of mere accommodation to their prejudices. It remained, for mo dern critics to devise an hypothesis, which is not only destructive of Divine Inspiration, but subversive of fair dealing and of common honesty.

If the Evangelists or Apostles could have founded the claims of Jesus, as the Messias, on the authority of a merely human version, — if they could have blended this human version, with their own inspired writings; where could be our confidence on their integrity, and where our trust on the authority of the New Testament ? The belief of Divine Inspiration precludes all notion of craft, hypo crisy, or double dealing. It may suit partizans and special-pleaders to adduce testimonies, which they do not confide in ; to make the best of an indifferent case, or to take advantage of ignorance and simplicity. But all such devices would be utterly subversive of our faith in a sacred and Divine record. For my part, I am free to con fess, that I never could give credit to the Inspiration of

THE SEPTUAGINT. 55

the New Testament, if I believed, that the greater num ber of its appeals to the Old Testament were expressed in uninspired and nncanonical language.*

The advantages of declaring ourselves united to the judgment of the primitive Church, are numerous and im portant. By declaring that we accept the Septuagint, in union with the Hebrew, as the basis of our interpre tation of the Old Testament, we should lay a sure and solid ground of reconciliation with the Eastern Church. It is painful to reflect that the Church, which was the cradle of our religion, is now holding as Canonical and Scriptural that same Old Testament, which we hesitate to acknowledge of sacred authority. But it is still more distressing to reflect, that it is morally, nay as it were, physically impossible, that this primitive and Apostolic Church could adopt the Old Testament in any other form, than that of the Septuagint. The Greek Church adheres to this version, because she has received it in uninterrupted succession from the Apostles. The autho rity of Jerome could not affect her language and eccle siastical traditions. We submit, that this fact is of itself sufficient, to point out the immutable and indestructible authority of this version. To suppose, that the Divine Head and Governor of the Church, would condemn the most ancient portion of his Church, to the use of false and uncanonical Scriptures, were to suppose what is in credible, nay, what is well nigh impious.

Another important benefit would arise from the far

* Appendix No. 11.

56 AN APOLOGY FOR

deeper study of the New Testament amongst ourselves. So long as the Greek version of the Ancient Scriptures is regarded as devoid of canonical authority, it never can be viewed, as the elect companion and interpreter ol the writings of Evangelists and Apostles. There will ever be a difficulty, in bringing the study of the Old and New Testament into one focus, till we view them through the same medium of thought and expression. It is scarcely possible to estimate the advantage, which would accrue to the study of theology, if the Greek New Testament were habitually read and compared with the Septuagint. The light they would thus mutually reflect on each other, can be duly felt and appreciated only by those, who have habitually brought them into this sacred union.

To connect the study of the Old and New Testament, without the intervention of the Septuagint, is a labo rious and somewhat hazardous undertaking. Unless the Hebrew be previously turned into Hellenistic Greek, il can scarcely be brought into union or contact. The rea son is obvious. The Hebrew idiom is so different from that of pure and classic Greek, that, without considerable violence, it cannot be transferred into Greek phraseology The grammatical texture of classic Greek has so little congeniality with the Hebrew or Hellenistic idiom, thai Bentley was of opinion, Demosthenes himself would have been puzzled in an attempt to construe either the LXX or the New Testament. Dissert, on Phalaris, p. 412, edit. 1699.

Now, this obstacle is entirely removed, by collating the phraseology of the New Testament with the Old, through

THE SEPTUAGINT. 57

the medium of the LXX. To use the language of logic, it supplies the middle term. We then possess an au thorised and Sacred interpreter, who explains the peculiar difficulties of both. This is accomplished, not only by that Hellenistic idiom, which is common to the LXX and the New Testament, but by showing whence that idiom is derived. Its great and essential value, however, con sists in ascertaining on Scriptural authority, the exact meaning of the most important doctrinal terms of the New Testament*

Nor would the advantage be less, as regards the Hebrew text. The time was, when such men as Bp. Walton and Bp. Pearson, or as Vitringa and Carpzov could never divide the study of the LXX, from that of the Hebrew archetype. They felt there could be no safety or security in studying the original, apart from the version; that a language, which had ceased to be vernacular so long before the Christian era, demanded the concurrent aid of a transla tion, which has now existed for more than two thousand years. But the daring and adventurous genius of later scholars has taught them to think very lightly of such subsidiary aids. Whoever has looked into the writings of Paulus, Ewald, Eichhorn or Gessenius, will be at no loss to comprehend this difference. Now, we have the Hebrew of the Old Testament buried under endless ap peals to comparatively modern oriental dialects. That small portion of Hebrew which we really possess, is stifled under loads of Arabic and Coptic, which few can read,

* Appendix No. 15. I

58 AiN APOLOGY FOR

and still fewer understand. But, we can all understand the practical result of such obscure and mazy erudition. Several of these continental Hebraists, with Mr. Norton amongst the Transatlantics, have openly avowed their disbelief of Divine inspiration. It is only the natural result of such unbounded and hazardous speculations con cerning Hebrew etymologies, which when deprived of the compass and rudder of the ancient Greek translation.

There can be little doubt, that the very obscurities of Hebrew form one of its chief recommendations to men, whose favourite delight is to grapple with difficulties, and to explore what is dark, dubious and uncertain. But though this taste, within certain limits, is useful and praiseworthy, it is extremely dangerous, when indulged in excess, especially on subjects of Biblical investigation. There is small scope for invention, in matters of Biblical criticism, and the closer we adhere to Divine authority, the less likely are we to fall into human paradox.

The Septuagint comes before us, as the most ancient authorised interpretation of the Hebrew. Such an autho rity quenches the spirit of theory, and rebukes the love of invention. We then remain pupils and scholars, and sit patiently at the feet of the original, and the version. This is painful and humbling to human genius, but it is the best attitude of the Christian student and divine. It should not be charged, as any imperfection of the Greek version, that it keeps us, from the elation of theorists and from the pride of dogmatists. When poor mortals sit down to study the Word of God, their first and most painful lesson is to abjure the love of originality. It is their business to trans-

THE SEPTUAGINT. 59

late, not to invent ; to follow, not to lead ; to copy, not to originate. The Greek version of the Old Testament, when united to the original, is admirably adapted to cherish and nurture this intellectual docility. It should be used, as the teacher of the Christian student, in his approach to the awful mysteries of the Cross. He will acquire from it far more valuable discipline, than from all the technical canons of Biblical critics.

Jesus chiefly lived and taught in Galilee, that poor, remote, outlying province of Palestine, out of which it was thought no Prophet would arise, and he resided in that despised village, of which it was wonderingly ex claimed, Can any good come out of Nazareth ? He " as sumed the form of a servant," and was taught to read from the Greek version of the Ancient Scriptures. Ac cording to the notions of Scribes and Pharisees, he should have resided at Jerusalem, and been educated at the feet of Gamaliel. But he came to confound the wisdom of the Scribe, and to humble the pride of the Pharisee, and it was fit that he should do honour to a version, so ex pressly designed, for the conversion of the Gentiles. It is no dishonour to the Septuagint, that it has partaken of the scorn of human learning.

Such is the present neglect of the LXX, that Professor Stuart, in his " Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon," seldom adverts even to its existence. After a long list of citations, which he terms "Appeals of the New Testament to the Old/'* he thus sums up his conclusion : —

* Critical History of the Canon of the Old Testament. Sect. xvm.

60 AN APOLOGY FOR

" Large as this list is of passages from the Old Testa ment, which are cited or alluded to in the New, it is far from comprehending all of this nature, which the New Testament contains. The truth is, that there is not a page, nor even a paragraph, of any considerable length, belonging to the New Testament, which does not bear the impress of the Old Testament upon it. What else is the so-called idiom of the Hebrew-Greek of the New Testa ment, but an impression of this kind ? It is indeed true, that some few peculiarities in the forms and grammatical structure of the Hebrew-Greek, led in part to the be- stowment of this appellation upon it. But after all, the grammatical departures from common Greek, are now known and acknowledged, to be but few ; while the lexical ones arise mostly from the necessity of the case, (new things demanding either new names, or new mean ings of old words, to designate them) ; or else, from the manner, in which the kindred Hebrew verbs &c. are employed in the Old Testament. In the latter case, they help to exhibit the influence, which the Old Testament has had upon the New throughout.

" No one who has had an intimate acquaintance with both Testaments, in their original languages, can possibly fail to recognize the numberless transfers of the spirit and the modes of expression, from the Old to the New. It is a thing to be felt, and not to be adequately described. It occurs so often, every where, and in respect to every thing, that one would not know, where to begin, or where to end such a description. No one must imagine, that the list of quotations, or cases of allusion above, conveys

THE SEPTUAGINT. 61

to him any really adequate view of the subject. The truth is, that it is no more than the mere beginning of such a view. But it presents to every reader, whether learned or unlearned, what is palpable and undeniable, and what must serve to convince a candid mind, that the New Tes tament writers every where lean upon, or stand closely connected with, the writers of the Old Testament."

How excellent is this general argument ! but the entire reasoning of the Professor in these plain Biblical compa risons, is founded exclusively on the Hebrew Scriptures, without any reference to the version of the LXX. Refer ring to John x. 35, " The Scriptures cannot be broken," he says, " Here Scripture stands for the whole Hebrew Bible," as if it did not also comprehend the Greek. Yet shortly before, he had quoted several passages, John xix. 24, Marc. xii. 10, &c, which exactly accord with the LXX. Nay, he cites that remarkable quotation, Luke iv. 21, in which the agreement is with the LXX, and against the Hebrew text (p. 200) ; yet he still speaks of the Old Tes tament as if it exclusively related to the Hebrew. With all possible deference to this learned and laborious divine, I would submit, that such an oblivion of the LXX, in matters of citation, is altogether unfair. In all passages, in which the words of the New Testament and the LXX are identical, it savours of something more than pedantry to go back to the Hebrew. It is to " be wise above what is written." It is to cast a slur on that version, which has been consecrated by Divine authority.

This exclusive predilection for the Hebrew text is, I apprehend,' to be reckoned amongst the most unfortunate

62 AN APOLOGY FOR

and indefensible partialities of Biblical critics.* It creates a schism in the study of the Bible, for which, no learning, no talents, no industry can compensate. The Judaic ele ment of the Old Testament is thus brought into constant and immediate opposition, with the milder features of the Christian economy, and its austere severity is imposed, even on our interpretation of the Gospel covenant. It has well nigh transformed Witsius into a Jewish lawyer. Look into the writings of Ainsworth, of Lightfoot, of Gill, and of many of the early Puritans, and you lament to perceive, that their exclusive addiction to the Hebrew text, had imparted no little tinge of Jewish prejudice, to their Christian piety. The study of the Septuagint is well calculated to soften this rigidity, by associating the language and phraseology of the New Testament, with our Old Testament lucubrations. By diminishing the distance of language, it harmonizes the difference of tone between the old and new dispensations.

* There is a remarkable instance of this Hebrew predilection in Ps. cjclv. 13, in which, it is almost incredible that there is not an omission in the Hebrew text. The Psalm is alphabetic, and the letter Nun is omitted. This is supplied in the LXX, by the word Tito-roe x.r.X. which answers to the Hebrew JDM. Conf. Ps. ex. 7. What a curious con fusion amongst the versions ! It is omitted by Jerome, and in our Bible and Prayer Book translations, but it is admitted by the Vulgate. This confusion has probably arisen from the repetition of the same sentiment in v. 17. But the Hebrew letter v is there necessary to keep up the acrostic. Dr. Hammond, in his larger Paraphrase on the Psalms, has a long note, in which, he attempts to justify both the Hebrew and the LXX. But I think Grotius was right in his opinion, that it is plainly defective in the present Hebrew text. It is found in the Syriac, Arabic and Ethi- opic versions. — I have alluded to it, merely as an example of the force of prejudice.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 63

To represent the Hebrew as a more holy, more sacred language than that, in which the New Testament is re corded, is to introduce a superior reverence of the tem poral to the Spiritual covenant. It is to perpetuate that Jewish feeling, which it is the natural tendency of the Septuagint to obliterate. As regards the peculiar phraseo logy of the New Testament, this neglect or disparagement of the LXX inflicts a still deeper wound. The Hellenistic phraseology cannot claim the beauties of classic Greek. It comes before us in a strange, grotesque, and foreign aspect. If we despise the diction of the Septuagint, we can never heartily admire or approve that of the Evan gelists and Apostles. The Hebrew of the Old Testament is correct and original — the Greek Testament is barba rous, because it is Hebraic. But, " without form or come liness," we are bound to prize and love this version, if we love and prize the New Testament. We are bound to study it, if our Redeemer read it in his childhood, and quoted it in his manhood. Who does not pity the Chris tian, who would exalt the language of Moses and the Patriarchs, above that of Christ and the Apostles, who can find more pleasure in illustrating the obscurities of Hebrew etymologies, than in enjoying the simpler and plainer lessons of the despised Galileans, though recorded in Septuagintal Greek.

I am far from applying such reproaches to Mr. Stuart, either as a Christian or a critic ; but I think it is im possible to doubt, that this censure will apply to a large portion of his recent work, On the Old Testament Canon. In what estimation were the Hebrew Scriptures held by

64 AN APOLOGY FOR

the Jews, at, and before, and soon after the commencement of the Christian era ? — is the title of his fifteenth section (p. 279). — He then quotes a large number of passages from Philo, all of which, are in the express words of the LXX ! He next proceeds to Josephus, of whom, he had previously allowed (p. 209), " that he usually appeals to the Septuagint version." " And for this," he adds, "two good reasons may be assigned ; the one, that he fully be lieved in the miraculous rise of the Septuagint, as is shown by his account of this matter : the other, that the Romans, for whom he wrote the history, could read the LXX, but not the Hebrew Scriptures." — Surely, if such be his ad mission, he ought to have taken some distinct notice of the LXX, in this account of the Jewish Canon.

It is in direct contrast to this perverse and unnatural tendency, of excluding the Greek version, even from its more immediate connection with the Greek Testament, that I have devoted many years to the prosecution of studies, which are exclusively based on Septuagintal authority. In the Hellenistic Edition of the New Testament, there are collected not less than fifty thousand examples of cita tions, allusions, and parallels of thought and expression, drawn from the LXX version, and from the Apocrypha. To these have been added, in the " Scholia Hellenistica" at least thirty thousand fresh examples, accompanied with numerous references to Philo, Josephus, and the Apostolic Fathers. My chief aim has been to illustrate the New Testament from the pages of the LXX, and to show, that what Professor Stuart here asserts to belong exclusively to the Hebrew text, must be attributed in a far stricter sense,

THE SEPTUAGINT. 65

to the Greek version. It is to show, that Jewish, rather than classic writers should be consulted in our theological studies. — Had I then felt the conviction, which I have avowed in this Apology, that our blessed Saviour, as a child, was instructed in this version by his parents, it would have gladdened, perhaps, improved my humble endeavours. Yet it brings unspeakable satisfaction and evidence to my mind, that I was on the right track of en quiry. The star was rising in the east, and it has now con ducted to the stable at Bethlehem. And how should it be otherwise, when the first promise and prediction is couched in the Septuagintal Isaiah? — 'iJV) »f TrapOei/of I

i|/fTa», KMI Ttfctroci vloVj xai xo&Xt<rBis TO ovopce, auTOU '

But to return to the argument. — Mr. Stuart, it is only justice to say, has given a brief, yet valuable section (xiv), on the sameness of the Canon of the Egyptian Jews, and the Jews of Palestine. He has fully proved his point. He shows that Philo, though he invariably quotes from the LXX, has not cited a single passage from the Apocrypha, and that Joseph us agrees numerically with our present Canon. It is doubtful when these Apocryphal writings became mixed with the Canonical books in the LXX MSS. ; but, I think, it must have been subsequent to the Apostolic age. The Hellenists are never charged with any such spurious additions, in the New Testament ; nor, as far as I can recollect, by any of the early Fathers. Had it been so, it is probable we should have found it noticed by Justin, who charges the Jews with having oc- :asionally corrupted passages, in their Canonical Scrip- Lures.

66 AN APOLOGY FOR

These Apocryphal books were composed, it is generally believed, by Alexandrian Jews, and the earliest not more than 150 years before the Christian era. There is no evi dence to show, as Bp. Marsh observes, they were ever esteemed by the Egyptian Jews, as ranking in the same class as the Canonical books, though they were regarded with much respect.

The arguments, by which Grabe attempts to prove, that this Apocryphal arrangement existed in the original MSS. sent from Jerusalem to Alexandria, are of no weight. It is not probable that any of them even existed at that re mote period. But, had they been sent from Jerusalem, no doubt they would have been noticed by Philo, or Jose- phus. It is plain, therefore, they were inserted at a sub sequent era. This remark, I think, may also be extended to the Apocryphal additions, which are now attached to the books of Esther and Daniel. The references in the New Testament to the latter (Matt. xxiv. 15, Marc. ,TV. 14), accord literally with the LXX version. See also 1 Mace. i. 54, Jos. Ant. xl. 8, 4.

There is some difficulty in accounting for the substitu tion of Theodotion's version of Daniel, by the Fathers of the second century. Clemens Romanus (Epist. i. 34) cites the LXX version almost literally. I do not enter into the controversies respecting the authenticity of the book itself, because they equally affect the Hebrew text. Mr. Stuart has sufficiently vindicated Daniel, as forming part of the ancient Jewish Canon, sect. xv. and Dr. Wordsworth shows, that it is included in all the ancient lists of the Canonical books of the Old Testament.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 67

The Apocryphal objection, therefore, can never be fairly urged against the original version of the LXX ; it ap plies merely to subsequent interpolations. Though the lists of the Canonical books of the Old Testament, in the early Fathers, must generally be supposed to bear an im mediate reference to the Greek version, yet their Canon of Scripture was the same as our own, in respect of the names and number of the books. Hence a plain, undeni able inference may be drawn, that the Hellenistic Canon was the same as the Hebraic. Indeed, Origen gives their names both in Hebrew and in Greek.

But if any doubt could remain on this point, it would be removed by the public and avowed sentiments of the Greek Church, which, though adhering to the LXX as Canonical, yet rejects the Apocryphal books from that standard. It receives them just like the Church of Eng land. — It rejects them from the Canon, because "they do not exist in Hebrew." See the Catechism of the Eastern Church, reprinted by Doctor Wordsworth. Appendix, pp. 52-55.

On this subject it is necessary to be exact, because it is of great importance. It proves that the admission of the Septuagint to Scriptural authority, implies no change whatever of our Protestant sentiments respecting the Apo cryphal books. The primitive Church, for the three first centuries, did clearly not receive as Canonical, any other books, but those which were translated from the Hebrew, in the Greek of the LXX. It is, therefore, self-evident, that if we adhere to the primitive Canon, by bringing the Hebrew and the LXX into one focus, we shall continue

readings to those in the Hebrew text.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 69

it might appear, that we are bound to receive it as such, for, " it is the only version of the Psalms " as Dr. Brett remarks, " to which we of the clergy, have given our solemn assent and consent."* — To say the least of it, It is an open question.

There is, I believe, no scholar or divine, whilst study ing the present Masoretic text, who does not feel himself at liberty to compare it with the LXX, and occasionally to prefer its readings. All commentators and critics have endeavoured to elucidate what is obscure in the one, by collating it with what is plain in the other. But this is virtually admitting its scriptural and equivalent authority. It would be utterly inadmissible, to correct what is in spired, by that which is merely of human authority.

There is one point, indeed, which will justify this freedom, beyond all reasonable doubt. On the question of the comparative merit of the Hebrew and Septuagint chronology, there are few in the present age, who do not take part with the latter. Now, when it is considered, that the difference between the Hebrew and Greek com putations amounts to more than 1400 years, and that no one is now blamed for following Jackson or Hales, in preference to Archbishop Usher ; it leads to the general conclusion, that the authority of the LXX is, on some points, considered equal, if not superior, to that of the present Masoretic text.

In the days of the Buxtorfs, it was supposed, that the original text remained pure and immaculate, and that by

* See Brett's Dissertation On the Ancient Versions, p. 97, and Grabe's Proleg. torn. ii. §§ 26-39.

70 AN APOLOGY FOR

a perpetual miracle, every point and letter of that text had come down to us, without any error of transcription. This imaginary perfection gave to the Hebrew a prerogative, which could be claimed by no other ancient record. Nor am I prepared to affirm, that if such miraculous superin tendence could have been shown to be real, we could have any right to associate with it another, which has been liable to all the errors of copyists. But since it is plainly ascertained, that the Hebrew and Greek MSS. have suffered alike from the effects of time and transcrip tion, it is unreasonable to insist upon claims, which can not be supported by corresponding evidence. And yet, the echo of this supposed supernatural interference in be half of the Hebrew text, still dwells on the minds of many excellent Christians, and renders them deaf to any terms of accommodation between records, which should mutually sympathise in each other's disasters. The knowledge, that the Hebrew, the LXX, and the New Testament MSS. have suffered alike from the errors of transcribers, should silence every attempt to exalt, or to depreciate, and should teach us to moderate our demands on super natural interference, in matters which do not substantially affect either our faith or our duty.

It is now ascertained, beyond all controversy, that both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Testament have fre quently suffered through the errors of transcribers. The labours of Kennicott and De Rossi on the Hebrew, are parallel to those of Bos, Breitinger, Holmes and Parsons on the LXX. They show there are thousands of various readings, occasioned by the mistakes of transcription. But

THE SEPTUAGINT. 71

they evince the far more important fact, — that the worst MS. in existence, whether Hebrew or Greek, would be adequate to convey to us all that is really important, either for doctrine or practice.*

It must be admitted, however, that there do exist some important discrepancies between the present Hebrew text and the version of the LXX, which cannot be explained by the errors of transcription. Many of these are readily accounted for, by supposing, that the LXX translated from unpointed MSS. The Masorites, it should always be recollected, have stereotyped their own interpretations, by their systematic points. Others result from an original difference of interpretation. Thus in Ps. cv. 28, the LXX translate, " They were not obedient unto his word," whilst, according to the Hebrew, we read it in our Bible version, " They rebelled not against his word." Here is plainly a difference of interpretation ; the one, referring it to Moses, the other, to the Egyptians. — In such instances, we are left to our own judgments, though I am free to confess, I would generally follow the original, in prefer ence to the version.

But when it is considered, that in several passages, the Evangelists and Apostles have thought right to follow the Greek version, even where it plainly differs from the Hebrew^ this acknowledgment should not be considered, as implying any degradation of the Septuagint. In all such passages, its inspiration is fully warranted by the paramount authority of the New Testament. — Nay, it is

* Appendix, No. 7. f Appendix, Xo. 6.

72 AN APOLOGY FOR

then put before us in its most striking aspect — It is the force of contrast.

To illustrate this observation, let us turn to Proverbs xi. 31. In our Bible, it is translated, Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth, much more the wicked and the sinner. This is in accordance with the Hebrew text. But, in the LXX, it stands thus : If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Now, this interpretation of the LXX is war ranted and ratified by St. Peter iv. 18, who adopts it as his own. Would any one venture to blame the LXX for an interpretation, which has been sanctioned by Inspired

authority ?

Perhaps no better reason can be assigned, for the per mission of some important discrepances between the He brew text and the Greek version, than that the study of the one, was designed, by no means, to supersede the study of the other. Had the Greek been an exact and literal version of the Hebrew, every motive for the study of the original would have been removed. Had Jesus and his Apostles never quoted the Hebrew, it would have almost superseded its value, in the estimation of the Chris tian Church. Had he never quoted the LXX, that ver sion could not have deserved our reverence and esteem. Or, if the LXX had been an exact copy of the Hebrew, it would have been impracticable to have distinguished these quotations, for they would have invariably agreed with both. — " / make use of both the Hebrew and the Septuagint," says Augustine, " because I find them both

THE SEPTUAGINT.

73

quoted in the New Testament'' — Can any man adduce a plainer, or more scriptural argument?*

This eminent Father was also of opinion, it was to mark the Divine sanction given to this version, that it is not a mere servile copy of the Hebrew text. Certain it is, there are passages in the New Testament, cited from it, which are not to be found in Hebrew. Thus Heb. i. 6, Let all the angels of God worship him, rests entirely on Sep- tuagintal authority. — It was to wean us, perhaps, from an exclusive reverence, or undue partiality to either, that our Saviour and the Apostles have referred to both. If so, may not the version have been more frequently cited, because it needed and required the stronger sanction to uphold it ?

There is a remarkable omission, which seems indirectly to intimate the supreme veneration, in which the Greek version was held, by the writers of the New Testament. It consists, in the absence of all citation or reference to that wonderful prediction, Isaiah Li\ 6, Unto us a child is born, &c. Such omission, I apprehend, would be almost unaccountable, if we did not know, that this passage is not to be found in any of the MSS. of the LXX. In the Hebrew text, it is undoubtedly genuine ; but its absence from the Septuagint, precluded its citation to the Hellenistic converts. The Apostles would not dis turb their confidence in a version, which was peculiarly designed for their use, and which had led them to the belief of the Gospel.

* Appendix, No. 5. L

74 AN APOLOGY FOR

If we may hazard a conjecture, this omission in the Greek version may be alike explained, on sacred and pru dential considerations. The Macedonian dynasty was only recently established at Alexandria, and the Jews, on account of their religion, were viewed with much suspicion. Had the translators inserted such a strong passage, it might have led to the total destruction of their labours. Mio-ht

o

it not then be ordered by Providence, that they should pass over a prediction, the real meaning of which might be totally misapprehended, and which might defeat the object of their mission? The same conjecture I think may be extended to several other passages in their ver sion of the Prophetical books. [Compare Marc. iv. 33. John xvl. 12. 1 Cor. Hi. 2.]

It is an old and true remark, that Isaiah, the most dis tinguished of the Prophets, seems the most imperfectly translated of any portion of the LXX. Large portions are omitted, and much obscurity is thrown over several of his most striking predictions. We may account for this, I think, on the principle above stated. This version was designed to "be a light to lighten the Gentiles." But that light was to be gradual and progressive — or, as it is expressed elsewhere, " a light shining in a dark place." Now, many of these predictions of Isaiah are so strong, in their relation to the advent and glory of the Messias, to his regal authority, and the power and extent of his kingdom ; that, had they been all fully and clearly translated into the vernacular tongue, they might have led to much con fusion and insurrection, amongst the Jews of the Dispersion. Enough was left to awaken their hopes, and to animate

THE SEPTUAGINT. 75

their desires. Defective as this Greek version of Isaiah is, it is quoted much at large in the New Testament, and seldom, with any considerable deviations from the exist ing text. — We dwell on these particulars, because they tend to advocate the Inspiration of this version, amidst all its apparent discrepances and imperfections. Perhaps it was the " lesser light" to rule the night of the Gentile world — whilst the " greater light" was the glory of Israel. Yet, however inferior in lustre, it enabled the Gentiles to press into the kingdom of God, before the more privi leged descendants of Abraham.

This reflection should ever endear this version to our regards. It is our own peculiar portion and heritage. It belongs to us, as " the voice, which cried in the desert.'1 It is like " the beautiful feet of those, who proclaimed glad tidings on the mountains." Wonder not, that it was owned and cited by Evangelists and Apostles. It had already prepared a highway in the wilderness for their approach, nay, it had already preached, by anticipation, the very words and tidings of the Gospel. Wonder not, that it was owned and quoted, by the Saviour of the world. It had already told of his nativity, of his sufferings, of his death, of his resurrection and ascension — of his Divine origin, and of his incarnate humility. Wonder not, that it was appropriated by the Divine Spirit to the service of the Gospel, in the pages of the New Testament. Its language was the same — its phraseology was identical. How could the records of the gospel, if written in Greek, have been recorded in any other style, than that of the Beptuagint?

76 AN APOLOGY FOR

It should never be forgotten, that Jesus conversed with his disciples, not only in Greek, but in -the current language of Judaea, which was Syro-Chaldaic, or, as it is now denominated Aramaic. Even his last solemn words from the Cross were uttered in that dialect. Wherever the word Hebrew is mentioned in the New Testament, this spoken dialect is denoted. The knowledge of Greek was confined chiefly to the upper orders, and to the Roman officers. This is plain from the question of the chief captain to Paul, Act. a\vi. 37, Canst thou speak G?*eek?

But, the New Testament being designed for an abiding record of the origin and history of Christianity, it was wisely ordered, that this transient and provincial dialect should be transmuted into that permanent and enduring form, in which we now receive it. That form is the Hel lenistic language of the LXX. — It was transmuted, as we firmly believe, under the immediate superintendence of the Holy Spirit. This change of the vernacular of Judaea into Hebraic or Hellenistic Greek, stamps an importance on that idiom, as consecrated and peculiar to Inspiration. It is the appropriate diction of the Holy Spirit. — To the unbeliever and the " disputer of this world," this change may appear " a stumbling block," and afford matter of doubt and controversy. To the believer, it is like the doc trine of the Cross — " the power and the wisdom of God." It is his power, because it implies something extraordinary and supernatural. It is his wisdom, because, if that change had not been accomplished, the phraseology of the New Testament would have now been scarcely intelli gible.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 77

During the stay of our Lord on earth, i. e. during the history and events recorded by the Evangelists, it is pro bable, that the provincial language of Judaea was usu ally, though not always, used by Christ and the Apos tles. Their teaching and intercourse were generally con fined to those, who may be supposed to have been chiefly conversant with this dialect. Even after the Ascension, it would appear, that for some time, they still limited their preaching chiefly to Judaea, Samaria and Galilee. It was not till about eight years subsequently, Peter was fully convinced by Cornelius, that the Gospel was de signed for the acceptance of the Gentiles, as well as the Jews. Still, such were their prepossessions, that even two years afterwards, when they " were scattered abroad, upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, and had travelled as far as Phenice, Cyprus and Antioch, they preached the word to none, but unto Jews only. But some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch (of Syria), spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus." Acts vi. 18-20. lit is probable, that the provincial dialects were afterwards gradually superseded by the more general use of Greek, which henceforth became their usual channel of instruction, amongst the Gentiles. Thus, when Paul came subsequently :o Antioch (of Pisidia), there can be no question, that he addressed them in Greek. The Jews mentioned were loubtless Hellenists, well versed in the Greek Old Testa- nent. In all his subsequent travels in Asia Minor, he nust have used the same language, for ho. was in the •nidst of Grecian colonies. But, when he passed over

78 AN APOLOGY FOR

into Greece, this fact is still more evident. " The man of Macedonia," who cried, Come over and help us, could not have been helped, had he been addressed, in any other language, than that of the Macedonic Greek of the LXX. — It is proper to dwell on this transition from the provincial dialect of Judsea, to the use of the Hellenistic or Hebraic Greek, because it at once illus trates the history of the Gospels, and developes the con current argument of this Apology.*

Whatever of Divine power or wisdom was displayed in this change of Syro-Chaldaic into Greek, must primarily redound to the honour and dignity of the Septuagint. It is a prerogative and distinction, such as was never as signed to any other volume. It is the Spirit of God, deliberately selecting and appropriating the diction of that version, as the diction of the New Testament.

There is, indeed, a discernible propriety, in electing some marked and characteristic style of thought and ex pression, some usus et norma loquendi, as the permanent medium of a written Revelation. When God addresses man, whether through Patriarchs, Prophets, Evangelists, or Apostles, above all, through his only-begotten Son, it seems befitting that he should address him, in some sacred and peculiar form of speech. This type and form is essentially Hebraic. It was so in the days of Moses, and it will continue unchanged, till the end of the world. Amidst every variety of version, whether ancient or mo dern, this language of the Bible remains indelible. The

* Appendix, No. 15.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 79

great conductor has been the Greek Septuagint. This is the trunk which has conveyed it to all nations, through versions of the Old Testament. But it has found a re servoir in the New Testament, which has transformed it, as it were, into " that river of the water of life, which pro ceeds from the throne of the Lamb." The diction of the New Testament, being essentially the same as that of the Septuagint, has invested that version with a lustre and dignity, which raises it to the full level of its ori ginal. The tidings of the gospel are always preached and pronounced in Septuagintal language, and the poorest cottager, who can read his Bible, is as much indebted to it, as the most learned academic. Should you ever doubt the Inspiration of the Septuagint, as a version of the Old Testament; you will find all your doubts removed, by considering it, as an essential component of the New.

A still further plea for the Inspiration of the Septuagint, may be found, in the vast and striking accession of cre dibility, which it brings both to the external and internal evidence of Divine Revelation. Had the text of the Old Testament been confined solely to Hebrew, it would, as Warburton remarks, have looked too much like a cipher, to all the rest of the world, except the Jews.* And though this learned prelate carries the assertion too far, when he declares, that it would have " been utterly unin telligible, without the Greek version, and that the masoretic text would then have been a mere nose of wax ; " " yet, it would have presented such a suspicious aspect, that it is

* " Letters to Hurd." Lett. 25th.

80 AN APOLOGY FOR

difficult to estimate the recoil, which would have been felt on the New Testament, from the sole absence of the Hellenistic version.

The Old Testament would then also have looked like a Revelation, entirely confined to a particular people. The God of the Jews would scarcely have been recognised, as the God of the Gentiles ; and all the objections of infi delity would have been urged with a force and plausibility, which we can now scarcely realize. The union of the Greek tongue with the Jewish religion, took it out of this partial and national aspect. Such a majestic scaffolding betokens an Almighty hand. Such a wondrous combina tion denotes the finger of Inspiration. It has expanded all our conceptions of the Mosaic economy, and scouted the cramp and niggard notions of artificial theology.

And thus the version of the LXX, is not to be regarded merely as the first and most important of all versions of the Old Testament, whether ancient or modern ; but as constituting a great historical fact or epoch, in the plan of the Christian Dispensation. It would be diffi cult to mention any fact, which has produced larger or more important consequences.* It has continued in ope ration for more than 2000 years, nor will it cease to ope rate, till the last Jew shall be converted to the Cross. When Malachi, the last of the prophets, had closed the Hebrew Canon, the Septuagint was ordained to keep alive that canon, the Hebrew being no longer understood. It remained the living lustre of Moses and the Prophets,

* See Graves On the Pentateuch. Vol. ii. Lect. 5. Part. 3.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 81

till that lustre was eclipsed by the rising of the Sun of Righteousness. Then it arrived at its meridian glory. Never man spake like that man, and never book was honoured like that, which is so often quoted in the New Testament. Repelled by canonists, or renounced by scholars, this version may indignantly exclaim, in the words of Him, who has so often owned it : " If ye be lieve not me, believe me for my works'* sake"

Great was its fame and glory in the primitive Church, yet it is not correct to impute the neglect of the Hebrew text, to the prevalence and popularity of the LXX. It was the inevitable consequence of that language having ceased to be vernacular, for so many hundred years before the Christian era. In the age of Christ and the Apostles, they were obliged to furnish Syriac Targums or Para phrases, even to the Jews of Palestine, as a substitute for the Hebrew text. But the Jews of the Dispersion, who formed the original nucleus of the Christian Church, had long before betaken themselves, to the use and study of the LXX. It cannot therefore be considered, in point of time, as the cause or occasion of their neglect of the Hebrew Scriptures, when they subsequently became the converts of Christianity.

Considered in a Providential view, the oblivion and neglect of the Hebrew formed an important link, in that chain of penal chastisements which were inflicted on the Jews, for their ancient idolatries, and their subsequent rejection of the Messias. It was also the chief external cause of engrafting the Gentiles, on the stock of Israel. To carry out this purpose, it would seem indispensable,

M

82 AN APOLOGY FOR

that their native language should suffer an eclipse, and that the most universal language of the Gentiles should be adopted in its stead. Such was the actual state of things, at the birth of Christ, and during the Apostolic age. The primitive church, therefore, only fulfilled and carried out these Providential designs, by her general use and adoption of the Greek version of the Ancient Scriptures.

If we may presume to trace the intention of Providence, in this long sleep and oblivion of the Hebrew text amongst the followers of Christ, perhaps we may discern it, First, in fixing deep the foundations of Christianity, apart from Jewish rites and ceremonies ; and Secondly, in confining the attention of Christians chiefly to the study of the New Testament, and of that peculiar style in which it is recorded. Had the study of Hebrew flourished in the early Church, the glories of the Mosaic economy might have dwelt too much on the minds and manners of the early Christians. It was wisely ordered therefore, that it should be seen only "through a glass darkly, and not face to face" — It was of great importance, that the first teachers of Christianity should have their minds strongly, nay, almost exclusively, directed to the New Testament, and that the Old Testament should be considered chiefly, as subordinate and introductory. This was effected by means of that version, written in the same language, and so continually quoted by Jesus and the Apostles.

A great and signal benefit also was conferred on the pri mitive Church, by preventing all controversy and dispute, concerning the comparative value of the Hebrew and the Greek text of the Old Testament. Hence none of the

THE SEPTUAGINT. 83

early adversaries of Christianity could distract the minds of the believers of the three first centuries, by proposing contradictory sources of Biblical interpretation. — It is with the deepest humility I submit these observations, to the attention of the Christian public. They are closely con nected with the general argument of this Apology, and may lead others of deeper and more comprehensive thought, to a more profound contemplation of these inter esting themes.

But, when four hundred years had passed away, and the "middle wall of partition" was completely broken down between the Jew and the Gentile, when the Chris tian Church had cast its roots far and wide, and the standard of the Cross was raised, as an ensign amongst all nations ; then, we may discern the same Providential care and wisdom, in raising up Jerome, for the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Latin, and for inviting the love and respect of the Christian Church, to the original text of Moses and the Prophets. Still, this revival was kept within very narrow limits. It was confined to the ob scure medium of that Latin version, which we now call the Vulgate. The study of Hebrew again died away with Jerome and Origen. It was remembered amongst Christians, like the pyramids of Egypt, to tell of departed grandeur and renown; whilst amongst Jews, it was so buried under Rabbinical and Talmudic fables, that it seemed scarcely to retain even the vestige of its original fame and character.

This strange and unnatural taste continued amongst the Jews, throughout the mediaeval period. It still reigns

84 AN APOLOGY FOR

amongst them to a great extent, though, it is said, to be gradually giving way, to a more attentive study of their Ancient Scriptures. Hence it is, that an unconverted Jew, can generally afford but little help in the study oi Biblical Hebrew, because his chief delight and study consists in consulting Rabbins, and in poring over the Mishna and Gemara.

At the era of the Reformation, we may again trace the same Divine love and care of the Church, by the gradual revival and restoration of Hebrew literature. The know ledge of the Hebrew tongue had slept, amongst Chris tians, for nearly 1000 years since the days of Jerome. His Latin version was the solitary taper, which had dimly shone in the surrounding gloom, and even that light was scarcely comprehended in the general chaos. The com mon people repeated their prayers in an unknown tongue. The Scriptures were wellnigh inaccessible to the bulk of the laity.

It was a signal blessing, when Munster, Reuchlin, Fa- gius, Pellicanus, and their associates, recalled the attention of the Christian Church, to the study of the Hebrew Scrip tures ; but it was unfortunate that Protestants, in their zeal for this invaluable study, should consider it as part of their duty, to decry and undervalue that Greek version, which had so long supplied its absence in the primitive Church. The wise, and moderate, and Scriptural course to pur sue, had been to cherish the combined love and study and veneration of both. — But alas ! human nature is ever prone to extremes. No sooner was the knowledge of the Hebrew language imported amongst the Lutheran and

THE SEPTUAGINT. 85

Reformed divines, than the ancient dispute concerning the comparative value of the Original and the Version was revived.*

It may be curious, perhaps useful, to take a brief sketch of the different phases, under which the study of Hebrew has been prosecuted, since the date of its revival amongst Christians. By its earliest students, it was necessarily received from the Jews, and was naturally accompanied with every Jewish prejudice. By Galatinus and Reuchin, it was conceived to possess the deepest mysteries of the Kabbalah, in its words and letters. To doubt of the anti quity of the vowel-points, in the days of Buxtorf, was to expose yourself to the imputation of positive heresy. Ca- pellus came forth to the contest, and his Arcanum Punctu- ationis was generally esteemed decisive of their fate. The Hebrew was thus freed from Masoretic shackles, but it became exposed to dangers of another kind. It was ima gined by Cocceius, that the sublimest mysteries of Chris tianity might be detected in its elements. The Lexicon of Gussetius will at once amuse and amaze, by its absurd erudition. The study of Hebrew continued popular in this country during the dynasty of the Stewarts, and was pursued with equal assiduity by Churchmen and Noncon formists. There was this difference, however, between them, as may be seen by the dispute of Bishop Walton and Dr. John Owen, — that the former held the LXX in much higher esteem, than the latter. f And this

* Appendix, No. 7.

f See " The Considerator Considered," by Walton, sect, xv, and Twells's Life of Pocock, pp. 318-333. Lond. 1816.

86 AN APOLOGY FOR

difference would probably have continued, had not the school of Hutchinson arisen, in the last century, to revive the dreams of Reuchin and Cocceius. They found the doctrine of the Trinity, in almost every verse of the He brew text, and as no such discovery could be pretended in the Version, it again sank into comparative disrepute Hare and Lowth attempted in vain, to connect its stud} with classic literature. Since their days, it has become popular to read the Hebrew without points, which is de structive of any deep, or accurate knowledge. Its las and present phasis is that of the German Neologists, whc boast of having renovated its entire study. By blending i with Arabic, like Schultens, they have nearly buried its re mains, whilst by mingling it with metaphysical specula tion, they have rendered it a vehicle of infidel doubt anc daring, — a thin Biblical cover for Nortonism or Hegel ism. — Let any one compare the literature of Geseniui with that of Walton or Pocock, and he will learn to esti mate the value of Biblical Hebrew, as studied with, o: without, the version of the LXX.

The study of Hebrew can never become generally use ful amongst us, till it is reunited to that language, which i the charm and solace of men of taste and literature. A i present, its knowledge is confined comparatively to a fev« hardy and recluse students, and of those who attempt i i in early life, few, even amongst the clergy, continue t« prosecute its study, in later years. The truth is, that th< Hebrew, collated with the LXX, is at once an intelligibL and agreeable occupation, because it then opens to us th< rationale of the Greek Testament dialect. But, whei i

THE SEPTUAGINT. 87

divided from the LXX, it is dark and dubious, and it be comes so difficult and obscure, when connected with Ori ental dialects, as to render its knowledge unattainable •by any considerable portion, even of the more studious clergy. — We advert to these particulars, to show, how many and urgent are the motives, for again contemplating the Hellenistic version, as the partner and expositor of the Hebrew archetype. — It is thus, accordingly, that an an cient Father of the Church sets forth its advantages : Hi Itaque Seniores libros hos transferentes, et Spiritalem secun- dum Moysi traditiomm occultarum cognitionem scientiam zdepti, ambigua lingua Hebraic^ dicta et varia quadam °.x se nuntiantia, secundum virtutes rerum certis et propriis verborum significationibus transtulerunt, &c. Hilar. Pict. Tract, in Psal. ii. num. 2, Edit. Veron, 1730, torn. i. p. 31. It is vain however to expect, that the Septuagint can ever be considered the friend and companion of the He brew, unless it be raised to its primary and original stan dard. It is not by extolling it, as venerable and useful, but receiving it as sacred, and of Divine authority, that we shall bring it once more into contact with the Divine original. The Syriac version of the Old and New Testa ment is venerable for its age, and it is also useful for its applicability to aid us in the interpretation of Scripture. 'But it was never regarded of Scriptural or canonical au thority, either in the Eastern or Western Church. The reason is obvious. The Syriac version of the Old and New Testament was made subsequently to the era of Christianity — probably in the second century. It could not aspire to the honour of being, like the Greek version,

88 AN APOLOGY FOR

the forerunner of Christ and the Apostles. It could not receive the seal of Inspiration, by being incorporated with the New Testament. Nor is it, like the LXX, the stock and parent of all other versions.

It is the peculiar prerogative of the Septuagint, that it constitutes the Viaduct between the Old and New Tes tament, that it forms an essential element in the history of the Jewish and Christian Church, and that, unlike all other versions, it is raised to the dignity of an Original, by the personal sanction of Christ and the Apostles. Other versions may be subsidiary, like grammars or lexi cons ; but this is indispensable, because it forms part and parcel of the New Testament. You might as well expect the clay and the iron to amalgamate, as bring what is merely human and uninspired, to associate with that which is supernatural and Divine.

It should also be remembered, that the peculiar style of Greek, in which the LXX and New Testament are com posed, forms one of the strongest internal evidences of their mutual truth and authenticity. None but Jews of the Dis persion could have written any considerable portion of either. The diction of this version is so identified with the whole phraseology of Evangelists and Apostles, that we may challenge any learning or ingenuity to set aside the philological evidence, that the New Testament must have been composed by Hellenistic converts, during the first century, and prior to the fall of Jerusalem. No such Greek phraseology long survived that event. The numberless citations from the LXX, in the Fathers of the three first centuries, also corroborate the fact, that no other version

THE SEPTUAGINT. 89

was then received in the Christian Church. — But these, and many other incidental facts, illustrative of the truth of Christianity, are more or less connected with the Sep- tuagint. They tend to show how extensively it was em ployed by Divine Wisdom, to carry out its gracious and merciful designs in the propagation of the Gospel.

Nor will this observation appear extravagant, if we look around, and contemplate the wide and enduring influence, which this version still possesses in the Christian world. Not only is it read exclusively in the Greek Church, but its influence pervades all the Oriental versions. Its psaltery forms the instrument of praise and thanksgiving to all na tions, where the name of Christ is heard or sung. It has transferred its influence even to versions, which profess to be taken from the Hebrew text. Above all, by its diction and citation, it enters so largely into the New Testa ment, that whilst we are reading the Gospels and Epis tles, we are continually reading the words and language of the LXX. How little do we consider, that the most argumentative, awful, and affecting portions of the New Testament, are recorded in the very words and phrases of the Septuagint ! Prejudice or ingratitude may affect to look down on a version made by Alexandrian Jews ; but, whilst a spark of Christian devotion remains, whilst the name of Christ is adored — whilst Evangelists and Apostles are held in reverence — so long should the Septuagint be re garded, as the vestibule of the Christian Church — the best interpreter of the Old Testament, and the sole Canonical expositor of the New.

It is full time, to review with calmness and delibera-

N

90 AN APOLOGY FOR

tion, our popular Canon of the Old Testament, both in relation to the primitive Church, and the attacks of modern unbelievers. If we relinquish the faith of the Church for the first 400 years, as respects the Scriptural authority of the Septuagint, it will be very difficult to establish its sanction, on any other topic of appeal. But, should we totally repudiate its claims to Inspiration, I do not com prehend, how we can establish the Inspiration of the New Testament. There is a body of quotation from the LXX in the New Testament, amounting, as nearly as I can estimate, to the bulk of St. Mark's Gospel.— Are these numerous passages to be esteemed of sacred, or profane authority ? *

If you agree with Spearman and the school of Hut- chinson, that Christ and the Apostles, in adducing these passages from the LXX, did not avouch their Divine au thority, but merely "took them as they found them;"')' then, you will make such a breach in the sacred records, as no learning, no ingenuity can ever repair. If, on the other hand, you assert, that the mass of citation from the LXX becomes inspired pro tantoy solely on account of its citation ; then, you suggest to the mind such a miracle, as can scarce be accredited, by any amount of faith. It were next to a contradiction, to believe, that so much, and no

* Appendix, No. 5.

f " It may be considered, that the Apostles generally cited from the Greek of the LXX version, and took it as they found it, making no al teration, when the passage as it then stood, was sufficient to prove the main point, which it was adduced to prove." — J5p. Home's Preface tc the Psalms. See Appendix, No. 3.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 91

more, of that version is inspired. Yet, this is what all believers in the plenary Inspiration of the New Testa ment are forced to admit, when they deny the general In spiration of the LXX.*

As to those, who deny professedly the plenary Inspira tion of the New Testament, it will be generally found, that they likewise deny all Scriptural rank and importance, to this Greek version. The Arian or Socinian dislikes the Septuagint, for the same reason, that the ancient Jew disliked it, when he found, that the early Christians were constantly drawing their strongest arguments, from the Alexandrian text. No man can long read the Greek New Testament, in company with the Greek Old Testament, and not come to the clear and heartfelt conviction, that all Divine titles in the LXX may be ascribed to Jesus Christ, and that every doctrine of Christianity, may be pourtrayed and expressed, in Septuagintal phrase ology.

Hence the Arian and Socinian Commentators are com pelled to retreat into Hebrew obscurity. The darkness of Hebrew words may seem to favour any opinion. If they admitted the Greek version to be of equal authority, that darkness would soon be dispelled. But, by casting aside this version, they cloak and conceal their errors, if not from others, at least from themselves.*

Perhaps the most striking instance of prejudice and dis regard of the Septuagint, is to be found in Taylor's Para phrase, Romans, cap. iii. v. 4, " That thou mightest be

* Appendix, No. 7.

92 AN APOLOGY FOR

justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." — "This/' says he, "may be a true transla tion of the Greek, but it is not so agreeable to the original Hebrew, nor to the Apostle's sense and design." He then gives a translation from the Hebrew of his own, which he confesses, " doth not exactly tally with the Greek of the Septuagint, which the Apostle uses in this quotation." — " But for my own part" he concludes, " I pay no regard to the words of the LXX, as quoted in the New Testa ment. The Hebrew is my standard, because I am per suaded, it was so, to the Apostle." I need scarce observe, that all arguments for the LXX would be lost on such a partisan. — Yet it is only a fair and logical deduction, if we deny the Inspiration of the Greek version.

" We can hardly suppose," says this critic, " so good a scholar as St. Paul, who was perfectly acquainted with the Scriptures in the Original Hebrew, nor indeed any of the Apostles, would rest their arguments on a translation, or risk their reputation, by making themselves answerable for all the faults that might be in it. They quoted it, in deed, but, I suppose, no otherwise, than as they would have quoted an English translation, had they wrote their Letters in English, to the inhabitants of Great Britain ; not so much to adopt the sense of the translation, as to refer to the passages in Scripture. When the Hebrew and Greek differ, I cannot find the Apostles once argue from the Greek."-— This is a fair specimen of Socinian cri ticism, and it shows the theological effect of indulging contempt for the Septuagint. Taylor was a profound He- \ braist, but his knowledge of Hebrew did not conduct him

THE SEPTUAGINT. 93

to the knowledge of Christ. He speaks of the Apostles, just as if they were Greek sophists, disputing for fame and worldly applause. He does not condescend even to notice " The Galilean," who always argues and appeals to the Greek version. His assertion is generally false, as it relates to the Apostles, who commonly ground their argu ments on the words of the LXX. See Appendiv, No. 6. It is invariably false, as regards our blessed Lord, who constantly reasons from the Greek text. See Appendix, No. 17.

The citations of the New Testament, it should be re membered, are not like rhetorical illustrations, adduced for ornament and embellishment ; they are the cardinal pillars of our Lord's mission, the documents, on which, he founds his claim, as the promised Messias. With the ex ception of two small classical quotations by St. Paul, nearly all the Old Testament references by Jesus and the Apostles, are urged, as evidences of fulfilled predictions, or as the basis of present reasoning. Had they drawn their citations from an uncanonical version, or such as did not carry with it a Divine sanction, the Scribes and Pharisees would have instantly objected to their appeals. But we find no such objections alluded to, either in the New Testament, or in any of the ancient Apologies.

The supposition, that though the Greek version was cited, it was always done, with a secret reservation of appeal to the Hebrew text, is so incredible, and involves such mental duplicity, as to render it unworthy of serious notice. This, indeed, would have been to "deal deceit fully with the Word of God," to have said, " Yea, yea,

94 AN APOLOGY FOR

and Nay, nay." — But the supposition is not only unscrip- tural, it is unnatural and absurd. — It is to suppose the Apostles could appeal, from a version, which all might read and understand, to an original, which for many cen turies had been unintelligible to all, except a few learned Rabbins.

There is, indeed, no little danger to be apprehended, from collating the Hebrew text with the Greek version, in our comments and discourses, unless we heartily admit the parity between them. It is no trivial blunder, to com pare what is acknowledged as divine, with that which is supposed to be merely human. Infidels look on, and sneer at this strange anomaly, and think, we can hardly be in earnest, whilst confounding such contradictory and heterogeneous materials. If we believe the Septuagint version to be inspired and of Scriptural authority, we have a clear right to collate its interpretations, with those of the Hebrew text. But no man can serve two masters. We degrade the Hebrew, if we bring it down to the level of an uninspired version, and we unduly exalt that ver sion, if we collate it with the Hebrew.

As relates to the New Testament, there is nothing more contradictory or offensive, than to behold lists of citations, formally arranged according to the Greek or Hebrew text, and then to find, the vast majority set down to the account of a version, devoid of Divine Inspiration ! It is full time, that we should arrive at some clear and definite decision, on this momentous question. If we consider the Sep tuagint of divine authority, we may collate it, either with the Hebrew of the Old, or with the Greek, of the New

THE SEPTUAGINT. 95

Testament ; but, if we regard it, as uninspired and unca- nonical, then we should collate it, with neither.

Yet, after every effort of talent and every aid of learn ing, it is vain to expect, that all obstacles will be cleared away, and nothing left to try our candour, or exercise our faith. There are difficulties belonging to the evi dence, as well as the doctrine of Revelation, which no human sagacity or industry can altogether overcome. Whilst we see in part, we can only know in part. To expect that the study of theology will ever be freed from all obscurity, is to expect that, which is not compatible with a state of discipline and moral trial. Amongst these difficulties, some belong to the history of the Canon, and others to the discrepances between the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old Testament. No ingenuity, no extent of erudition will ever dispel much of that darkness, which hangs over the Hebrew archetype. Houbigant, the bold est of Hebrew critics, essayed in vain, by conjectural alterations, to throw light on these difficulties. Nor have the efforts to restore the LXX been attended with more favourable results. Something, no doubt, has been ac complished — but the progress is not sufficient to encou rage the hope, that the time will ever arrive, when every obscurity will be removed. The patient method of col lation, though the slowest, is the safest and the best — All short, off-hand attempts, at illustrating the Sacred Scriptures, are rash and fruitless. — Haudfacilem esse viam voluit.

Much, very much, still remains to be effected for the LXX, by a joint collation of the Hebrew text, and of the

96 AN APOLOGY FOR

New Testament. Yet this can never be accomplished with success, but in the full conviction of their divine parity. To treat it as a human version, and then to collate it with inspired materials, is to build upon the sand — it is to expose ourselves and our labours, to the merited scorn of unbelievers.

Having devoted many years, to the continuous and ardent endeavour, to unite the study of the Greek New Testament with that of the Septuagint version of the Old ; may I be allowed, before quitting the world, to make this earnest appeal, to justify my labours, and to manifest the solidity of that foundation on which they are built? — 11 were not only labour lost, but mischievous, "to daub with untempered mortar " the walls of Zion. If I have passec my days, in vain, irrational, and hazardous efforts to con join the Word of God to the word of man, if I have laboured to identify divine truth with human error, then indeed, it were a sad retrospect, and still sadder prospect — But, I am not yet convicted of mistake. I cannot forege the desire, to combine the New Testament with the ver sion of the LXX, nor to avow my full and firm convictior of its Scriptural and canonical authority. The grounds o my conviction are here presented to the Public. — The} are the result of the most calm, patient and laborious in vestigation, and their truth and importance are indelibl} impressed —

Vos exemplaria Graeca, Nocturna versate manu, versate diurna.

Yet, in the pursuit of this favourite object, I have nevei sought to undervalue the study of the Hebrew original nor even to question its general superiority. My senti-

THE SEPTUAGINT. 97

merits are those of Capellus,* that, on the whole, the Hebrew Scriptures, give the best sense and meaning, as regards the Old Testament, though with many and important exceptions in favour of the LXX ; but, that 'this version, viewed in relation to the New Testament, 'becomes of equal, if not superior, utility and importance.

Let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the student of the Old Testament could entirely dispense with the use of the Alexandrian version, and that every He brew word was so plain and significant, that it required no supplementary aid to explain it; yet the relative value of the LXX to the exposition of the New Testament, would remain entire and undiminished. It would still remain uncontroverted, that the Greek of the New Testa ment was identical with that of the LXX, and that, by far the greater number of citations was taken verbatim from its pages. No doubt or dispute, concerning its value, in reference to the Hebrew text, could affect its supreme value and importance, in reference to the Hellenistic style of the New Testament. The disciple of Christianity would still be compelled to study the title-deeds of his own faith, in the LXX version. He would still be obliged to contemplate the language of Christ and his Apostles, on the mirror of the Septuagint. Dispute and differ, as we may, concerning its comparative value to the Hebrew, there can be no dispute, respecting its positive value, in regard to the records of our own religion.

But, without depreciating in any degree, the value of

* Critic. Sacr. lib. iv. cap. 16, p. 304. Edit. Par. 1650. O

98 AN APOLOGY FOR

the Old Testament, we may safely affirm, that the study of the New, is of far greater use and importance to us, as Christians. If then the diligent study of the LXX be es sential to a critical knowledge of the New Testament, let no man be persuaded, by an affected scorn and contempt of it as a version, to question its dignity, or to deny its Biblical rank.*

Nor should its acknowledged inferiority of style and

expression indispose us to grant the real claims of the

Septuagint, as the best interpreter of the New Testament.

On examination, it will be found, that it possesses this

appearance of comparative inferiority, in common with the

writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. It is impossible

not to perceive, that there is a majesty and sublimity,

pervading the Old Testament, which is displayed, only

occasionally, in the New. This arises, partly from the

difference of language, but still more from that of thought

and imagery. The one, is awful, the other, amiable.

The one, is sublime, the other, beautiful. In the Old

Testament, we hear the thunders of Sinai; in the New,

"the still small voice" of love and compassion.

Now, if the version of the LXX had retained all the majesty and sublimity of the original, it could not have approached to the more gentle and persuasive tone of the New Testament. It is, because it exchanges the severe dignity of the Hebrew, for the milder aspect of the Greek, that it comes into unison and harmony with the style and manner of Jesus and the Apostles. The

See Appendix, No. 15.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 99

remark of the son of Siracb, that the same expressions, translated out of Hebrew into another language, do not retain their original force, is often exemplified in the version of the LXX, and has often been charged against it. But, if it be an imperfection, it is one which no Christian can regret, because, without such modification, we could not apply it, to its most important purpose.

It is chiefly in reference to the New Testament, that the Christian divine is called on to read and study the Septuagint. Its peculiar value consists, in its being a version of the Old Testament, expressly adapted to the New. It is Hebrew converted into the same idiomatic Greek. Whatever be its comparative inferiority, as a history of the Old Testament, is amply compensated by its practical importance, as the Inspired interpreter of Evangelists and Apostles. Whoever studies the Greek New Testament in conjunction with the LXX, will obtain such a conception of the unity of the Bible, as never could be obtained, from the study of two different and discordant languages.

Dr. Wordsworth and M. Gaussen are of opinion, that there are no degrees, or different measures of Inspiration. But, with all due respect to these learned writers, I think we may infer, from St. Paul's account of the miraculous gifts in the early church, there were some more excellent than others, and that this difference depended, on the degree, in which, the Divine Spirit was imparted to each. The ancient Jews believed, that Moses was favoured, in this respect, above all their subsequent Prophets. They probably founded this opinion, on those passages of Scrip-

100 AN APOLOGY FOR

ture, in which it is said, that God spake unto Moses face to face, &c. See Exod. xxxiii. 11. Deut. xxxiv. 10. One, there was, and only one, to whom, the Spirit was given, without any restrictive degree or measure.

There is nothing unscriptural, in supposing, that the Inspiration, bestowed on these Jewish interpreters, was of another order or degree, from that imparted to Moses and the Prophets. In the one, it was immediately suggestive of prophetic predictions. In the other, it was confined, to the power of recording their predictions, in such ap propriate expressions, as should afterward accord with the precise terms and phraseology of the New Testament. Perhaps it bore some resemblance to that miraculous gift, bestowed on some of the early believers, which consisted u in the interpretation of tongues" — We have no desire to magnify these interpreters into prophets. The wisdom imparted to them was sufficient for their work.-*-',Q? oil vptpui G-OV, vt iVp^Jff <rou. — It is always dangerous, to call in supernatural influence, beyond the immediate exigence.

But, after every due limit, respecting the extent of Divine assistance granted to the Alexandrian translators, has been made, we arrive at this conclusion ; — that it was sufficient to enable them, to make such a version, as was worthy of Jesus and the Apostles continually to quote- nay, such as was ordained, to provide for the whole doc trinal phraseology of the New Testament. Their inspi ration was verbal, because they were interpreters, and not prophets. But that verbal inspiration was designed, to accord with the far higher inspiration of the New Testament writers, who were chiefly confined to their

THE SEPTUAGINT. 101

words, thoughts and expressions. It is on this theory only, I submit, that the verbal Inspiration of the Evan gelists and Apostles can be rendered consistent or intel ligible.*

There is something wonderfully harmonious, when we review the different stages of Divine Inspiration, as con secutively exhibited in the Hebrew text, in the Version of the LXX, and in the New Testament. The Hebrew was a sacred language, and it is probable, that the In spiration of Moses and the Prophets was principally real and suggestive. "They spake, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." — The Inspiration of the Greek trans lators was verbal. It enabled them to adopt such words and expressions, as might subsequently form the vocabu lary of the New Testament. — The Inspiration of the New- Testament was of the highest order, it was both real and verbal. It related alike to thoughts and words, but the words were taken from the LXX. — On these mysterious subjects, I would speak with the deepest reverence and humility. This theory is submitted to the candid con sideration of the Christian Church ; but it is submitted, with a deep conviction, that it will be found alike ac cordant with the spirit and letter of Sacred Scripture. f

" To the Jews" says St. Paul to the Romans, " were committed the Oracles of God." The question is, whether the Apostle did not here include the Jews of the Dis persion, as well as those of Palestine — the many, who read the Greek Septuagint, as well as the few, who read

* See Appendix, No. 15. t Ibid.

102 AN APOLOGY FOR

exclusively the Hebrew Scriptures. He uses the term Ao'yia, Oracula, which is frequently adopted by the LXX, to denote the Sacred Scriptures. He was addressing the Christian converts in Italy, where none could read the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but in the Greek of the LXX, or in the Latin of its most ancient version, the Italic. Nearly all his other Epistles are addressed to Chris tians who resided in Greece, or in Asia Minor. Whether converted Jews, or believing Gentiles, they were nearly in the same predicament, in regard to language. When they read the Old Testament Scriptures, they must have read them, either in the LXX, or in some Latin version, translated from the LXX. " What saith the Scripture ?" says St. Paul to the Romans, cap. iv. 5. " What says the Scriptures," says St. Paul to the Galatians ? iii. 6, in both passages, quoting the very words of the LXX. — Is it possible, then, to doubt, that the Greek, as well as the Hebrew Scriptures, are to be understood, when they are thus mentioned by the Apostle — the Apostle of the Gentiles?

Consider the address of St. James, To the Twelve tribes, scattered abroad in the Dispersion, i. e. to all Jewish con verts, but those residing in Palestine. These were noto riously using the Greek version in their Synagogues. There is not a single quotation in this Epistle, which is not taken from the LXX.— Could they believe, that, when the Holy Scriptures were spoken of, that very Version, which they had so long adopted, and which had brought them to Christianity, was not included under this title? St. Peter addresses his first Epistle, to the strangers

THE SEPTUAGINT. 103

scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia (Minor) and Bithynia. These were the Hellenistic con verts to Christianity, the first-fruits of the Church. The Greek language was very widely diffused amongst them, though doubtless, every nation had some vernacular dia lect of its own. It is an acknowledged fact, that, the Septuagint was commonly used amongst all these Asiatic Churches, and that they could not read or understand the Hebrew Scriptures. Accordingly, both the Epistles of Peter abound with references and allusions to numerous passages in the LXX. — Could they construe such refer ences and allusions, in any other sense, than as avouching the Biblical authority of that Version ?

The Epistle to the Hebrews (whether written by Paul, or some other Apostle), is perhaps more full of quotation and reference to the Septuagint, than any other portion of the New Testament. It is a kind of mosaic, composed of bits and fragments of the LXX. It is only equalled, in this respect, by the speech of Stephen, before the Jewish Council, which forms a compendium of the Old Testament, drawn up in Septuagintal extracts. — Now, I would ask any impartial judge, whether, such numerous citations, from the Greek version of the Old Testament, do not warrant us in receiving it, as of Scriptural and Canonical authority? All the quotations from the Old Testament, in the Acts, as Dr. Davidson remarks,* are taken from the LXX. They amount to more than fifty.

There is one portion of the New Testament still re maining to be mentioned — On account of its obscure and

* Introduction, vol. ii. p. 64.

104 AN APOLOGY FOR

mysterious subject, the Apocalypse was the last admitted into the Canon, and was long supposed to be extremely unlike all other books of the New Testament, even in its phraseology. But this is totally to misrepresent its cha racter. There is no part of the New Testament, which is so completely wrought out of the Old, as The Revelation of St. John. Though there are no formal quotations, no direct notices, like those, The Scripture saith, Thus it is written, &c. yet it is almost entirely composed of verbal allusions to the Prophets, and these allusions are invariably clad in Septuagintal forms of expression.

There are a few remarkable passages, to which I would solicit the attention of the reader. / was in the Spirit, says St. John, on the Lord's day, in the island of Pat- mos. This was a small island in the ^Eg-ean, one of

O '

the Cyclades, of which, Delos was the most eminent. It is not probable there was ever a word of Hebrew read, or spoken, in that island. As a proof of this assertion, we may notice, that the Hebrew word Abaddon is interpreted by the Greek Apollyon, for it would have been other wise unintelligible. — Now, St. John, being in the Spirit, acting under the immediate influence of Divine Inspira tion, selects the first and final letter of the Greek alphabet, as a substitute for the word Jehovah. He also ad dresses distinct Letters to the Churches of Asia Minor, in which, nothing but the LXX could have been under stood, in reading the Scriptures. We ask, whether, the adoption of the Greek letters A n, for the sacred and unutterable T«T/>«y^«/x/tA«To> of the ancient Jews, would not suggest to every convert, Jewish or Gentile, that the

THE SEPTUAGINT. 105

Greek language was now raised to a level with the Hebrew, even on the most sacred and mysterious sub jects ? *

Let us not refuse to dwell on these particulars, because we are bound, if possible, to apologise for the early Chris tians, in their high honour and reverence of the Septua- gint. We are bound to support them, on a question, involving the purity of their Canon, and the safety of our own. It is a question of infinite importance, in the history and records of Christianity. It is a discussion, which cannot be long slighted or evaded. If Christians will not satisfactorily adjust these differences, infidels will step forward to proclaim and aggravate the anomaly. — Hoc Itkacus vellt.

The safety and stability of the Canon of the Old Tes tament, depends on its having come down to us, in unbroken succession, from the Jewish to the Christian Church, in the same documents, read and explained in public worship. Now, during the first 400 years, if we reject this Greek version, the whole Christian Church held a false Canon. It did not, indeed, deny the Hebrew to be the original and authentic record ; but it held also to the Greek version, and felt that it was authorised so to do, by the sanction of Christ and his Apostles. Should we cast off this version, from entering into our Canon, we declare the primitive Church, to have been in error, and we must abide the perilous consequences of such a de claration. It is on this ground, that 1 rest my Apology

* Appendix, No. 13. P

106 AN APOLOGY FOR

for the Canonical claims of the LXX.— I appeal to the sanction of the primitive Church.*

With respect to the far more important, though essen tially united, question, its claims to Scriptural authority, they should be tried solely, by an examination of its cita tion in the New Testament. We are quite content to rest the issue, on this Scriptural foundation. If it can be shown that these citations from the LXX are not in spired, or do not imply the Inspiration of that version, from which they are taken ; then the question will be at rest, as far as believers are concerned. — Still, it will never satisfy the unbeliever. It will remain a lasting objection to the authenticity of the New Testament. It will remain a lasting stumbling-block to those, " who are without."

Nor can it be denied, that the objections of such unbe lievers are of the most grave and serious character. The authenticity of the Old and New Testament is so blended and united, by the quotations of the former in the latter, that they must stand or fall together. But those quota tions are, for the most part, made directly from the LXX, and in their own words and expressions. They pledge the Evangelists and Apostles, to their exact force and meaning. If you receive them, as authoritative and in spired, you secure the stability of the Old Testament, as well as of the New ; but if you accept them, as taken from a merely human version, you shake the authority of both. Hence it has been the general opinion, that it is the best and shortest method of proving the authenticity of the

* Appendix, N.ll.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 107

Old Testament, to rest it on the attestations given to it, by Christ and the Apostles. We then assume the In spiration and authenticity of the New Testament, and on that assumption, we infer the authenticity of the Old. But no such assumption can hold good, unless the full In spiration of the citations and appeals to the Old Testa ment, be definitively granted. Now these, we repeat, are principally in the words and language of the LXX. Un less, therefore, you assume the Divine authority of the LXX, you cannot make good this argument. And thus the shortest and readiest mode of proving the authority of the Old Testament, is necessarily lost.

But if, quitting party and prejudice, we endeavour heartily to associate the Hebrew original with the Greek version, — if, foregoing the disputes of Jerome and Austin, of Walton and Hody, of Mori n us and Vossius — we seek to establish the Canon of the Jewish, the Hellenistic, and the primitive Church, on one standard — then, we should compose and harmonize all differences, and we might boldly challenge the infidel to find any assailable breach in our bulwarks. The Hebrew would still retain its essential prerogative— it would be venerated as the parent-stock, not only of the LXX, but also of the Greek Testament. Its study would be indissolubly associated with its sa cred offspring. We should then no longer behold that study, the covert and hiding-place of mysticism and neo logy. The Septuagint would resume its proper station, as the medium of intercourse between the Old and New Testament— the bond of union between the Jew and Gentile. The citations in the Evangelists and Apostles,

108 AN APOLOGY FOR

whether from the Hebrew or Greek, would at once be re ceived, as of equivalent authority. The Canon of the pri mitive Church would be justified, and our apparent dis cord with the Greek Church would gradually melt into mutual harmony.

Perhaps, it may be thought fanciful, to anticipate the conversion of the Jews to the Christian faith, through the medium of the Greek version of the Old Testament. But as this was the channel, by which their forefathers were brought to the knowledge of Christianity, so it is, by no means improbable, that, in the fulness of time, the residue of Israel may be taught to value and understand the New Testament, through their study of that Version, which was so much esteemed by. the early Rabbins. The idiom of the LXX would find a ready interpreter in their minds and feelings, and when they discovered, that the New Tes tament was formed of corresponding phraseology, they would more readily embrace its doctrinal interpretation of their ancient Scriptures.*

The attempts which have been made, both in early and later times, since the Reformation, to circulate modern Hebrew versions of the New Testament amongst the Jews, have never been attended with any considerable success. The cause of this failure may be easily ac counted for. First, the natural prejudice of reading such a record, translated into Hebrew by Christians, is far too strong to be often overcome. Secondly, the modern He brew must always appear faulty and imperfect, and un worthy of a divine record. Thirdly, the citations, being

* See Allix On the Ancient Jewish Church.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 109

chiefly taken from the LXX, will always appear to a modern unconverted Jew, translated on purpose to in veigle him. This prejudice can never be overcome, until the more learned of the modern Rabbins can be brought again to consult that version, which was so long read in their Synagogues, and which is so highly commended by some of their most learned ancestors. It is this pre judice against the LXX, which forms the great obstacle to their reading the Greek Testament; and till this ob stacle be surmounted, there is little hope of their con version to Christianity. — When that difficulty is over come, the Christian Church will behold "the veil taken away, " " the middle wall of partition broken down, " and every prejudice against the Gospel removed from the Jewish mind.

This blessed Milennium, I cannot hope to witness, this land of promise, I cannot hope to enter. — But it is my firm belief, the time will come, when the Jewish and Christian Canon will be arranged, in perfect harmony, with that of the primitive Christian Church — when there will no longer remain any controversy concerning the Hebrew and the Septuagint, and when both will be brought into perfect union with the New Testament. When Ephraim shall not vex Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim, this union will be accomplished. He shall set up an ensign to the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah, from the four corners of the earth. The ensign may probably be the same as that, which sounded the trumpet, at the approach of Christianity.— Jesus will be owned to be

110 AN APOLOGY FOR

the Jehovah of the Hebrews, when he is perceived to have been the Lord God of the Hellenists ; when, with united testimonies, they shall proclaim Him — The First and Last of Isaiah, The Alpha and the Omega of St. John.

But, it is important to remember, that it is not indis pensable to the general conclusion, to pledge ourselves indi vidually to any specific opinions, on several disputable and uncertain points, which have been incidentally touched on, in the course of this enquiry. Whether, e.g. you be lieve, that our Lord conversed with his disciples chiefly, in Aramean, or in Greek ; whether you think the know ledge of Greek was more, or less, prevalent in Judea ; whether you admit an Aramean, or Greek original of St. Matthew — these are, doubtless, interesting and important questions. But, however determined, they can have no essential influence on the argument. It will only add, or subtract, a link in the chain of inquiry.

If you believe, with Diodati and many others, that Jesus invariably used the Greek language, it will not surely dimi nish your respect for the phraseology of the LXX, nor in dispose you to acknowledge its claims to Divine authority.

-If, on the other hand, you believe, according to our re presentation, that he spoke chiefly in the provincial dialect, and that the Syro-Chaldaic was subsequently transferred into Greek, under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit ; the same conclusion will equally ensue. The selection of that peculiar phraseology, which distinguishes the LXX, as the vehicle of Divine Inspiration, will communicate that Inspiration to the text, from which it emanates.

-It is impossible to hint at all the shades of differ-

THE SEPTUAG1NT. Ill

ence, in the opinions of men of learning and research, on these obscure and speculative topics ; but it is satisfactory to know, such is the strength and comprehension of this argument, that it cannot be materially aifected by any of these subordinate variations of opinion.

Nor is it indispensable, to credit the account of Aristeas. Suppose, with Hody, that account to be nothing more than a Jewish forgery, invented to aggrandise the influence of this version. It will not affect the fundamental facts — its great antiquity — its indubitable authenticity —its powerful influence in preparing the world for the advent of Christi anity — its identity with the idiom of the New Testament — its numerous citations — its universal reception by the early Fathers, Sec. Though the entire argument be cu mulative, yet it is also, in some degree, a chain of con nected links. In the one, you estimate its weight, in the other, its strength and beauty. — Make your choice. - Much will depend on previous enquiries, much on the na tural complection of your mind. But to a calm, honest, and deliberate enquirer, the result will be much the same. He will be led, by the same current, to the same haven, he will acknowledge the united and associate authority of the Hebrew and the Septuagint, as the texture of the Old Testament Canon.

As regards the general state of the text of the LXX, it would appear, from the late researches of Holmes and Parsons, to be much on a parity, with that of the Hebrew of the Old Testament, or the Greek of the New.* After

* Appendix No. 7.

112 AN APOLOGY FOR

the collation of many thousand manuscripts, the gene ral result is the same in all. There are numerous de viations, occasioned by the errors of transcribers, but they seldom affect the sense. As to the general authenti city of the LXX, though it was suspected by Justin to have been corrupted by the Jews, the charge was never proved, nor is it, in any degree, credible. The Jews could have no wish, before the Christian era, to corrupt this version ; and they could have no power, afterwards. — Archbishop Usher had a strange hypothesis, that the Ori ginal version was destroyed by the fire of the Pharos, and that a second was made about the time of Cleopatra. But his hypothesis was never received with any favour. See Grabe's Proleg. torn. ii. Prop. 1. — That our present text of the LXX is the same as that, which is so repeatedly quoted in the New Testament, and the same as that, which Philo has inlaid with his numerous treatises on the Old Testament, is as plain as any fact, which can be set be fore us.

It forms no part of this Apology, to account for the many and important discrepances, which exist between the Hebrew text and the Alexandrian version. The attempt has been often made, especially by Capellus, in his Critica Sacra ; but never with any generally satisfactory result. That the LXX translated from unpointed MSS. is almost certain, and many of these discrepances may be explained, on that supposition. Still, a large number of transposi tions, omissions, and some additions will remain unac counted for. — That many of these were coeval with the era of Christianity, is plain, from the citations in the New Tes-

THE SEPTUAGINT. 113

tament, which occasionally verify them. — They cannot be fairly urged against the Scriptural authority of the LXX, wherever they are thus supported by Divine authority. But even where this cannot be adduced, there are many passages, in which, it is granted, that the reading of the LXX is better, than that of our present Masoretic text, whilst a still larger number of Septuagintal difficulties may be obviated, by following the Hebrew.* The result to every impartial mind is this — that they mutually re quire the friendly aid and assistance of each other ; and that, by this friendly co-operation, they combine in form ing the only complete and satisfactory Canon of the Old Testament.

These occasional discrepancies between the Hebrew archetype and the Greek version, are, after all, somewhat analogous to the difficulties, which we find on many other points of Divine Revelation. Suppose it had been pos sible, that the version should have been so plain and literal, as not to admit of any disputes ; the Hebrew would then, probably, have sunk into entire neglect. There could have been no motive to enter on its study. — But the supposition is unnatural. However plain and literal the version might have been, so long as human minds are differently constituted, there must have been ample scope for difference of opinion. Without a miracle, the He brew could never have been made to us, as intelligible as the Greek. Suppose the miracle to have made them, in all respects, alike, and of equal authority ; one of them

* Grabii Proleg. torn. n. §§ 26-33. Q

114 AN APOLOGY FOR

in all probability would have perished. Witness the Hebrew original of Matthew, or the Hebrew archetype of Josephus's "Jewish Wars."

Our writers on the Canon, I am aware, are accustomed to confine their labours, to enumerating merely the names of the several books, and consider they have proved their point, when they have established their precise number. But, it is as much essential to the Canon, to show the quality, as the quantity of the record. The early Christian Church, by using the LXX for the first 400 years in their public worship, established that version, de facto, as canonical. If we set aside that version, as secular and uninspired, we no longer hold to this early Canon. When we appeal to the authority of the pri mitive Church, and cite the names of the books in their Canon ; we only impose upon ourselves and others, if we affirm, that we hold the same Canon, unless we also sup port their sentiments, by including the Greek version, in our own.*'

Though it be not essential, to read the version of the LXX in our public worship, yet we are bound to agree with them, in acknowledgment of its Scriptural and canonical authority. It is a breach, a schism, in ecclesi astical unity, to denounce as uncanonical in the modern Church, that which was proclaimed as canonical, in the primitive.

In the controversy on this subject, which was carried on between Cappellus and the younger Buxtorf,f the

* See Stuart on the Definition of the Canon. Sect. 2. Appendix xi. f Buxtorfii Anti-Critic, p. 154. Basil, 1653.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 115

former had charged the exclusive advocate of the Hebrew text, with holding the primitive Church in contempt, and treating it, as neglected and cast off by God, from being confined to the Septuagintal text of the Old Testament. To this Buxtorf replies, that he, by no means, went to this extreme ; but that he was of opinion, it was a special blessing to the later Church, that it was indulged with a knowledge of the Hebrew text and language. Now, thus far I am most anxious to join him, but no further. I cannot admit, that the LXX ceases to be of spiritual and canonical authority, because we are blessed with the additional light of the Hebrew. Even as a question of mere human criticism, it may be doubtful, whether a version made, before the present masoretic text was formed, be not equal to it, in critical value. But, when that version has been hallowed and ratified, by its adoption in the New Testament, every doubt is removed. It then arises before us, stamped and countersigned with the same authority, as that which superintended the writ ings of Moses and the Prophets, of the Evangelists and Apostles.

For these and similar reasons, I cannot agree with the learned Professor Lee, in the low estimate which he has formed of the present state of the Septuagintal text. It never was designed, as Walton observes, for a strict and literal version of the Hebrew Bible. In some respects, it was a paraphrase, in others an abridgment, adapted to the peculiar circumstances of Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles proselytes ; with an ulterior object of far greater extent and importance, to become the vestibule of the

116 AN APOLOGY FOR

New Testament. Nullus dubito, says the learned Profes sor,* quin is, qui hanc versionem ad pristinum suum nito- rem rest it ut urn eat, viribus plusquam humanis prceditus esse debuerit. This supposed perfection of the original state of the Alexandrian version, as a perfect copy of the Hebrew text, I believe, to be altogether imaginary. That we have it much in the state, as it was in the Apostolic age, is evident alike from Philo, and the New Testa ment. It is also proved, from the collations of the MSS. which exhibit little more, than the errors of transcribers.! The Septuagint is the Hebrew Bible, modified to its appro priate objects, which are, in many respects, characteristic and peculiar. Its variations are, therefore, not always to be designated, as mistakes and blunders. I am credulous enough to believe with Augustine, that they are often intended for the most important purposes, and that they denote the mind of the Spirit.^

This question, when deliberately considered, will be found to be quite as important, as that, concerning the Apocryphal writings. It affects at once the interpretation of the Old, and the inspiration of the New Testament. If the LXX be not of Scriptural authority, then we have no right to apply that version, either to the correction of the text, or to the right understanding of any obscure passages in the Hebrew Bible. But its importance, with respect to the authority and Inspiration of the New Testa ment, is of still greater moment. I need not reiterate the

* Proleg. Polyglott. Bagst. p. 56. § 19. f Appendix, No. 7.

J Appendix, No. 15.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 117

various arguments already adduced. They tend to this general inference, that if the authority of the LXX be not assumed as sacred and divine, it will be very hazardous to assert the plenary Inspiration of the New Testament.

A short and easy method may be adopted to test this conclusion. Let an English New Testament be printed, in which, all the citations from the LXX shall be given in Italics. It will then be in the power of every reader, to estimate the quantum of Septuagintal matter, contained in the New Testament ; and thence to infer the degree of importance which he ought to attach, to this plain and visible incorporation.

But, in defining this distinction of Septuagintal matter, it is only fair, that, all the passages, in which the words of the New Testament exactly or substantially agree with the LXX, (however they may agree with the Hebrew), should be put down, to the Greek version. There has been much unfairness, I am sorry to observe, in com puting the comparative number of citations, as relative to the Hebrew, or Greek, Old Testament. It has been usual, whenever they agree with both, to strike them off from the Septuagint, and to put them down to the opposite column. But it is clear, that, when the Greek words are the same, or nearly the same, they ought to be attri buted to the Greek version. The Hebrew, in such in stances, is clearly more remote from the Greek Testament, than the Alexandrian version, which contains the ipsissima verba*

* Appendix, No. 2.

118 AN APOLOGY FOR

When we collate Greek with Greek, we can detect the nicest variations of expression, and enter into the minutest shades of meaning ; but when we collate Greek with Hebrew, it becomes a very different task. We then collate two languages, which have no cognate connexion. It is seldom we can so far identify the exact import of any Hebrew word, as to assert, that it exactly tallies with the corresponding word in Greek. Hence arises the difficulty of determining, how far any quotation agrees, or disagrees, with the Hebrew. Whereas, it is a plain matter of fact and vision, whether it agrees, or not, with the LXX.

It would be needless to make such remarks, if the ex isting prejudice against the Septuagint, under the per verse notion of exalting the Hebrew, did not compel me to undertake its defence and apology. " There is not a page, nor even a paragraph of any considerable length," says Professor Stuart,* " which does not bear the impress of the Old Testament upon it. — There are thousands of expressions and thoughts, in the New Testament, modelled after the Old Testament, to which I have made no re ference." — Now, I again submit, whether it be fair or candid, in such observations, to make an exclusive refer ence to the Hebrew text, and to pass by that Greek version, in which, the identical words, and expressions, are found ? How could we have determined the exact meaning and import of such thoughts and expressions, if they had not been translated out of Hebrew into Greek,

* On the Canon, p. 315.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 119

and then verbally appropriated and ratified, by the autho rity of the Evangelists and Apostles?*

The result of casting aside the LXX, and endeavour ing to interpret the Hebrew, by the aid of comparatively modern cognate dialects, is now sufficiently manifest, in the strange and grotesque efforts of German and North- American Neologists. Such interpretations are calcu lated to destroy all respect and veneration of the sacred records. Witness the writings of Norton, of Strauss, of Ewald, Eichhorn, or Gesenius, and compare them with the Prolegomena of Walton or Montfaucon, with the Lexicon of Castell, or the writings of Lightfoot, or even, with the more modern literature of Ernesti, Dathe, or Michaelis. Let us not discourage or denounce any sober and temperate improvement of theological studies. But, when infidelity and scepticism are the consequences of pursuing Biblical researches ; it is full time to pause, and consider the origin of this strange result. — How is it, that the most sacred studies have recently so often led to the most unholy, unscriptural, and infidel con clusions ?f

But, even when these pursuits are not pushed to such disastrous extremes, it may be reasonably doubted, whe ther they can practically promote the real knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures. The value of Biblical learning must consist chiefly, in its certainty and precision ; but

* See extracts from Bp. Pearson, Appendix, No. 8. f Appendix, No. 16.

120 AN APOLOGY FOR

there can be no certainty or precision, when the study of language is confounded with metaphysical speculation. Ingenious theories, based on merely subjective princi ples, have no connexion with studies, which relate to sound and sober theological investigation. It is on mat ters of fact, not on mental theories, that our Biblical re searches should depend. If you contrast the learning and acquirements of our elder Divines, with those which dis tinguish the disciples of Schelling or Coleridge, you will be at no loss to understand the difference. In the one, you have the solid realities of daily life ; in the other, the dreamy visions of distempered imagination. The theology of our forefathers was founded on fact and history ; that of their descendants is sentimental and poetical, and con sequently, often fanciful and fictitious.

Now, this difference may, in a great measure, be traced, I apprehend, to our neglect of that Greek version, which forms the chief bond of union between the study of the Old and New Testament, and which imparts a solidity to that study, that it otherwise cannot possess. The Bible being one whole, is so constituted, as to form its own best interpreter. The Hebrew text is best explained by the LXX, and the LXX by the Hebrew, whilst both derive their truest and strongest light, from the New Tes tament. If you neglect, or disparage any one of these instruments, you injure and endanger the whole. If one member suffer s> all the members suffer with it*

The position of the LXX, as a version made by men,

* See Grabe's Prolegomena, torn, ii prop. vn.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 121

inferior to the rank of prophets, is naturally the most ex posed to attack. Though it may seem, at first sight, the weakest and most vulnerable, it forms the centre of the camp. It is a version, but the strength and honour which it has derived, from being incorporated with the New Testament, raise it to its full and legitimate standard, as an Archetype. Whatever be its apparent imperfections or blemishes, they are lost in. the glory of its being owned and adopted by Jesus and the Apostles. If even the version of Isaiah, which is deemed the most unworthy of the LXX, be worthy of repeated citation in the New Testament, it cannot surely be despised or rejected by any Christian commentator.

But, if the suggestion which I have ventured to bring forward in this Apology be correct, that Jesus himself was taught as a child, from the version of the LXX ; it should silence every murmur against it, and subdue every discontented emotion to its power and authority. All other arguments look poor, feeble, and unaffecting, com pared to the example of Him, who deigned to sanction and commend it, to the especial attention of his follow ers. Whilst this suggestion is incomparably affecting, it strengthens and corroborates every other in its train. It explains the citations of the Evangelists and Apostles, as taken chiefly from this version. It accounts for the canon of the primitive Church. It harmonises every difficulty, nay, converts every difficulty, into another evidence. As a mere hypothesis, it is deserving of the most serious attention. It is so credible, that it commends itself, with-

122 AN APOLOGY FOR

out any laborious research, and so natural, that when once conceived, it can scarcely be forgotten.*

To estimate the value of the LXX version fairly and impartially, we should consider the express objects and purposes, for which it was designed. It was not designed to display the glories of the Jewish theocracy, nor to perpetuate the distinction between the Jew and Gentile. It was intended, as the herald of " the better covenant." Its predominant value consisted, in its ulterior relation to the Christian faith, and in drawing that relationship more closely, than could have been effected by the ori ginal text. As a version, it was adapted to that transition- state, in which it was composed. Like the ministry of John, it was the herald and harbinger of better tidings. It was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light. Had it been more perfect, as a literary composi tion, perhaps it would not have accomplished the object of its mission.

The Hebrew text will ever retain its own essential and indestructible value. Imagine it to have perished, and neither the Septuagint, nor the Greek Testament, could command our consent. As the original Magna Charta of Revelation, that record is sublimely unique. But as the Mosaic economy, with all its glories, was destined to pass away ; so the knowledge of the Hebrew language was ordained to suffer an eclipse, when the beams of the Sun of Righteousness began to dawn upon the darkened Gentile. The morning-star was the Hellenistic version.

* Appendix No. 17.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 123

It created twilight amidst the surrounding gloom. De spise it not, for its apparent verbal imperfections. It is those imperfections, which connect it with the style and phraseology of the Evangelists and Apostles. Above all, despise it not, because it is a version. It is only as a version, that it could reflect light, on the Hebrew of the Old, or on the Greek of the New, Testament.*

The importance of plainness and precision in a written revelation, it should be remembered, is of a very different order and magnitude, than that, which can attach to a merely human composition. Whether we correctly under stand any passage of Plato or Aristotle, is comparatively of no value, when estimated by such a standard. Thus, for example, when it is asserted by the latter, that Tragedy pu rifies the mind by the emotion of pity — we may acquiesce in academic doubt respecting its exact import, and be content to flutter round the meaning, without arriving at any clear and distinct opinion. So all the disputes of commentators, respecting the exact meaning of IvrfA^fia, may be viewed as of little consequence, in the present state of philosophic speculation. But it is not so, with the words and doctrines of a Revelation, professing to come imme diately from Heaven. Every doctrinal word, in such a record, then becomes of the highest and most imperish able value. We require a key, which may unlock its hidden meaning, which may convey to us its original force, and transfer it whole and unimpaired. The " Holy Spirit" is doubtless the highest teacher, but that Divine

* See Dean Graves on the Pentateuch. Lcct. v. Part. in. Sect. 2.

124 AN APOLOGY FOR

Spirit operates through the Holy Scriptures, and there fore it is of inestimable importance, that we should attain to the pure and unadulterated import of the written word. Admit the inspired authority of the Septuagint, and you possess exactly the medium required for this Divine as sistance. — It is the doctrinal lexicon of the New Testa ment.

This observation will apply, in an especial manner, to many of those quotations in the New Testament, which do not exactly agree with the literal meaning of the Hebrew text. In the Greek version, the literal import of the le gal or sacrificial ceremonial terms is seldom exactly trans lated. A more general and less definite word is often substituted. This has been frequently urged, as an ob jection to the LXX, both by converted and unconverted Jews, and also by many exclusive advocates of the He brew text. But the Septuagint was designed, not merely as a version of the Old Testament, but as a doctrinal in troduction to the New. It was designed to change the Hebrew into the Hellenist, by gradually enlarging his conceptions. When the Apostle speaks of the letter, as opposed to the spirit, when he speaks of " the beggarly elements," or of "Sinai, which gendereth to bondage," it is probable, that he alludes to this marked distinction between that Version which he quoted, and that Original, which he passed by. — Certain at least it is, that if the strictly literal and ceremonial language of the Hebrew text had been always depicted in the Greek version, it would not have formed that doctrinal vocabulary to the New Testa ment, which now constitutes its highest value.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 125

This sentiment was felt and acknowledged by our fore fathers, by such men, as Walton, Pearson, Grabe, and Pocock, nay, even by Archbishop Usher, who, though in some degree, unfriendly to the LXX, yet has candidly admitted its high claims to authority : Negari non po- test, turn ex Hdlemstanim et primitivorum Christ lanorum illo consensu, turn ex Apostolicd hdc o-uyxaTajSaVf*, ad Grce- cam 1st am editionem, magnum auctoritatis pondus access isse. Syntagm. cap. 3, p. 29. — Yet, so little is this version now esteemed, that it is never considered of canonical autho rity. To hint at its inspiration, is to awaken a smile of scorn and contempt. Nay, its citation in the New Tes tament is ranked by M. Gaussen, amongst the difficulties of Christianity, and the objections of unbelievers !

Is it to be wondered, that the science of modern theo logy should exhibit a very ambiguous aspect, when such a breach has been effected in the Canon of the sacred Scriptures ? To divest the Septuagint of its Scriptural rank and dignity, is to inflict the deepest injury on the study both of the Old, and the New, Testament. It is to deprive our Canon of its syllogistic force. In the Old, it leaves us without rudder or compass, to track our de vious course to a language, which ceased to be vernacu-

O O *

lar more than 700 years before the Christian era. In the New, it resigns us to a style of Greek, which was never heard of, but in connexion with the Hebrew idiom. Neg lect or undervalue the LXX, and you have thrown away the key, to unlock this sacred treasury. Should you at tempt, without that aid and guide, to bring a Hebrew word to illustrate a doctrinal term in the New Testament,

126 AN APOLOGY FOR

you may affix to it almost any meaning. — The terms right eousness, faith, repentance, atonement, justification, sancti- Jication, Redeemer, Holy Spirit, may be heightened or lowered, almost indefinitely. The most sacred titles may become secular. Thus doubt and obscurity will perplex all your studies.

Hence we infer, that, much of the wild disorder and confusion, which now reigns amongst continental Hebra ists, may be traced to their departure from the primitive Church, in her love and veneration of the LXX version. That immense gulf, which intervenes between the Hebrew and Greek, wherein the leviathan learning of Germany now loves to take her sport and pastime, was then safely and quietly navigated, by the light of the Alexandrian Pharos. This light conducted the mariner to and fro from Egypt to Jerusalem, and it securely enabled him to hazard all the perils of the ^gsean and Adriatic.* To drop the figure — it was the Septuagint, which consti tuted the beacon, by which, our elder divines traversed the history of Moses and the Patriarchs. It is the same beacon, which must still conduct us to that distant haven. If we attempt to substitute ingenious specula tions, or learned etymologies, we shall only be deceived by our own mirage, and " follow after our own inventions."

The moral effect of relying chiefly on a version, made by Divine authority, or of attempting to decipher the most ancient of languages, by the appliances of modern

* See Gregory's learned and curious Discourse On the LXX Inter preters, in his Posthumous Works. Lond. 1664.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 127

discoveries in philology, will produce a very different result on the mind and habits of the Biblical student. In the one case, we feel bold and independent, and not a little elated by our discoveries, whether real or imaginary. Knowledge puffeth up. — In the other, we are humble, and ready to yield to that superior teaching, which cometh from above. We do not mean to imply any prostration of human facul ties, but there is an awe and docility which are peculiarly requisite in the study of the Holy Scriptures, without which, the head will act independently of the heart. — We cannot urge this, as a direct argument, because it assumes the point at issue, viz. the Divine authority of the Greek version. But, it will find its echo in every serious and reflecting mind. It tends to intimate the existence of some inspired instrument. It tends to prove, that we are not left without a sacred interpreter, to guide and aid us to understand the Word of God.

The Holy Scriptures revolve on their own axis. They do not disdain indirect assistance, from secular investiga tions ; but they mainly depend on their own inexhaustible treasures and resources. To connect the Hebrew of the Old Testament, with the Greek, of the New, the version of the LXX is indispensable ; and be our scholarship what it may, without this aid, we have lost that sacred amalgam which is essential to their unity.

The study of the Word of God can never be safely or successfully prosecuted, by the study of the word of man. It must begin, and terminate, in itself. In other words, it must be its own interpreter. — Now, this interpreter, both of the Old and New Testament, is personified in the

123 AN APOLOGY FOR

Septuagint, because it relates equally to both records.— Its citations connect it with Evangelists and Apostles ; whilst it belongs to Moses and the Prophets, as their in separable companion.

Hence it is, that the writers of the New Testament principally resort to the LXX, in their quotations ; not, that they designed to undervalue the Original, but to bring that Original into contact with the Gospel. Hence it is, that their whole vocabulary is composed of Septuagintal words and phrases ; because it was destined to bring the Jew and the Christian into the same fold.* — Whilst the Israelites were treated, as a separate and distinct people, the Hebrew language was their peculiar badge and dis tinction. It was an admirable language for keeping them apart from other nations. But, when that purpose was accomplished, the Hebrew was melted down into the Greek of the LXX — still retaining its own characteristics, under Greek symbols. These symbolic characteristics are countersigned, recognised, and ratified on every page of the Greek Testament.

Throughout this entire process, we may discern the finger of God, and the impress of Divine inspiration. It brings down to us the most ancient of languages in a living form, but that form is peculiar to the Bible. — It is the Hebrew, softened into Hellenistic Greek. The interpreter is the Septuagint. — If we desert and forego that interpreter, we are left to the traditions of Jews, or to the study of hieroglyphics.

* Appendix, No. 15.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 129

It is seldom considered by the exclusive advocates of the Hebrew text, that it depends entirely on our remain ing" knowledge of that language, whether we are compe tent to study it, apart from the LXX. It is of little use to magnify its superior dignity as the Original, unless we can prove, that we have the means of interpreting that Original, without the Version. That we can read and understand Greek, by its own transparent light, is a fact which no one can deny. The number of the authors, the amount of its glossaries and lexicons, all vouch for its accurate tradition and development. But it is not so with a language, which is confined to a moderately sized volume, which is the most ancient in the world, which has ceased to be vernacular for nearly 2400 years. — It is true, that nothing can please an ambitious, or inventive mind, more than groping into cognate dialects, or excogi tating theories of universal grammar. But these are very poor substitutes for interpretations, founded on the most ancient of versions. They lead the mind away from calm and patient investigation, to a state of doubt and scep ticism, which is altogether unfavourable to the student of Divine revelation.

Hence it is, that we hear of the myths and allegories, " the Gorgons, Hydras, and Chimeras dire," of the Ger man and American commentators, who scarcely conde scend, even to mention the Alexandrian version. Its study, in connection with the Hebrew text, would serve to restrain their excesses, and to act as a barrier and bulwark against their overwhelming speculations. —

Such Learning, hoodwinked first, and then beguil'd, Looks dark as Ignorance, as Fancy, wild. —

130 AN APOLOGY FOR

Nor is it probable, that we shall return to the sober and solid erudition of our forefathers, till we return to their reverence and esteem of this sacred record. Look into the Preces Privates of the learned and excellent Bishop Andrews, and you will soon discover, how intimately he was conversant with the language of the LXX. Turn to the marginal references, in the masterly sermons of Bishop Sanderson, you will find him not less its student and admirer. Nay, I am bound to acknowledge, that Mr. Scott in his Commentary, has proved himself a worthy pupil of the same Alexandrian masters. In the course of my Septuagintal labours, I have examined all his margi nal references to the Old Testament, and found them chiefly illustrated by the text of the LXX.

The University of Oxford has done itself great honour, in exemplifying this comprehensive and catholic regard to the primitive Canon of the Old Testament, by setting forth the Hebrew Bible of Kennicott, and more re cently, the Septuagint of Holmes and Parsons. But it still remains a desideratum, to behold the Greek Version raised to its proper rank, as a prominent object of aca demical study. Surely it is not too much to expect, that public prelections should be statedly given on this sub ject, from the chair of some of the Professors ; and that it should be introduced into every college, as a branch of tutorial instruction. Nor should the Septuagint be passed over, in the public examinations in our Univer sities ; still less, in the Episcopal examinations for Holy Orders. It is much to the honour of the learned Bishop Maltby, that he has raised the study of the LXX, in the

THE SEPTUAGINT. 131

University of Durham, to a distinct topic of examination. I have reason to know, that it occupies a considerable por tion of attention, in many of the theological dissenting academies. — It would be no disgrace for Oxford or Cam bridge, to pursue the same course, in their theological ar rangements.

The late eminent Doctor Arnold introduced the reading of the LXX amongst the seniors at Rugby, and it is ear nestly to be. desired, that his example should be followed in all our public schools. That youths, intended expressly for Holy Orders, should be conversant with every variety of Greek, but that, in which the LXX and the New Tes tament are composed, is indeed a monstrous anomaly. Yet are there numbers, who can read off Lycophron and Pindar, construe the most difficult passages of Thucydides, unthread the maze of Greek Choruses, and compose ele gant Greek and Latin verse, who have never once looked into that Version of the Ancient Scriptures, which forms the only correct and canonical introduction to the grammar and philology of the New Testament.

The introduction of the Septuagint, as connected with the Greek Testament, into the higher forms of our aca demical establishments, would be attended with peculiar advantage to the minds of those students, who are pre viously conversant with the elegances of classic literature. It would accustom them to understand the precise differ ence between classic and Hellenistic Greek.* It would temper their love and admiration of the poets, orators,

* Appendix, No. 8.

132 AN APOLOGY FOR

and historians of pagan antiquity, with the far higher esteem, which is due to the language of the " prophets and holy men, who spake, as they were moved, by the Holy Ghost." Without impairing classical taste, it would dispose them to love and admire the simple sublimity of the Inspired writers. They would involuntarily im bibe and cherish the humility of Christians, whilst they became conversant with the artless and simple style of Patriarchs, Evangelists, and Apostles. -- To know how gracefully the highest classic attainments may blend with the admiration and study of Hellenistic lore; let them follow the example, and meditate the Prelections of Valckenaer.

His critical taste and classic attainments are acknow ledged by every lover of Greek literature. He devoted the morning of his life, to the study of the LXX : " In Gr&cis istis Bibliis, dumjuventa vigebam, a me diligent er tractatis, sercenta possent similia demonstrari ; sed qucim pauci hoc tempore talia sibi monstrari desiderarent." ! Theoc. Eidyll. pp. 229, 230. Alas ! that we must still mourn over the same indifference — but I should be un worthy even of mentioning his name, if I did not confess how much I am indebted to his Hellenistic labours.*

Let us not despair. — The time has arrived for a far more intimate study of patristic theology than existed in this country, during the last century. A deep atten tion to the Greek Fathers in particular, distinguishes the present age, and this must eventually lead to a more pro found knowlege of that version, on which, all their interpre tations of Scripture are based. Much as we may lament

Appendix, No. 16.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 133

to see this study occasionally perverted and abused, I re joice to think, it must be overruled, to the great and para mount end of bringing back the Septuagint, to its proper and primitive standard of Scriptural authority. — The sin gle consideration, that whoever neglects or undervalues this Version, departs from the faith and principles of the primitive Church, will ere long be sufficient to secure the restoration of those honours, which are now so unjustly withheld from the Hellenistic translators.

Let me stand excused therefore, for thus publicly es pousing the cause of the early Christians, in their high esteem of this sacred Record. The learning of all the Greek Fathers is founded on the LXX ; nor did the Latin Fathers, till a degenerate age, hold it in less esti mation. The passions and prejudices of Jerome should not be allowed to counterbalance their combined autho rity ; nor the subsequent value of the Vulgate, to depre ciate the anterior value of the LXX. — How should a Latin version, made 400 years after the Christian era, super sede the value of the Greek version, made 300 years before it? — We totally pervert the interests and duties of sound Scriptural theology, if we seek to renew the old jealousies and disputes, respecting the comparative value and im portance of the Hebrew text, and the LXX. Let the con troversies of other days be buried in oblivion, or remem bered only, to teach us moderation and sobriety. We have other, and far more important objects, to engage our attention. " The Books of the New Testament," as Dr. Davidson remarks, in the Preface to his learned " Intro duction," " are destined ere long to pass through a severe

134 AN APOLOGY FOR

ordeal. Every thing, in the moral and literary elements, betoken an approaching storm, to try to the uttermost, the foundations of the Christian Church." — As far as I can judge, our best u harbour of refuge" consists, in boldly acknowledging the Canon of the early Church, in all its amplitude. We must provide against the attacks of in fidels and neologists, by avowing our hearty belief in the entire Inspiration of the Old and New Testament, not by abandoning the Septuagint, but combining it with the Hebrew Canon. We must defend the Inspiration of the New Testament, by fearlessly defending the Inspiration of that Record, from which it derives the great body of its citations, and all its doctrinal phraseology.

This cannot be effected, without considering the Greek version, as an essential element of the Canon, by identi fying its Scriptural authority, with that of the Hebrew archetype. Separate and divide them, you will always have strife and discord in the Christian camp. One will exalt the version, another the original — nay, the Hebrew itself will become the ambush for our enemies. But, let them " walk together in the House of God, as friends," let them aid each other in their difficulties, enjoy their mutual triumphs, and bring all their trophies to the illumination of the Gospel ; and we may securely defy every effort of false learning and vain philosophy. The concentrated light of Inspiration will irradiate our Biblical researches. Even the difficulties and discrepances, which may be found on our way, will only teach us that moderation and humility, which become fallible mortals, engaged in in terpreting the Divine Oracles.

THE SEPTUAGINT. 135

In the study of the Old Testament, there is confessedly much obscurity, and such ample scope for the indulgence of imagination and conjecture, that, apart from some authorised and Scriptural guide, we can hardly track our path through that labyrinth, to the land of Promise. True it is, that we have the New Testament in our hands, and by steadily comparing the New with the Old Dis pensation, we may bring light out of darkness, and emerge from the types and shadows of the Law, to the glorious light and realities of the Gospel. But, as this transit is mainly accomplished, by citations and appeals to Patriarchs and Prophets, which are expressed in Septuagintal lan guage ; if we reject the Scriptural authority of the LXX, we are again thrown back, on all the obscurities of the Hebrew text. It is then, that imagination is taxed to supply the want of solid information, and that endless speculations are indulged, to fill up the gulph between the Hebrew, and the Greek Bible. The mind becomes elated by supposed discoveries, or depressed by surrounding difficulties, or unsettled by unceasing contradictions.

It is in this perilous and dubious twilight, that the Greek Version offers its friendly aid to all, who are not too proud and independent to welcome its succours. It offers to unveil the darkness of a language, which was spoken more than 4000 years ago. It brings that lan guage into union with the writings of the New Testament. It cuts in twain the distance, by presenting us with a version 2000 years old. Thus, like the centre of an army, it sustains both the flanks, and its loss or safety, is, defeat or victory.

136 AN APOLOGY FOR

Such is the argument of this " Apology for the Sep tuagint.'" Whilst fearlessly declaring my own sentiments, I have endeavoured to give offence to no one, and to pro voke no angry feelings. Let the question be discussed with calmness and impartiality, and I doubt not the Greek version of the Old Testament will gradually rise to its proper and original standard.

It has been the last confession of many excellent men, that they died, in the primitive and Catholic faith, before any schism had taken place between the Eastern and Western Churches. Nor am I unwilling to make that confession, my own. It has been the labour of my life to furnish the details, on which, this Apology is based, and I am thankful, that I have survived, to avow and vindicate its principles. It gives me heartfelt pleasure to reflect, that, in this my last effort to illustrate the evidence of Christianity, it has been my sole aim and object, to esta blish the Canon of the Old Testament, by the union of the Hebrew text, with the Septuagint version.

Fourteen hundred years have passed away, since that un happy controversy arose between Austin and Jerome, which is not yet concluded. The most learned Divines and Scholars have taken different sides, in this controversy. Nothing will ever silence the claims of the LXX to Scrip tural authority, whilst the majority of Citations in the New Testament can be identified with that Version. No thing will satisfy men, who revere the authority of the pri mitive Church, but the recognition of its sanction. No thing will degrade the Septuagint from its Canonical rank, if we believe, that Jesus himself was taught and educated

THE SEPTUAGINT. 137

in its study. On the other hand, the Original, from its acknowledged obscurity, demands this co-operative aid.— Surely, then, this treaty of union and concord may be re ceived in that spirit of peace and charity, in which it is proposed. We ask for no compromise of established opinions, for no introduction of Ecclesiastical innovations ; we seek not to exalt the LXX, or to depreciate the He brew ; we desire only that unity and integrity of alliance, which is alike essential to the peace of the Church, and to the safety of the Canon.

paribus ye legibns amba>

Inmclce gentes ceterna in feed era mittant.

DE hisce, prout potuimus, dispiitavimus. Accuratius harum rerum examen peritioribus lingua Hebraica develitiquo. Quod enim alicubi de se agnoscit Erasmus, id de memet ingenue fateor ego atque etiam projiteor. In literis Hebraicis parum mihi vendico : utpote quas adhuc degmtarim potius (si modo degus- tarim), quam didicerim. Jure poscit hoc argumentum, non quam- libet cujuslibet operam, non tyrunculorum, aut etiam mediocriter doctorum, sed summam eorum qui primas in his literis tenent. Hodins De Vers. Grsec. Pars. I. cap. 2. § 82.

APPENDIX.

No. 1.

;OR general information on the subject of the LXX, after the classical work of Hody, consult Bp. Wal ton's Ninth Prolegomenon. In this Apology, I wish to be considered, as maintaining the same opi nions, as are therein laid down and established, with some slight modification of his sentiments concerning Aristeas. It is a noble collection of every thing which is valuable, on this inter esting subject. Whoever desires to become master of the points at issue between Augustine and Jerome, will thoroughly digest this admirable Dissertation.

For his favourable sentiments towards the LXX, Bp. Walton was violently attacked by the celebrated Dr. John Owen, whom he thus answers, in his " Considerator Considered," c. ix. § 15. " Of this translation, we have written at large, Proleg. ix. which, for its antiquity and hoary hairs, is most opposed by all Novelists, though it be proved, in the same Proleg. that it was publicly read in the Synagogues, for near 300 years before Christ ; that our Saviour and the Apostles read it, and cited it more frequently than the Hebrew text, and thereby consecrated it to posterity ; that by this translation chiefly, (which was by the Apostles left to the Church of Christ), the Church, especially among the Gen tiles, was first gathered, and by it nourished and built up, and the world subdued to Christ ; that, for many centuries no other translation, but this, and such as were made out of it (except ing the Syriac), was used in the Church, nor is any other used in the Greek Church to this day; that, this was that, which the Greek and Latin Fathers expounded, illustrated, out of which they instructed the people, confuted heresies, and main-

140 APPENDIX.

tained the truth ; that this, which we now have, is the same for substance, with that universally used (though some things by the injury of time, and frequent transcriptions vitiated)," &c. The whole is well worthy of perusal, and with much else relating to the LXX, may be found in Todd's Memoirs of Bp. Walton, vol. 2. See particularly p. 325, from which, I make the following extract : " That there was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, made in the time that the Ptolemies reigned in Egypt, is not to be doubted ; for we still have the Book, and it is the same, which was in use in our Saviour's time ; for most of these passages which the holy pen men of the New Testament do, in the Greek original of it, quote out of the Old Testament are now found verbatim, in this version/' See Prideaux's Connection, P. n. B. 1, and Dr. Mill on Heb. xiii. 25, Scripture Vet. Test, non secundum Hebraicam Veritatem, quam vacant, sed LXX Interpp. (in hac Epistola) perpetud ci- tata : et quidem Us in locis, in quibus, si reponerentur Hebr&a, non modo periret vis argument ationis Apostolica, sed ne quid&m ullus foret argumentationi locus. The reader will do well to consult the learned Prolegomena to the 2d vol. of Grabe's Septuagint, Oxon. 1719, in which, under twenty-four propositions, everything relating to the LXX, is learnedly and dispassionately discussed. To those, who seek for further and more minute information, I would recommend the following sources : — Gregory's History of the LXX. London, 1664. Father Simon's " Critical History of the Old Testament, Book n. chapter 2," beginning, "All Antiquity, till Jerome's time, believed the Greek Septuagint translation was made by Prophets, and not by common trans lators." From Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History of the Fifth Century, much valuable information may be gained. He gives a fair and impartial account of the dispute between Jerome and Austin. In the Work of Isaac Vossius, De LXX Interpp. (Haga3-com. 1661. Appendix, 1663), you will find, everything, which a violent and imprudent partizan can urge, in favour of the Greek version; whilst in Hulsii Vindic. Text. Hebr. (Roterod. 1662), you will meet his match for bigotry, though not for wit, on the side of the Masoretic text. "The Vindication of the

APPENDIX. 141

History of the Septuagint, (London, 1736), is a learned and reputable work, which brings together whatever can be urged in defence of Aristeas. The same judgment may be given of the '* Enquiries into the Archetype of the Septuagint, by the Rev. H. S. Cruys," (London, 1784), and "A Letter showing why our English Bibles differ from the Septuagint," (London, 1743). Dr. Brett's " Dissertation on the Ancient Versions of the Bible," is a treatise of still greater value, (London, 1759), and should be read by all, who desire much information in a small compass. In " An Enquiry into the present state of the Septuagint ver sion," good sense and research are shown by Dr. Henry Owen. (London, 1769.) Dr. John Blair's "Lectures on the Canon," contain a Dissertation on the LXX Version, of considerable merit (London, 1785). But the most learned and comprehensive work, since the days of Hody, on this specific subject, is the Apologia Sentential Patrum De LXX Versione, appended to the splendid edition of Daniel secundum LXX. Roma, 1772. It consists of Five Dissertations, which completely exhaust the argument. At the close, you will find, Testimonia Patrum aliorumque Christianorum De Scripturarum Gr&ca Versions. It is published anonymously, but its scholarship would do honour to any name. It qualifies and corrects many of Hody's reasonings and objections against the Canonical authority of the LXX. I cannot conclude this note, without again adverting to the Two Sermons, preached before the University of Durham by the present learned Bp. Maltby, in which, he beautifully illustrates the general importance of the Septuagint version, in reference to the New Testament. London, 1843. They are well worthy the attention of the Scholar and Divine. Consult the article " §eptuagint," in Kitto's Biblical "Cyclopaedia, and the Fifth Lecture of Dean Graves on the Pentateuch. Part 3, Sect. 2. ; Montfaucon's Pr&liminaria in Hexap. Grig. cap. 3, 4 ; Dr. Lee's Prolegomena to Bagster's Polyglott Bible, Proleg. iv, and the Eruditorum Testimonia prefixed to my Scholia Hellenistic a. Condon, 1848.

142 APPENDIX.

No. 2.

AS one of the main arguments of this " Apology" depends on the numerous citations from the LXX in the New Testa ment, it is proper, that we should indicate the chief sources of in formation, on that important and much litigated subject. — The first Collection of Parallels, as far as I can trace, was made by the celebrated Robert Stephens, and prefixed to his fine Edition of the Greek Testament, printed at Paris, 1550. It consists of two Tables, the first, those which are literal, and the other, those which agree only in sense. His references are to the LXX. They have been often reprinted, by Tonson, Bowyer, &c. in later editions, without any acknowledgment. They fill eighteen folio columns, and consist of about 250 passages.

The next were the Parallela Sacra of Drusius, Franck. 1588. They are printed, both in Hebrew and Greek, with two Latin translations, the one, by himself, the other, from the Vulgate. He has prefixed some excellent Canons, and added some judi cious notes. It fills 124 pages, and well deserves to be reprinted. The earliest, and perhaps the best, distinct collection was made by the celebrated Biblical translator, Francis Junius, entitled, Sa- crorum Parallelorum libri tres. The second edition is dated London, 1588. The first book contains 98 parallels, and ends with the Acts. The second 58, ends with Timothy. The third is exclusively employed in analizing the Epistle to the Hebrews, which contains more Septuagintal matter, than any other portion of the New Testament. It closes with a short appendix, contain ing the parallels in the subsequent Epistles. The method which Junius pursues, is less strict than that of any other writer; but it is well adapted, to show the intimate connexion between the Old and New Testament. His quotations are only in Latin, and do not exhibit either the Hebrew, or Greek text.

Bishop Wettenhall was the first English divine, I believe, who turned his attention to this specific subject. In a work, entitled " Scripture Authentic and Faith certain" (Lond. 1686), he en deavours to show, from a selection of 40 texts, taking 10 from each of the Gospels, that the citations, on the whole, agree with

APPENDIX. 143

the Hebrew, rather than the LXX; a conclusion now univer sally known to be erroneous. But he was arguing against Pa pists, who unjustly exalted the Greek version over the Original, and may be excused for magnifying his argument. Yet, ac cording to Spearman, (p. 353) " if we pursue his method, the ma jority of quotations from the LXX will be 50, which is a greater majority, by 8, than by my account." — But his reasoning is so obscure, that I cannot recommend his book to the notice of the student.

Spearman's " Letters concerning the Septuagint Translation, and the Heathen Mythology," (Edinburgh, 1759) were professed ly written on Hutchinsonian principles, and, like most of their writings, exhibit a strange medley of recondite learning, and the most whimsical interpretations of Greek and Hebrew words. In his Third Letter, he has drawn up an elaborate collection of the citations in the New Testament, from the Hebrew and the LXX, and gives the majority of 63, in favour of the LXX. In the fol lowing Letter, he endeavours to show, that the sacred penmen only made use of the Septuagint " as an index to send us to the Hebrew," p. 366, and that it can afford no light, but as a con ductor to the mysteries contained in the Original !

With all its eccentricities, this book is well deserving of an

o

attentive perusal. — He makes a sorry calculation, however, when he asserts, " that, what we have, in the New Testament, by way of quotation, from the Old, whether agreeing, or varying, from the LXX, when put together, is little more than the 119th Psalm." p. 395. According to my calculation, it is, at least, as much again. There are about 350 quotations, many of them consisting of several verses, and of these, not more than 50 can be fairly put down, against the LXX. I repeat, that the bulk of the citations in the New Testament, are equal in extent, to S. Mark's Gospel, or to the Epistle to the Hebrews.

In 1782, Dr. Randolph published at Oxford, " The Prophecies and other texts cited in the New Testament, compared with the Hebrew original, and with the Septuagint version." He has, ac cordingly, printed the Hebrew, LXX and NewTestament,in three columns, and has added some useful notes. The quotations com-

144 APPENDIX.

pared, however, are, only 179. It is a valuable and useful work. According to his computation, there are 72 verbatim quotations from the LXX : 47 will agree, with only some variation 30 agreeing in sense, but not in words: total 149. Differing from the LXX, but agreeing exactly or nearly, with Heb. 13 ; whilst there are 19 which agree, with neither. — A fair account is given of the citations, in Blair On the Canon, pp. 86-170.

In 1827, Professor Stuart republished Dr. Randolph's Quo tations, with many additions, but without any notes. (Andover, Massachusetts, 4to., 1827). Dr. Davidson has more recently republished them in his " Sacred Hermeneutics."

Mr. Hartwell Home, in his excellent " Introduction to the Cri tical knowledge and Study of the Holy Scriptures/' has furnished the Biblical student with a most valuable and elaborate account of the Quotations in the New Testament. See vol. ii. part i. chap. 4. It is necessary to observe, however, that, in the first list of " Quotations, exactly agreeing with the Hebrew," § 2, all agree verbatim with the LXX, except 6 j and that, in his second Table of "Quotations nearly agreeing with the Hebrew, " many exactly agree with the LXX, and all very nearly; whilst, in his third list, " Quotations agreeing with the Hebrew in sense, but not in words," many exactly agree with the LXX, and the rest very nearly. — In his seventh list, of " Quotations, in which there is reason to suppose a different reading," &c. some agree exactly, and all very nearly, with the LXX. I mention these particu lars, because this admirable Work of my learned friend has de servedly obtained great influence amongst theological students, and, if not thus noticed, might lead to very erroneous conclusions, respecting the comparative number of citations, as relative to the LXX, or the Hebrew. Even in the list, " Quotations differing from the LXX, but agreeing exactly, or nearly, with the He brew," out of the 11 specified, there are 5, which agree very nearly with the LXX. In list 5, " Quotations, which differ from both the LXX and the Hebrew," out of 19, there are 12, which nearly agree with the LXX.

It is necessary to be thus painfully minute, that I may

APPENDIX. 145

justify the general argument of this Apology, by showing, that our Protestant prepossessions in favour of the Hebrew text, have often led us involuntarily to deal somewhat harshly with the Greek version. The reason is obvious. It has been thought a degradation for the inspired writers, to appeal to an uninspired authority, and therefore, every effort has been strained, to dimi nish the Septuagintal quotations. This conclusion would be perfectly correct, if we admit the premiss. Allow the LXX to be nothing more, than a merely human version, and the consequence is not only implied, but necessary; whereas by showing, that the number of Septuagintal quotations in the New Testament, much exceed those derived from any other source, we go far to establish the point at issue. — Out of 350 quotations, I once more declare, that, not more than 50 can be fairly reckoned, to differ from the LXX.

In Dr. Owen's Modes of Quotation, (Lond. 1789), the reader will find much useful information. "The texts, cited in the Gospels and Acts," he says p. 89, "amount in number to 76 : of these, 60, at least, appear, on comparison, to be strictly conformable to some, or other of our Septuagint copies." This is a very inadequate computation of the gross amount, (the Acts alone containing 50 LXX citations) ; but it evinces his opinion, as to their comparative number.

In the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy for October 1849, appears a very accurate and elaborate analysis of the quotations in the Gospels, as they relate to the Hebrew, or the LXX. The writer shows, that our Blessed Lord almost invariably adheres to the Version, whilst his disciples occasionally refer to the He brew text. — The suggestioji, that Jesus was taught, as a child, to read the LXX, is an immediate corollary from this important distinction. See Appendix, No. 17.

No. 3.

AS several allusions are made in this Apology, to the opi nions of a Hebraic school of divines, who went under the name of Ilutchinsonians, and which, though now extinct as a

146 APPENDIX.

school, professing to hold Philosophical opinions at variance with the Newtonian Principia, may still be supposed to exercise some indirect influence on subjects of Biblical philology; it may be useful to make a few observations on their peculiar opinions, respecting the LXX. From their high and mystical sentiments, concerning the Hebrew text, they were led to take a very low estimate of the Greek Version. They conceived, that Greek terms were totally inadequate to represent the mysteries, con tained under the corresponding words in Hebrew ; and that it was out of mere condescension to the Gentiles, the New Tes tament was written in Greek. Viewing, therefore, the Greek version, " as a tar gum, rather than a literal translation," (Spear man, p. 366), they would not admit, strictly speaking, there were any quotations from the LXX. This led them to con ceive very meanly of the doctrinal phraseology of the New Testament, as borrowed entirely from the Septuagint, and con taining none of the mysteries, concealed under the Hebrew terms, Jehovah, Elohim, Berith, &c. &c. " Neither doth the use the writers of the New Testament" says Spearman, "make of the LXX, stamp any authority on that version, or entitle it to im pose the sense of the Greek words and phrases, on the Hebrew." (p. 377). See also Duncan Forbes's Thoughts concerning Religion. Edinb. 1750.

Such were their abstract and extreme principles — but, in prac tice, they were, in every respect, much superior to their theories. The Hebrew and Greek Lexicons of Parkhurst, with all their amusing eccentricities, contain much sound and valuable infor mation, and are mainly indebted to the collation of the LXX. for their utility. The extracts, which I have furnished from Spearman, will evince, that, in his more deliberate sentiments, he attached an indisputable importance, to the Greek Version, Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, as edited by Mr. Rose, is perhaps the most useful manual for the student of the Greek Testament It is probable, the peculiar sentiments of this forgotter School, may still exercise an indirect influence on the pre vailing opinions, respecting the Septuagint. Their piety anc devotion justly enabled them to take a firm hold on the re-

APPENDIX. 147

spect of many, who never adhered, either to their philological, or philosophical sentiments. The works of Home and Jones are still held in high and deserved estimation, among men of learn ing ; whilst the devotional treatises of Romaine and Serle find a large body of admirers, in the Christian closet. — Far be it from me, or mine, to wish to lessen their religious influence, or to detract from their well-earned reputation. I am merely record ing literary facts, with reference to the subject of this " Apo logy." — It is impossible, I think, to doubt, that the subordinate estimation, in which, the Greek Version of the Old Testament is still generally held among us, and the paramount and exclusive authority attributed to the Hebrew, is not, in some measure, owing to the indirect influence of such respectable names. It is now not uncommon, even for ladies to study the Hebrew, and generally, without the points. They often affect to look down on the Septuagint, and speak of it, as devoid of all Scriptural authority. — These sentiments have become so prevalent and popular, that I may stand excused, for endeavouring to plead the cause of that Version, which so long engaged the love and veneration of the primitive Church.

But, whatever may have been the errors of the Hutcliinsonian School, they were in total contrast, to those of the present ra tionalists of Germany and North-America. The former held the Hebrew Scriptures, in high and mysterious reverence. They never questioned the plenary inspiration of Moses and the Prophets ; and their low estimation of the Greek version, was founded, on their unlimited veneration of the Hebrew original. But, we have lived to behold multitudes of the learned, de voting their days to the study of Biblical citations, and coming to the preposterous conclusion, that the Scriptures, both of the Old and of the New Testament, are of merely human authority. I have endeavoured to trace this unnatural result, to the neglect of the LXX : — I now leave the decision to those, who are best entitled to pronounce the verdict.

It is one of the strange conjectures of the modern German divines, that the Alexandrian Version was made, not from the Hebrew text, but from the ancient Jewish targums. If so, the

148 APPENDIX.

New Testament is interwoven with these targums ! — See the tract on the language of Palestine, in the age of Christ, by De Rossi and Pfannkuche, Biblical Cabinet, vol. 1, No. 2, Edin burgh, 1833. For a general refutation of such chimeras, we refer to the masterly work of Professor Stuart On the Canon, edited by Dr. Davidson. Lond. 1849,

No. 4.

ON the subject of the authenticity of Aristeas, whoever desires to read whatever may be urged in its defence, should consult the learned " Vindication" London, 1736, and the Apologia Sententm Patrum, appended to the LXX edition of Daniel. Rome, 1772. He will discover much to amuse and instruct, in Gregory's History of the LXX. Lond. 1664. In Dr. Body's classical work, he will find a well-digested con futation of the leading arguments in its favor; but drawn up too much in the spirit of a partizan, to satisfy those, who may think the best path lies between extremes.

It was not till the time of Jerome, that the original narra tive was called in question. The universal belief of the early Fathers, concerning the inspiration of the LXX, was associated with their trust in the history of Aristeas. This belief ex tended also to many of the ancient Rabbins and Talmudists, as is shown by Gregory in his learned History of the LXX. Without giving assent to the story of the Cells, I cannot divest myself of the conviction, that the early Christian Church had some substantial reason, for believing there was some thing extraordinary, in the origin of the Greek version. — But it is a question, on which, every one may decide for himself, and the decision cannot materially affect the validity of the argument, for the canonical and Scriptural authority of the LXX. The question, as relative to Aristeas, should be viewed as entirely open, and not blended with the essential principles of this Apology. Whoever desires to see the fact, apart from the fiction, should consult the learned Diatribe of Valckenaer, De Aristobulo Judceo, Lug, Bat. 1806, § 17-21. He justifies the

APPENDIX. 149

historical origin of the LXX, without vouching for the mira culous accounts of Aristeas. The same view is also taken by Dr. Davidson, in his " Third Lecture on Biblical Criti cism/' See also Dissert atio Philologica De Var. Lectt. Holme- sianisj autore Jacob. Amersfoort, Lug. Bat. 1815. De Vita et Script. Aristea, cortf. Lumper. Hist. Theolog. Critic. Pars. vii. sect. 8.

There is one point of great and permanent importance, viz. that, in all the ancient accounts of the Version of the LXX, its history is confined to the Books, contained in our present Canon. The Apocryphal books, therefore, must have been adduced, at a subsequent period.

No. 5.

A BRIEF notice of the dispute between Augustine and Je rome, respecting the LXX, may be reasonably expected, in this Apology. It led to some sharp altercations between Origen and Augustine, and Jerome and Ruffinus. A good account of the whole, may be found in Gregory's History of the LXX. Lond. 1664. — There were divers Latin translations from the LXX, cir culated in the early Church, several of which were very faulty. The Italic was the highest in repute; but even that had become corrupt, from frequent transcription. It was Jerome's first in tention, to set forth an authentic and correct copy of the Italic. He communicated this intention to Augustine, and it met with his cordial approbation. August. Epist. 28, Edit. Par. 1844.

But Jerome, altering his intentions, informed Augustine, that he now designed to make a fresh translation, from the original Hebrew, and supported this change of opinion, by pointing out various errors in the LXX. The Bishop of Hippo became alarmed, and strongly dissuaded Jerome, from venturing on a project, which, in his opinion, might disturb the peace of the Church, by unsettling the minds of believers, in reading the Holy Scrip tures. Hieron. Epist. 56, 71, 104. Edit. Par. 1845. Jerome was steady to his purpose, and spoke more and more disparag ingly of the Greek version. Augustine remonstrated in vain, and

150 APPENDIX.

forbade the use of Jerome's translation in his diocese. Ruffinus assaulted him with much virulence, and these eminent Fathers of the Church displayed all the usual violence of angry polemics.

The general canon laid down by Jerome was this — that, wherever there is any difficulty, it must be solved by an exclu sive reference to the Hebrew. St. Augustine was of opinion, that the Original and the Version should be consulted, and that the best interpretation should be chosen, between them. — See Du Pin's account of the whole matter, cent. v. in his Lives of Jerome and Augustine. Cyril of Jerusalem was also of the same sentiments : Divinas lege Scripturas V. T. libros xxii. quos LXXLI. Interpp. transtulerunt. Hos solos meditare, quos et in Ecclesid secure tutoque recitamus. Catech. 4. See Bp. Cosin On the Canon, (A. D. 360.)

The following extracts, from the works of Augustine and Je rome, will enable the reader to judge, how far this representation is correct.

Propterea me, nolle tuam ex Hebrao inter pretationem in Eccle sid lege, ne contra LXX auctoritatem, tanquam novum aliquid proferentes, magno scandalo perturbemus plebes Christi, quorum aures et corda illam interpretationem, audire consueverunt, qua ctiam ab Apostolis approbata est. August. Epist. 82, sect. 35, torn, ii. p. 203, Edit. Benedict. Par. 1679, p. 291. Edit. Par. 1843.

In Retract, lib. i. torn. i. p. 9, he corrects a passage in the Psalms 44, 22, (Rom. viii. 36) on the authority of the LXX, and adds, Hoc esse verius Gr&cb libri indicant, ex qua lingua in Latinam secund. LXX interpp. vett. divinarum Scripturarum est fact a translatio. Non parvum pondus habet ilia ( Versio LXX) qua sic meruit defamari, et qua usos Apostolos, non tantum res ipsa in- dicat, sed etiam te attestatum esse memini. Epist. ad Hieron. Conf. Walton, Proleg. ix. § 38.

Nee LXX Interpp. quos legere consuevit Ecclesia, errdsse cre- dendi suntjSfc. — non interpretations servitute, sed prophetic auc- toritate. — Non ergo dicemus unum horum falsum esse, et pro aliis interpp. adversus alios litigemus ; cum illi qui ex Hebr&o inter- pretantur, probent nobis hoc script um esse quod interpretantur, et

APPENDIX. 151

LXX Interpp. auctoritas, qua tanto etiam divinities facto mira- culo commendatur, tanta in Ecclesiis vetustatefirmatur. Qusest. 167, in Exod. lib. ii. Et Latinis quibuslibet emendandis, Greed adhibeantur, in quibus, LXX Interpp. quod ad Vet. Test, attinet, excellit auctoritas ; qui jam per omnes peritiores Ecclesias tanta presentia S. Spiritus interpretari dicuntur, ut os unum tot homi- ninumfuerit fyc. Quidquid vero est apud LXX in Ilebr. autem Codd. non est, per istos ea maluit, qudm per illos, idem Spiritus dicere, sic ostendens utrosque fuisse prophetas. — Quidquid porrd apud utrosque invenitur^ per utrosque dicere voluit unus atque idem Spiritus ; sed it a, ut illi pr&cederent prophet ando, isti sequerentur prophetict illos interpret ando : quia sicut in il/is vera, et concordantia dicentibus, unus pads Spiritus fuit ; sic et in istis non secum confer entibus, et tamen uno ore cuncta interpre- tantibuSj idem Spiritus unus apparuit. De Civitat. Dei, lib. xviii. cap. 43. Of this section, this is the title — De auctoritate LXX Interpp. qua, salvo honore Hebr&i styli, omnibus sit In terpp. praferenda. Conf. De Doct. Christ, lib. n. cap. 15. De Consens Evang. lib. 11. § 66, after acknowledging that the LXX frequently differ from the Hebrew, he thus accounts for it : — Nihil probabilius occurrere existimo, qudm illos LXX eo Spirit u interpretatos, quo, et ilia qua, interpretabantur, dicta fuerantt and that, therefore both interpretations were to be considered, as in spired. He repeatedly enforces the same sentiment: Midto magis credendi sunt LXX Divino Spiritu interpretati, quo Spi- ritu et ilia dicta sunt, qua in Hebr&is litteris sunt. Eodem nam- que operanti Spiritu, etiam hoc did oportuit, quod dictum est. — Hieronymus bis sacros codices transtulit. 1. Ex Gr&ca Versione TUV o, ut in Oriainis Hexaplis extabat, pura et incorrupta, ut ipse testatur, Epist. ad Suniam et Fretellam. 2. Ex Hebrceo. Novi vero Testamenti Latinam P^ersionem Evangeliorum, juxta Gracum textum correxit, hortatu Damasi Papa; non de novo confedt, ut ex pr&fat. ad Evang. liquet. H&c vero postrema Vet. Test. Hieron. Versio non statim recepta est ; sed ut nova, et in opprobrium Gr&ca Sept. facta, multos habuit magni no- minis in Ecchsia contradicentes. S. Augustinus non permisit in

152 APPENDIX.

sua di&cesi publice legi ; alii in earn invectivas scripsere, ut ex ejus Apologiis patet. Ducentis post Hieron. annis, utraque tarn vetus quam nova in usu erat, ut ex Gregor. Epist. ad Leandrum constat ; donee tandem ex utrdque, Vulgata hodierna conflata est. Walton. Proleg. v. 5.

The contradictory opinions of Jerome concerning the LXX, may be collected from Epist. 49 ad Pammach, in which he comments on the chief discrepancies between the LXX, the Hebrew, and the New Testament. But in lib. ii. § 35 cont. Ruffin. he incau tiously places the issue, on producing any passages in the New Testament, which are not in accordance with the Hebrew text. Sicut ergo ego ostendo multa in N. T. posita de vett. libb. qua in LXX non habentur, et hcec scripta in Hebr. doceo ; sic accusator ostendat, aliquid scripturn esse in N. T. de LXX. In terpp. quod in Hebr. non habeatur ; et Jinita est contentio. — Epist. ad Domnionem, in Lib. Paralip. Nee hoc. LXX. In- terpp. qui, Spirit u Sancto pleni, ea, quce verafuerunt, transtule- runt, sed scriptorum culp& ascribendum. Contrast the following in Epist. ad Pammach. Lege eundem Grcecum et Latinum, et vet. edit, nostrce translationi compara ; et liquido pervidebis, quantum distet inter veritatem, et mendacium. Comment, in Abac. Non qu&ro quid Aquila, quid Symmachus sapiantt quare Theodotion inter novos et veteres medius incedat : sit ilia vera Inteipretatio, quam Apostoli probaverunt. Cf. Grabe. Proleg. torn ii. § 21. Neque vero LXX. Interpp. ut invidi latrant, errores arguimus ; nee nostrum labor umt illorum reprehemionem putamus. Editio LXX. toto orbe vulgata est: Comment, in Esa. p. 791. Edit. Vallars. Eos, Spiritu Sand, plenos, scribit Hieron. Pref. 2 in Paralip. Ea quce, vera sunt transtulisse fyc. (licet alibi dicat, eos Interpreter fuisse, non vatesy variosque errores illis attribuat. Walton. Proleg. ix. cap. 8. Edit. Tigur. 1673. Ipse denique Hieronymus, qui LXX Interpp. auctoritatem nonnunquam elevat, magnified aliquando, ac, sicut c&teri Patres, de Us, velut de Interpp. avajLJLa^Tj]TOLg Kat 0£O7rv£ucrrotc> sent it et loquitur, ut Pr&fat. in Paralip. et Apologia Secunda in Ruffinum: in qua accusatus, quod LXX. Interpp. det raker et, magna animi contentione ab hac calumnia se tuetur, frc. Morini Praofat. ad Edit. LXX, Par. 1628.

APPENDIX. 153

Much allowance, however, is due for these apparent contradic tions of Jerome, when we consider how much he was harassed by his opponents. Ubicumque asteriscos, i. e. Stellas, radiare in hoc volumine videritis, ibi sciatis de Hebr. additum, quod in Lot. Codd. non habetur. Ubi vero obelus, transversa scil. virga pr&- posita est, illic signatur, quid LXX. Interpp. addiderint, vel ob decoris gratia m, vel ob Spiritus S. auctoritatem, licdt in Heb. nonlegatur. Epist. ad Domnionem.

It gives me sincere regret, to allude to the severe and summary manner, in which, the learned Professor Lee treats the opinion of Augustine, respecting the Scriptural authority of the Septuagint. Augustinus, nescio quofato, addit amenta, defect usque hujus adeo defadada frersionis, ad Spiritus Sancti opera tiones refer re non du- bitavit. Proleg. iv. § 3, c. 7. He cites the same passages, which had been adduced by Walton in support of his sentiments, with a tone of scorn, which nothing can justify. The representations of such men, as Augustine, Walton, and Pocock, cannot suffer by ill-placed irony. The arguments adduced in this Apology, on behalf of the sentiments of the primitive Church, may, I trust, satisfactorily account for the reverence, which Augustine, as the representative of that Church, paid to the Septuagint. They deserve, at least, a serious examination.

The following extract from Twells's Life of Pocock, will form no unfit justification of these remarks:

" Jerome's salvo, that the Version of the LXX. with all its faults, was used, because it was already in the hands of the Hel lenistic Jews; though it has been a thousand times urged in disputes of this kind, is far from satisfying this important query : for St. Matthew, in his Gospel, without regard to the circum stances of the Hellenists, often makes a Greek translation of his own, and so, doubtless, would all the other penmen have done, if the Greek of the LXX. had been so corrupt, as some pretend. How easy had it been, when the gift of tongues was so common in the Church, for one, or more, inspired persons to have drawn up a new version for the use of such, as did not understand the original language of the Old Testament, which was the case of the generality of Christians, both in the Apostolical and suc-

x

154 APPENDIX.

ceeding ages, and not to have left an important part of the Scripture Canon to them, in so bad a condition, as the Greek of the LXX. is by some represented to be. They had little to fear, from the fondness of the Hellenist Jews for their accustomed version; it being absurd to suppose, that the same authority, which reconciled them to the abrogation of the law, would be insufficient to recommend a new version of it. — In a word, the seeming differences between the Hebrew text and the transla tion we are speaking of, are scarce wider anywhere, than in some passages cited thence, in the New Testament ; which should incline us to be sparing of our censures, on account of such va riations, and to think the LXX. at least in general, a sound and useful version." pp. 320-333. — The whole is worthy of the reader's attention.

No. 6.

THE following brief notice of several passages, adduced in the New Testament from the Old, in which the LXX. are followed, even where they differ from the Hebrew, is sub mitted to the reader, to evince the rashness of Jerome's challenge to Ruffinus. It may also suffice, to refute the assertion of Tay lor, that the Apostles never argue from the Greek version.

The second Cainan in St. Luke's genealogy, (cap. iii. 37), is entirely dependent on the authority of the LXX. 1 Par. i. 2. Query, — May ice not hence infer, that the general chronology of the LXX. is sanctioned, by the authority of the New Testament? Matt. xv. 8, 9, Esa. xxix. 13, agree with the LXX. and differ from the Hebrew. So likewise, Act. ii. 25, Ps. xvi. 8, Act. xv. 17, Amos. ix. 12, Rom. x. 18, Ps. xix. 5, Heb. x. 5, Ps. xl. 6, Heb. i. 6, Deut. xxxii. 43, not found in the Hebrew. Rom. iii. 10-18, follow, in succession, in the LXX, Ps. xiii. 3, but not in the Hebrew. See also Heb. v. 6, Ps. cix. 4, Acts. vii. 14, Gen. xlvi. 27. The number might be easily enlarged. — Consult the note of Mill at the end of Hebrews, Hujusmodi sunt ista ex P salmis : 'O TTOIWV rovg ayyeXovg avrov Trvei'/juara, cap. i. 7. 'HAoY- rw(7a£ avrbv ]3pa^v n Trap' ayytXovg, cap. ii. 7. Qvcriav KOL Trpoff- (f>opav QVK fiOtXrjaaz, trw/m $£ Kari)£m<7a> juot, cap. X. 5. pro quibus,

APPENDIX. 155

si reponas ea qua sunt in Hebr&o, ratiocinations Paulina robur, ac nervos omnes plane incideris. Quod autem ex voce SiaOfar] (cap. ix. 16-19), qua, in locis ex Jerem. et Exod. ab illo citatis utunturLXX. Interpp.probet dpostolus mortem Testatoris inter- cedere debuisse, quod aliter raturn non sit Testamentum ; certt in Ilebra'icis op. Jerem. et Exod. nullus omnino datur probationi isti locus. Berith enim non significat Testamentum, sed tantum in ge- nere Fcedus, seu Pactum. These passages are adduced by the learned Dr. Mill, to show, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in Greek, and they are decisive to his purpose. But, they prove also to demonstration, that the Version of the LXX. is indissolubly bound up with the reasoning of the Apostle, and that, unless you believe the inspiration of the Septuagint, you must cease to believe the inspiration of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The LXX. translated berith by &a0//»oj, and thus it must be construed a Covenant, fcedus, in various passages in the Old Testament. But the word Sm0//ioj, in Hel lenistic Greek (see Jos. Ant. 17. 9. 7.), means also, a Will, testa- mentum, and therefore, the Apostle took it in a double signifi cation, as implying both a covenant, and a covenant, fortified by a Will, which implies the death of the testator. Yet, it is not true, as Spearman argues, p. 371, that a mere knowledge of the word berith would have led to this explanation. It results from the double meaning of the word Sta0//K7j; though, it is likely, the Apostle associated the secondary use, with the proper Hebrew meaning of Berith. — Consult also, Macknight's Preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews. Sect. 2.

It should be remembered, that the verbal argument, here ad duced by Mill, to prove that the Epistle to the Hebrews was originally in Greek, will equally apply to several other parts of Scripture. Thus the play on- the words Ht'rpoe, and Trt'rpa, Matt. xvi. 18, goes far to prove the Greek origin of that Gospel. Very few of St. Paul's verbal antitheses will bear translation. But our translators have ventured on concision, Phil. Hi. 2. Their hap piest example is original ; James v. 6. In 1 Sam. xxv. 3, is an Hebraic play on the name Nabal, which is quite lost, in the LXX. in our own, and in every other translation.

156 APPENDIX.

No. 7.

BY those who know, that both Jerome and Origen have fre quently charged the Jews, with the wilful corruption of the Hebrew text, it can scarcely be credited, that one of the most popular arguments for exalting that text, to the disparagement of the LXX. was the supposed immutability, or, as it was called, the integrity of that text. It was represented, on the other hand, that the Greek Version had come down, so utterly de praved and corrupted, that it was of no value. Such arguments may be found stated in all their extent, by Turretin, Imtit. Theolog. Pars Prima, Quasi. XIV. A n Versio LXX. Vet. Test, sit authentica ? Negatur. — Nay, even by Limborch, Theologia Christiana, lib. 1, cap. 3, § 7. Also by Episcopius, Imtit. Theolog. lib. 4, cap. 21, p. 276, who admits, however, that it would be of equal authority with the Hebrew, if it had come down to us equally uncorrupted. He admits also, that the Hebrew text should be corrected by the Greek version, whenever the New Testament citations are in its favour. Concerning these citations, I shall give the opinions of Turretin, in his own words: — Testimonia qua ex LXX. versione allegantur in N. T. authen tica sunt, non per se, sive quateniis d LXX. ex Plebrao in Gr&cum sunt traducta ; sed, per accidens, quateniis approbata et sancti- jicata sunt a Spiritu S. et ejus afflatu, ab Evangelistis in contex- tum sacrum relata. It is much to the honour of Calvin, that he has introduced no such scholastic jargon, in his Institutes. — It was the imprudent conduct of Isaac Vossius, which so much pre judiced our Protestant forefathers, against the LXX. This learned, ingenious, but most injudicious scholar, could be satisfied with nothing short of giving up the Hebrew text as corrupt, and setting up the Septuagint translation, as the only pure canon of the Old Testament Scriptures !* Against such dangerous sen timents, Dr. Pocock, and all sober-minded divines protested ; but, in avoiding the extreme of Vossius, many ran into the oppo site error, of denying the LXX. all canonical authority, Pocock,

* Twells's Life of Pocock, p. 320. Lond. 1816.

APPENDIX. 157

perhaps the greatest Oriental scholar of the seventeenth century, took a middle course. Though he held the Masoretic text, in the highest esteem, yet he labours in his Commentaries on No- sea, and in his Porta Mosis, to reconcile the Greek, with the Hebrew text : — " He well knew," says his learned biographer, " the regard that was, on many accounts, due to that famous version ; its great antiquity, and the nearness of its authors to the times, when Hebrew was a living language : above all, the use made of it, in the Scriptures of the New Testament, in the first ages of the Church," £c. "Happy had it been for truth, if others, who opposed the extravagancies of Vossius, had observed the same decorum and judgment ; if, like him, they had defended the Masoretic text, without giving up the Version," &c. The readers will perceive from these and similar observations, in the life of that eminent Orientalist, that he approximated to the essential principle of this Apology.

Yet, even Pocock, in the opinion of T wells, went "too far in supposing the Hebrew text always, and in every particular, read, as it is at present," &c. " But," he adds, " it is the less to be wondered at, if he was prejudiced in favour of it, especially, con sidering likewise, that Hebrew verity was the prevailing opinion of the time, in which he was educated, and was then thought by most Protestants, essential to the interests of the Reformation," pp. 330—335.*

This imaginary integrity of the Hebrew text, descended to the age of Spearman and the Hutchinsonians, who were professed antagonists of Kennicott and his collations. The same opposition had before been given to Dr. Mill, for his laborious collation of the New Testament MSS. There was, indeed, no opposition raised against Holmes and Parsons, for their collation of Sep- tuagintal MSS. ; but this may be accounted for, from the low estimation, to which that text had fallen. It is probable, that many still entertain a mysterious and indescribable vene ration of Hebrew, which may long stand in the way, of any satisfactory adjustment of texts, which should never have been

* Appendix No. 7.

158 APPENDIX.

treated, as rivals. Yet, it is hopeful and satisfactory to know, that neither the Eastern, nor Western Church, nor the Church of England, have made any public declaration against the Scrip tural and canonical authority of the LXX. It is to be lamented, indeed, that several of the most learned Romanists, amongst whom are Bellarmine and Morinus, have evinced a contrary tendency. But the Church of Rome is not committed, by their individual opinions. Though she has erred, and greatly erred, on the subject of the Apocrypha, she cannot be justly charged with any error, concerning the authority of the Hebrew and the LXX. as forming the joint canon of the Old Testament.

As to the Church of England, there is nothing in her Articles, Homilies, or Liturgy which should prevent us, from the free and unbiassed exercise of our own judgment, on this important question. Though our Bible translation is made professedly from the Hebrew, it often adopts the interpretation of the LXX. It is, like the Vulgate, a mixed translation, taking the Hebrew as its standard, but frequently amending that standard, by the col lation of the Greek version (Ps. xxii. 16). In the Prayer-Book version of the Psalms, on the contrary, it takes the LXX. as the standard, though that standard is occasionally adjusted to the Hebrew text. (See Ps. ii. 12.)

The sole department of the Protestant Church, which has publicly denounced the LXX. as uncanonical, is the Church of Geneva. Her conduct, in this respect, may be easily ex plained. — At the Reformation, Calvin disclaimed all subjec tion to ecclesiastical authority, as derived from primitive anti quity. He consequently felt no reverence for the early Canon, and the prescription of 400 years could give the LXX. no title to canonical authority, in his esteem.* But, it was not so with our Anglican Reformers. They still appealed to the early Fa-

* As a specimen of the rudeness and irreverence, which even Tremellius could evince on this subject, the following extract, from the Preface to his Latin Ver sion, may suffice. — Quis enim tot ineptias in tantorum (si credimus) hominum animos tanto consensu incidissecredat,qualessingulis paginisoffenduntur? tot corruptos lo cos? totadditos? totomissos? Quis denique eosdern esse cum antiquis exemplaribus putet, qui eos ipsos locos quos Evangelists, Apostoli, et alii Patres de verbo ad ver- bum adduxerunt, cum libb. nostris contukrit ? Extant septem loquutionis libri ab Augustino scripti; in quibus qnotmqmsque et>t locus cui bcnc cum libb. nostris

APPENDIX. 159

thers, even in matters of faith and doctrine, and founded their op position to the Romish Church, on the assumption, that she had departed from the primitive Church, by introducing the Apocry pha into the Canon.

The point at issue, therefore, as relating to the Canon, was the Apocrypha, not the LXX. This remained in statu quo. — The inference to be drawn is clearly in favour of a joint canonical alliance. — At any rate, it should be considered an open question for all members of the Church of England.

conveniat? — And now let us contrast with this abuse, the opinion of one, who was by no means over favourable to the LXX. Rarum et incomparabilem thesaurum es.se, ncminem ignorare posse, niai (jui ab u/mii erudilione ulienus sit. Ileinsii Aris- tarch. Sacr. cap. xv. p. 901. — It is right to add, that neither the Helvetic, the Augsburgh, or any other of the Reformed Confessions, nor the Synod of Dort, make any canonical distinction between the Hebrew and the LXX. in the Article De Scripturis, and therefore, even amongst Calvinists, it seems to rest, rather on the opinions of eminent individuals, than on any official document. Both Zuinglius and Melancthon speak, in the highest terms, of the Greek Version. Grabii Edit: LXX. Postscript. Editoris.

With regard to the various readings collected by Holmes and Parsons, they are, as Schleusner has remarked, little more than mcndarum Jiirraginem." * Nearly all, which are valuable or important, may be found in Bos, or Breitinger. The varieties of the Vatican, the Alexandrine, the Aldine, and Complutensian are important, but the discoveries of Holmes and Parsons seldom throw any light on the text. They are, however, valuable as negative arguments, to evince how little the text has materially suffered, whilst they form an excellent barometer, for testing the comparative value of superior MSS.

I cannot conclude this note, without observing, how much a really good and instructive edition of the LXX. is still a desideratum, in Biblical literature. As far as relates to the New Testament, I have imperfectly attempted to supply the wants of the student, in reference to the LXX. But the entire plan cannot be carried out, without a corresponding edition of the Greek Version of the Old Testa ment. Such an edition should at once, explain the rationale of the Hellenistic Greek, by referring to the Hebrew text, and also furnish us with philological and doctrinal illustrations, by corresponding references to the New Testament. Everything relating to the illustration of parallels and citations, should be amply provided. Josephus and Philo would offer a rich mine for research. — Such an Edition would necessarily be the labour of many years, and none but a theolo gical student, in the vigour of his faculties, should attempt the task. But, if well accomplished, it would be invaluable. — Some useful hints might be gained, from the method which Pricaeus has adopted, in his Annotations on the LXX. Psalms. In regard to the text, it should be based on an impartial collation of the Vatican, Complutensian, Alexandrine, and Aldine Editions, and not confined, as heretofore, to following implicitly any single MS.

* Pnef. Lexicon. LXX.

160 APPENDIX.

No. 8.

THE following extracts, from Bishop Pearson's admirable Preface to his Edition of the LXX. 1 give in the words of Spearman, " who thinks them full to his purpose." But the reader will judge, whether they do not rather confirm the state ment of this Apology.

" After enumerating several benefits we reap from this Ver sion, he saith :

" Nor is the LXX. version less useful and necessary, to a tho rough understanding and a right explication of the New Testa ment ; for the sacred penmen, not only frequently produce testi monies out of the Old Testament, but also accommodate Moses and the Prophets, to the doctrines of Christianity : and hence it will needs happen, that the mode and manner of expression, or the phraseology of the Hebrew, which was unknown, or at least unusual amongst the Grecians, must, to such as only understand Greek, render the Apostolic writings more obscure, than they would otherwise have been. Neither can this obscurity be taken away, or cleared, by any other means, than by the knowledge of the Hebrew idiom, in which the Old Testament is written ; upon which, the Apostles every where keep an eye, and which, a little varied from its original purity, the Jews spake, in the time of our Saviour, to whose customs and manner of speaking, they accom modated their discourses. For which reason, the Greek Version of the Old Testament will of necessity be of very great use, in understanding the Apostolic writings ; since, in that Version, all the idioms of the Hebrew language were transplanted, as well as the soil would bear them ; in that, the sense of the prophetic writings was explained, as well as the Greek tongue, and the skill of the translators would permit; and to that, the Grecians, with whom the Apostles had most concern, had long been accus tomed. And it is reasonable to believe, that this translation, by Divine Providence, was at first made to be the instrument and means of preparing the minds of the nations, who every where had it among them, for the better and more kindly reception of the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles.

APPENDIX. 161

"There are, therefore, many words in the New Testament, which, from the mere usage of the Greek tongue, cannot be understood ; which, by collation with the Hebrew, and the usage of the LXX, become easily intelligible. No one knows what <ra/o£, what irvtvua signify, among the Greek authors: and if you collect all the senses in which the Greeks use these words, you will find none that will reach the Apostles' meaning. For as *nm pro perly signifies^esA, and yet is put by the Hebrew writers, for the man himself, for human nature, for the weakness, and even de pravity of that nature; and all this variety of senses is rendered, by the LXX, by this one word crap£. Hence, as often as the Apostles use this word, in a sense unknown to the Greeks, it be comes necessary to explain it from the genius of the Hebrew lan guage, and the version of the LXX. As in that remarkable pas sage, John i. 14, where we read, Kcu 6 Xoyoc <rap£ tytvtro, which, without any authority of the ancient Greek writers, is rightly interpreted, And the Word was made man, or put on human na ture. And 'E£ c'pywv VOJLLOV ov SiKaiwOtiatTai travel (Tap£, that is, any man, as Ps. cxliv. 22, ev\oyttTto TTCKTU aapZ [i. e. every man] ro ovojita TO aytov. Hence these phrases, ^>poi>T^ua rfjc crapKoc — Iv crapKi et Kara aapjca tiai, Kara (TapKa Trapnrarav, — the will of the flesh, — to be in, and after the flesh, to walk after the flesh, and many more; which are all modes of speaking, unknown and illegitimate among the Greeks. So, the proper signification of iTf) Rua/i, wind, or air in motion, as irvlv^a, among the ancient Greek authors, denotes. But then, as HD hath several other significations in the Hebrew, which have no place among the Greeks, whenever the Apostles use Trvtvua, in a sense foreign to the Greek tongue, the passages wherein it is so used, must be ex plained by the Hebrew idiom, and the Septuagint version : as John iii. 6, To ytyavvrjjutvov IK rf/c <rapKoc, ffap£ corf KOI ro ytjEvvri- jutvov £K TOV Hveujuaroc, Trvtv/na tort : That which is born of the flesh, is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit, is Spirit.— " Whence should we know what ^jua means, Luke i. 37, OUK a£uvar?j<m Trapa T(.J 6t^> TTUV pt)ua, unless we recollect what is written, Gen. xviii. 14, ~m mrvQ tt^D'H, which the LXX translate, M») a'SuvarT/o-a Trapa r^J» Qftjj pUjua ; and consider

Y

162 APPENDIX.

that *OT not only signifies a word, but any matter, business, or transaction ; or whence should we know, what force and par ticular emphasis TO SIKCIIOVV and TO SiKcttovaOai have, in the Apostles' usage of these expressions, unless the Hebrew pTO had been used in the same sense, and the LXX had rendered it, by these Greek words ? In vain, among the ancient Greeks, will you inquire after the meaning of Trtorevav T$ 0£t£, UQ TOV 0£ov, to believe God, or in God, Trtorcvav elg TOV Kvoiov, and TT/OOC rbv Otov wiffTig, faith in the Lord, and faith towards God, which are so often enforced in the New Testament ; which yet are easily understood from the LXX version. How should we guess at the meaning of aVraoc T$ Gtcf, Acts vii. 20 ; unless the Septuagint had rendered the Hebrew SID'O inN from, by tSovree $£ avrb aorctov? Who would have even imagined, that o Kvpioz was to be taken, for the Lord God, unless the Septua gint had so used it, with whom, Kvoioz is, 6 "&v ? pp. 422-429.

In this learned Preface, it is clearly shown, that Jerome has often mistaken the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words, from not collating the original with the version, and that he has fre quently blamed the translator for no other cause, than his own ignorance of Hellenistic Greek. He convicts the version of Jerome, i. e. the Vulgate, of many gross errors and mistakes, which might have been avoided, had he adhered to the Italic; or had his prejudice been less strong, against the Alexandrian version. Nor, could it be expected, that his translation should be more free from error, since he tells us, that he finished the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, in three days, and Tobit, in one! See the article Vulgate, in Kitto's Cyclopedia of Bib lical Literature.

No. 9.

ON the subject of the two versions of the Psalms, the one, from the Hebrew, the other from the LXX, the student will find much information, in The Collation of Mr. Reeves, London, 1800. His work abounds with valuable adjustments of the Hebrew and Greek texts. The same may be affirmed also of a Paraphrase and Annotations on the book of the

APPENDIX. 163

by the learned Dr. Hammond. London, 1659. It is compara tively little known, but forms an admirable specimen of the mutual illustrations of the Hebrew, and the LXX. It is only fair, however, to add, that Hammond gives a decided preference, to the Hebrew text. The citations in the New Testament are taken chiefly verbatim, from the LXX. A learned and accurate account of the Psalter version may be found, in 13ona De Reb. Liturg. lib. 2, cap. 3, pp. 297-301. Rom. 1671. It contains much valuable information respecting the LXX. — Bp. Home allows, that the Apostles generally cited from the Greek of the LXX version, and took it as they found it, &c. (Preface). This appears but a lame apology for inspired writers, if they cited from an incorrect version. He was endeavouring to account, for what is improperly called, the imprecatory language of some of the Psalms, in which, the LXX literally follow the Hebrew. For both, a similar explanation may be offered, that the lan guage is not imprecatory, but denunciatory. Our translators have given Acts i. 20, Rom. xi. 9, too strong a meaning, by in serting the word " let his habitation," and " let his table," &c. St. Augustine, who constantly read and studied the Greek ver sion, interpreted their language in a far milder tone : H&c -non optando sunt dicta, sed optandi specie, prophet ando, prcedicta. De Civitat. Dei. xvii. c. 19. And here it may be observed once for all, that, if our excellent translators had been more conversant with Septuagintal Greek, they would, on several occasions, have softened the Calvinistic tone, which they have imparted to many passages, both in the Old, and New Testament. Kuster, Dre- sigius, and Woll have shown, that in many texts, the force of the middle verb should have been preserved, where now it is rendered by the passive. See particularly Act. xiii. 48, Rom. vii. 14, ix. 22.

No. 10.

AS it is somewhat hazardous, in this country, even to allude to the Apocrypha; to avoid misapprehension, let me at once declare my sentiments, in the simple and decisive language of Augustine, " /;/ Apocryphis, etsi invenitur aliqua veritas, tamen

1G4 APPENDIX.

propter multa falsa, nulla est canonica auctoritas. It is much to be deplored, that it was ever intermingled with the Canonical books; and especially, that Jerome should have given his high authority, to this Biblical confusion.

As a sincere Protestant, having made this acknowledgment, I hope, it will give no offence, if I briefly advert to some of the philological benefits, which may be derived from an attentive study of these Judaic books, in their relation to the LXX, and the New Testament. Though their style is essentially the same, as that of the LXX, it is somewhat more free, and ap proaches nearer to that of the New Testament. This difference arises, from their compositions being original, and not transla tions, (except Sirach), and also from their being composed at a later date, than the Alexandrian version. Representing the style of the Hellenistic Jews, till within a short period of the Christian era, whether as regards History or Philology, they are of great value, to fill up the intermediate space. So nearly do some chapters of the Maccabees approach to the diction of others, in the Acts of the Apostles, that, if it were not for the subject, but little difference could be found between them.

The two moral books, The Wisdom of Sirach, and of Solomoti, are peculiarly valuable, as specimens of Jewish ethics, and throw much incidental light on various passages of the New Testament. There are several hundred words and phrases, not occurring in the LXX, which derive their best interpretation, from the Apo cryphal writings. — It may be useful here to give the list of Hellenistic authorities. 1st. The LXX. 2nd. The Apocrypha. 3rd. The New Testament. 4th. Philo. 5th. Josephus. 6th. The Apostolic Fathers. 7th. The Pseudepigraphal Writer sy comprehending those published by Fabricius and Thilo, espe cially, JEvangelium Nicodemi. To these may be added, some of the earlier Reliquice Sacra, as edited by Grabe, and Routh. The labours of Bretschneider on the Apocryphal writings, should always be mentioned with esteem.

APPENDIX. 165

No. 11.

is an ambiguity, as Professor Stuart has rightly observed,* in the use of the words Canon, and Canonical, in the ancient writers, which has frequently led theological stu dents into serious mistakes. Sometimes, they are used as equi valent to our word inspired, and at others, only as equal to our word authoritative, i. e. readable, in the public worship of the Church. In this Apology, I have ventured to take them occa sionally in both these significations, and to adapt both, to the purpose of the argument.

But, it may be objected, that I have also used the word Canonical, in a more extensive sense than usual, by applying it, not only to the number of the books in the Old Testament, (which is the same in the Hebrew and LXX); but also to the textual distinction arising from the Original, or the Version. If any defence be required on this point, it must be found, in the nature of this Apology. — That the early Fathers, especially Augustine, regarded the Septuagint version, as Canonical, in both senses, there can be no question. Nor is it possible to forget or avoid such language, when advocating the same opinion, as theirs, on the subject of the Canon. I have used it, therefore, in reference to the LXX sometimes, as implying divine inspi ration ; at others, as confined to that ecclesiastical authority, which pertains to writings, publickly read in the assemblies of the early Christians.

To explain this use of the word, let us suppose, that the Samaritan Pentateuch had been introduced into some ancient Church, instead of the Hebrew. We should immediately charge that Church, with having introduced an uncanonical version. And why? 1st. Because the origin of that version was, not only obscure and unsatisfactory; but, because it had been made for the use of professed schismatics, or seceders from the Jewish Church. 2nd. Because it had never been publicly used in any Jewish synagogue. 3rd. Because it was not ratified, or recog nized by Christ, or the Apostles. 4th. Because it had never

* Section ii. Definition of Canon, pp. 22-29.

16G APPENDIX.

been esteemed as canonical, by the Christian Church. — Now, these are precisely the criterions, by which, we prove the Scrip tural and Canonical authority of the LXX.

It is now, indeed, of the utmost importance to be explicit on the subject of the Canon, since a party has arisen, even within our Church, which joins the continental neologists, in their " dis solving views," respecting any positive, or objective, Canon of Scripture. It is the characteristic of this school, to represent everything in Theology, as chiefly subjective, and thus to bring the Bible, as a written Revelation, to the bar of human reason. Under the profession of spiritualising whatever is material, and of exalting the internal, over the external, evidences of Chris tianity, it silently undermines all historical fact, and leaves us poor indeed, to toy and trifle with our own imaginations.

When Satan assumes the appearance of an angel of light, he approaches in his most dangerous and fascinating aspect, and when it is represented, that Christian piety can flourish, without external ordinances, or that Christian truth can be established, independently of the written Word of God, we are reminded of his old pretence, to give us all the world, if we but fall down and worship him.

It is just at such a crisis of the written Canon, that an Apology for the LXX may claim the attention and regard of all prudent and reflecting Christians. The Greek Version should be ad mitted, as Canonical, not only on its own account, but because it stands pledged and united to both Testaments. It exhibits the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, stereotyped in that Hellenistic Greek, in which we have received the Canon of the New Testament. It imparts that unity and compactness to the Word of God, which, at once transforms it into the sword of the Spirit. Next to the folly of being ashamed of the Cross of Christ, is the folly of being ashamed of that book, from which, he probably learned to read the ancient Scriptures, and which he delights to quote and ratify, in his own discourses. The safety and integrity of our Biblical Canon can never satisfactorily be established, till the authority of the Septuagint is recognised, as the sole Canonical Interpreter of the Hebrew text.

APPENDIX. 107

The truth of this observation cannot be better illustrated, than by considering the strong and unnatural position, in whicli the Septuagint now stands, in reference both to the believer, and unbeliever of Christianity. " It has been made an ob jection to the plenary Inspiration of the New Testament," says an able writer in the Biblical Cyclopaedia (Article Inspiration), "that they generally quote from the LXX Version, and that these quotations are frequently wanting in exactness. Our reply is, that the quotations are made in the usual manner, according to the dictates of common sense, and always in such a way, as to subserve the cause of truth, and therefore, that the objection is without foundation. — As to the Septuagint version, the Apostles never quote it, so as to interfere with the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. Their references to the Old Testament, are just used, as the case requires. There is a noble freedom in their quotations, but that freedom never violates truth or propriety." — It is in consonance with this statement, that M. Gaussen has entitled The Third Section of his Theopneustia, The Use of the Septuagint Version, and arranged it under the head of The Ex amination of Objections !

Is it not strange and unnatural to find the Septuagint quo tations, classed amongst Infidel objections, when it is remem bered, that, during the three first centuries of the Church, no such thoughts or animadversions could have been entertained, either by the believers, or unbelievers of the Gospel? Would any Christian, of the three first centuries, have deemed it necessary to apologise for the citation of the LXX, in the New Tes tament ?

The reply which is here given, is totally unsatisfactory, in regard to an Inspired Record, which does not profess to be made after the usual manner, nor according to the dictates of Common Sense. Once assume the Inspiration of the New Testament, and you place it in a category, distinct from all ordinary composi tions. — Nor is the subsequent remark correct, that the Apostles never follow it, so as to interfere with the Hebrew. It is sur prising, that this able writer should have hazarded such an asser-

168 APPENDIX.

tion, when it is well known, there are numerous citations in the New Testament, which differ materially, from the original Text.*

This confusion arises from our rejection of the Septuagint, as a Canonical version of Divine authority. The noble free dom of their quotations belongs quite as much to those, derived from the Hebrew text, as to others, from the Greek version. — How surprised and shocked the early Christians would have been, by such a defence of the New Testament ! It never entered into the minds of Celsus or Porphyry, to urge such ob jections, because the Septuagint was then not supposed of in ferior value, to the Hebrew.

Nor can the plenary Inspiration of the New Testament ever be defended, unless we satisfactorily defend its numerous quo tations from the LXX. But this can never be accomplished, by putting them on a level with the dictates of common sense, nor by supposing them to be made in the usual manner. — Common sense applies to the ordinary state of the under standing, and books made after the usual manner, are, by no means, characteristic of Divine Inspiration. The result is plain and obvious. — We must either return to the sentiments of the primitive Church, respecting the Greek version of the Old Tes tament; or we must submit to the taunts of Infidels, and what is far more painful, to the secret misgivings of our own con sciences.

The hypothesis, which Dr. Lee has recently advocated, and for which he assumes no little credit, f viz. that the grammatical and literal sense of the citations in the New Testament is to be dis tinguished, from their spiritual and exegetical import, cannot be admitted, I think, as adequate to explain the peculiar dis crepancies of quotation between the LXX, and the Hebrew text, because it will apply equally to both. But, if intended, as

* Appendix, No. 6.

f Unum me inonstrasse, ni fallor, gloriarer : Crisin sc. literalem, a crisi exe- geticd didacticd, alienam prorsm esse, utque jure ita esse debere. Proleg. iv, § 3, c. 18.

APPENDIX. 1G9

a general solution of all variations in quotation, from their exact and original meaning, it is but a development of the doctrine of Origen, applied to citations, and thus converting citations into parallels. This hypothesis may be tenable, if limited to passages of mere adaptation ; but it will not avail to historical appeals, to prophetic predictions, or to the purposes of strict argument. — If cautiously admitted, it forms a fresh illustration of parity be tween the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament, in their essential relation to the New.

No. 12.

IN this " Apology," it has not been felt necessary to introduce any distinct notice of the Samaritan Pentateuch, on account of the great obscurity of its origin, the slight value now generally attached to its text, and the small influence which it could possess, on the general argument. The time was, when this Version was high in repute, and when it might have been worthy to trace its relation to the Greek Version ; but it has now fallen so much in critical reputation, that a few cursory remarks may suffice, for the purposes of this enquiry. — As the Christian Church was planted in Samaria, immediately after the death of Stephen (see Acts viii.); the Samaritan Pentateuch was never of any doctrinal repute in the Primitive Church, which universally received the Septuagint. — Its existence was scarcely recognised.

It is now generally admitted, that the Samaritan Pentateuch is not, for a moment, to be compared with the Hebrew text, in critical value, and that its readings, when unsupported by other authority, are seldom, if ever, to be preferred. In its chrono logy, it approaches to the LXX. It is also admitted, that the Samaritan Pentateuch generally agrees with the LXX, and occasionally, when it differs from the Hebrew. A slight example of this occurs in Matth. xix. 5, where the words oi $vo are found in the Samaritan and the LXX, but not in the Hebrew ; see also Gen. iv. 8, where the words &£'A0w/u£v etc ™ ircS/ov in the LXX, are supported by the Samaritan version.

The principal value of the Samaritan Pentateuch, in reference

z

170 APPENDIX.

to the LXX, consists, first, in showing, that the vowel points and accents in Hebrew are not coeval with the language itself, and therefore, it fortifies the hypothesis, that the LXX translated from unpointed MSS. Secondly, that the variations from the Hebrew text, which are found in the Samaritan Pentateuch and in the LXX, must have been of as great antiquity, as can be claimed for the former. But the latest date, which can be as signed to the Samaritan Pentateuch, is the age of Ezra. This fact is of importance, as it proves how unjustly the LXX have been charged, with translating from recent and imperfect MSS.

Those who are anxious to see the variations of the Samaritan Pentateuch from the Hebrew and the LXX, should consult Whis- ton's Appendix No. 1, in his " Essay on the Text of the Old Testament." Lond. 1722. It was once supposed that the LXX might have translated from the Samaritan ! But this would at once have destroyed all their credit with the Alexandrian Jews, unless they were Samaritans. How then could Josephus or Philo have believed, in the Divine origin of the Septuagint? How could our Saviour, or the Apostles, have given it their sanction ? — I only mention this absurd hypothesis of Hassen- camp, to show the readiness of all parties, to throw discredit and obloquy on the Greek Version.

Dr. H. Owen, at the end of his Account of the LXX, has a Dissertation on the comparative excellence of the Hebrew and Samaritan Pentateuch (London, 1787), in which, he appears somewhat too favourable to the latter; but it is well deserving of the reader's attention. Owen had great merit, in discussing this subject, when few cared for such enquiries, and his different tracts are well deserving of republication. There is also much infor mation respecting it, in Walton's " Prolegomenon xi.," in Kitto's Biblical Cyclopedia, and in Davidson's Ninth Letter on Biblical Criticism.

From the relative position of the Samaritan Pentateuch, to the Hebrew text and the Greek version, I think we may deduce these important conclusions: — 1st. That, the Hebrew text ever re mained of supreme authority at Jerusalem ; whilst the Septua gint was considered, as secondary, but of great and legitimate

APPENDIX. 171

importance: this we may term the Temple Canon. 2nd. That, in Samaria, a defective and heretical canon was prevalent, con fined to the Samaritan Pentateuch. 3rd. That, in Galilee, the Septuagint was in general use in the synagogues, and was held of equal authority, with the Original. This we term, the Hellen istic Canon. — It was this, which descended, through Christ and the Apostles, to the Primitive Church.

As to the remains of the Greek version, (To Sajua/oeirticov) of the Samaritan Pentateuch, they are too few and desultory, as Dr. Davidson has remarked, to render them of any critical value. Had they been more numerous or continuous, they would have been of the highest importance, in augmenting our know ledge of Hellenistic phraseology. See Montfaucon's "Praelim. Hexap. Orig." cap. 1, § 9; and Professor Lee's " Prolegom. ii." § 15.

No. 13.

THE philological argument, as here stated, relates prin cipally to those leading doctrinal terms, which are used alike in the LXX. and the New Testament. But it may be proper also to advert to the essential coincidence of Divine titles, ascribed to Jehovah in the LXX. and to Jesus in the New Testament. Of these, the most remarkable is that in Exod. iii. 14, 'E^w elfu 6 *Qv — 6 *Q,v aTrtoraAKt /i€ irpbt; vjJLag. Now, it is re marked by Glassius,* Carpzov,f and others, that the same Divine title is ascribed to our Lord, in several passages of the New Tes tament. See John i. 18; iii. 13; vi. 46 ; Rom. ix. 5; Apoc. i. 4, 8. The same title, 6 *Qv, is repeatedly used by Philo. See particularly De Mund. Opific. sub Jin. — It may be questioned, whether such passages, in the New Testament, could have been clearly understood, if they had not been thus illustrated by the LXX.

There is another, and somewhat similar, expression, 'Eyw Etjut, to denote the divinity of Christ, which is also transferred from

* Philolog. Sacr. p. 355, Edit. Dathe. f Carpzov. ad Ileb. passim.

172 APPENDIX.

theSeptuagint; it occurs frequently both in the New Testament,* and the LXX. But the coincidence between Esa. xliii. 10, and Joan viii. 24, is so striking, as to demand particular notice. — It is still more doubtful, whether such a passage could be under stood without the corresponding interpretation of the LXX. See Esa. xliv. 6; xlviii. 12; Apoc. i. 11. — Whoever will conde scend to consult my labours, will find, that almost every page of the New Testament admits of similar observations. — 'ETnoreuo-a, &6 tAaArjo-a, (Ps. cxv. 10.) — KCU rj/netg Tnoreuoficv, Sto feat AaXov- fjLev. (2 Cor. iv. 13.) — It is for the reader to decide, whether the Version, which has been thus appropriated to convey the most sublime mysteries of the Gospel, and without which, the doc trinal phraseology of the New Testament would have been scarcely intelligible, be not formed of materials, which entitle it to be esteemed of Divine authority.

The sublime doctrine, so satisfactorily proved by Bishop Bull in his Defence of the Nicene Creed, that, by the sole study of the LXX, the early Church, not only maintained the proper Divinity of Christ, but inferred his pre-existence, as the Divine personage, who appeared to the Patriarchs, must for ever suffice to prove, that the Version of the LXX is sufficient to demon strate every doctrine of orthodox Christianity. In that noble " Defence," you may look in vain for a single word of Hebrew. It is confined exclusively to the comments of the Greek Ante- Nicene Fathers. This is a decisive testimony to the Scriptural value and authority of the Greek Version, and should silence those, who absurdly seek to undervalue it, by contrasting it with the Hebrew text. During the canonical reign of the LXX, i. e. for the first three centuries, it should be remembered, that the Church retained much of her original purity, and produced Saints and Martyrs, whose faith and constancy can never be excelled.

How different is the aspect of Christendom at the present pe-

* To avoid using words, conveying a sacred import, St. Paul, when speaking of himself, sometimes reverses their order, sI/ui Iyo>. Rom. xi.1,13; 1 Tim. i. 15. — This is a delicate and refined attention to verbal associations.

APPENDIX. 173

riod ! Secular knowledge of every kind has been carried to a height, of which the early Christians could form no imagination. Nay, even the historical evidences of the Gospel are now much better understood, than they could have been, at that early age of the Church. But look at the general aspect of Christianity on the Continent, where the study of Hebrew has been car ried, as it is thought, to its highest perfection; and contrast their religious and doctrinal sentiments, with those of the primitive believers. You will then discover, how much of the sobriety and humility of scientific theology depends, on a reverential esteem of that version of the Old Testament, which forms the central bond of Holy Writ. — The man, who habitually collates the He brew with the Septuagint, and who finds their best and brightest mirror in the New Testament, will never become the victim of Neology, or Pantheism.

In these observations, we are chiefly alluding to the state of theological studies, on the Continent. But there is another, and very different cause, for the low estimation of Septuagintal, as compared with Hebraic knowledge, in this country. We inherit this prejudice, as Protestants ; it has come down to us, from the first Reformers. But of late years, this sentiment has been much augmented, by a strong current to the study of pro phecy, particularly to the expected return of the Jews, and the approach of the Millennial age. — I do not feel myself at liberty to hazard any opinion, on such obscure investigations. Many wise and good men have entertained very different sentiments, on these prophetic topics. — They are here alluded to, only as facts and phenomena, which may serve to account for the present high premium (to adopt the language of commerce), attached to the study of Hebrew, and the great discount, at which, the study of the LXX. now stands amongst us.

But I would respectfully submit, that no attachment to pro phetic enquiries, no expectation of an approaching Millennium, can justify any Christian, in the neglect of that Greek version, which was the main channel of bringing both Jews and Gentiles, into the pale of the early Church. The conversion of the Jews is not likely to be furthered, by fostering any contempt of a

174 APPENDIX.

version, made nearly 300 years, before the Christian era, and revered by Jewish rabbins, till they found it employed by Christians, to convict their rejection of Jesus, as the Messias. On the contrary, if we may reason, from the past to the future, their reception of Christianity will probably be associated, with their returning veneration of the Septuagint. When grafted upon the Christian Church, it seems highly credible, their con version may be effected, by that sacred instrument, which can alone enable them to read and understand the Old and New Testament, as the expositors of each other.

There is one point, which should never be lost sight of, in our communication with the Jews, viz. — that they are to be con verted to Christianity, not that Christianity is ever to be con verted into Judaism. It is not, by confirming Jews in their ancient pride and prejudice, as a chosen and peculiar people, that they are likely to be engrafted on the stock of the Christian Church. I have met with many converted Jews, who evidently looked down upon Christians, as their inferiors and secondaries. Instead of cherishing their temporal hopes of returning to Je rusalem, if the prejudices of their Rabbins could be overcome by the LXX. it is probable, they would drop that latent assumption of spiritual superiority, which, even Jewish converts are now too apt to indulge, and which forms their strongest bar, to the full reception of the Gospel. — The Hebrew convert is but half Christian; the Hellenist convert is an entire Christian.

No. 14.

MAY I be permitted, without giving offence, to hazard a few remarks, on the imperfect and desultory manner, in which the Greek Testament is generally studied at our public Schools, nay, even at our Universities? — It would scarce be credited, that whilst the most unremitting attention is given to the study of heathen authors, so little regular provision is made for the cri tical study of that peculiar Greek, in which the LXX. and New Testament are confessedly allowed to have been composed. — In the days of Blackwall, attempts were made to associate the

APPENDIX. 175

beauties of the classics, with the style of the Greek Testament, and youths were taught to compare Pindar arid Anacreon, with passages in the Evangelists, or Epistles. Nay, even Wetstein, in his elaborate Edition of the Greek Testament, does not dis dain to notice the most hacknied passages in the Greek and Latin classics, and to compare them with doctrines, dictated by the Holy Spirit. Many of these, I am sorry to say, would ill bear to appear, in an English garb. The result of such compa risons, it is to be feared, cannot be very favourable to the piety of the pupils. Nor can it be more conducive to their good taste. The beauties of the Classics are so entirely distinct, from those of the Hebrew or Hellenistic writers, that it is worse than useless, as Valckenaer has remarked, to institute any comparison be tween them. Let each be estimated by their own standard ; but " Chaos will come again," ere we can view them through the same medium.

At all events, no purely theological taste can be formed, by a mixture so heterogeneous. The Sacred Scriptures require to be compared with Jewish, not with pagan, writers. When the Greek Testament is the subject of study, the pupils should be told, "they are standing on holy ground" arid no profane foot steps should be admitted to intrude. Till the plain line of demarcation is drawn between sacred and secular literature, there is little hope of the generality of elegant and accomplished scholars, becoming profound and accurate divines.*

To promote this union, may I be permitted to suggest, that some portion of the LXX. should be systematically introduced amongst the seniors at our public schools, and more especially, at the College Lectures, in our Universities? Till this is effected, there is little hope of the critical study of the Greek Testament, becoming prevalent amongst us. The perpetual recollection of our own excellent English translation forms a peculiar obstacle, which can hardly be surmounted, but by constantly inter-

* For much valuable information on these and many kindred topics, relating to the study of the Greek Testament, I would refer to a masterly Critique, in The Christian Remembrancer, April, 1848.

176 APPENDIX.

posing the Version of the LXX, and thus breaking off' the association. If more be required, I would recommend the Apos tolic Fathers, with some portion of Josephus, or Philo. The result would be, that we should read our Greek Testament, with a Hel lenistic taste, without which, its peculiar phraseology can scarcely be appreciated. With all their errors, it must be allowed, that the Germans have bestowed far greater attention, on the culti vation of sacred criticism. Nay, even the Dissenting Academies, though they do not produce classical scholars, equal to those of our public schools, yet, more than rival us, I fear, in what may be strictly termed, a theological education. — "I began," says a late eminent Dissenter, " about the year 1785, to read the Sep- tuagint version regularly, in order to acquaint myself more fully with the phraseology of the New testament. The study of this Version served more to expand and illuminate my mind, than all the theological books, I had ever consulted. I had proceeded, but a short way in it, before I was convinced, that all the prejudices against it were utterly unfounded ; and that it was of incalcu lable advantage, towards a proper understanding of the literal sense of Scripture." Adam Clarke's Preface to the Bible.

Nothing, perhaps, would more tend to improve the study of Biblical learning at our Universities, than the enlargement of the professorial duties of the Hebrew Chair, by connecting it with the study of the Greek version. The Hebrew Professor should be considered, as Professor of Hebrew-Greek, and his Pre lections should relate equally to the Original, and the Version. By such a union, mutual facility and pleasure would be diffused over these studies, and their conjoint Canonical value would be recognised. It would then remain for the Professor of Divi nity, to direct that philological knowledge to the doctrinal study of the Old and New Testament. — It gives me pleasure to notice the Exegetical Essay on the three Gospels of Mr. Huxtable, as indicative of a joint attention to the Hebrew and LXX. At p. 25, he satisfactorily shows, that the quotations Matt. iii. 3, Mark i. 23, Luke iii. 4—7, John i. 23 " are, in all the Evange lists, either mediately or immediately, derived from the Septua- gint, and not from the Hebrew."

D 1

APPENDIX. 177

I cannot close this Note, without expressing my painful convictions, that the absence of Septuagint authority, is the fatal defect, in Bishop Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article, as concerns the New Testament. Admirably, as he has shown his extensive and accurate knowledge of Classic Greek, he ap pears not to have paid much attention, to the LXX. Version. His examples should have been taken, not from Classic, but, from Hellenistic Greek. As far as I can judge, he would have derived no support for his theory, from the LXX. or from the writings of Philo, or Josephus. This, I apprehend, is fatal to the gram matical argument, theologically considered. The testimony of the LXX. would have been of far more value, on such a subject, than the whole phalanx of the Greek Classics. The testimonies, which Dr. Wardworth subsequently collected from the Greek Fathers, prove nothing more than their acquaintance with Classic writers, or their verbal imitation of the New Testament. In making this avowal of opinion, respecting Bishop Middleton's treatise, I beg it will be distinctly understood, that I only speak of the grammatical argument, in its relation to the New Testa ment. Indeed, it is utterly incredible, that Galilean fishermen should have paid any attention to such grammatical minutia. — But it marks the low estimate of the Greek Version amongst us, that such a profound Scholar, as Bishop Middleton, had not made it an especial object of study. — Of all our Divines, Bishop Pearson, has proved himself the best Septuagintalist. Amongst the Commentators, Beza and Grotius have applied the LXX. with most effect, in their illustrations of Scripture.

!>.. No. 15.

IN most of the accounts, which have been given of the pecu liarities of the Hellenistic style of the LXX . sufficient weight, I think, has not been attributed to the fact, that they were Jewish translators, who were religiously devoted to the Hebraic original. There appears too much attempt, on the part of Sturzius and others, to insist on a peculiar Greek dialect, previously existing at Alexandria. That the LXX. version might have taken some

A A

178 APPEiNDIX.

slight tinge from the provincial Greek there spoken, is highly probable. But, since no other Alexandrian writers have left us any specimen of the same style, as the LXX. I think, we may safely infer, that their chief peculiarities were owing, to their being Jewish Interpreters, who felt it their duty to adhere, as closely as possible, to the style of the Inspired Original.

Every translator is, no doubt, to some extent, influenced by the style and language of the authors, which he translates ; but a Jew, translating the Holy Scriptures into Greek, would place himself, under a far more constraining influence. Viewing those around, as Heathen, he would, as much as possible, avoid all common and secular phraseology, by endeavouring to preserve that sacred idiom, which he deemed, the mark and shibboleth of the Mosaic oeconomy. The attempts of Raphelius, Eisner, &c. to illustrate Hebraic Greek, from some stray expressions in the classical writers, are, asValckenaer observes, of very small value, nay, are sometimes mischievous. They decoy us, from the Hebraic or Hellenistic, to the classic, meaning. In investigating the force of any doctrinal expression, they are not of the slightest authority.

The Hellenistic style of the LXX. and of the New Testament, is essentially based on the Hebrew idiom. With the exception of a few grammatical peculiarities, its characteristics are exclu sively belonging to its Jewish origin. You may learn more, by turning over the Lexicons of Kircher and Tromm, than by all the grammatical speculations of Winer, or from the whole host of metaphysical Philologists.

The peculiar value of the LXX. Version consists, in its trans ferring the doctrinal and sacrificial terms of the ancient Hebrews, into the same phraseology, as that, which was subsequently adopted by the Evangelists and Apostles. To those, who are satisfied with availing themselves of the light, the Version is sufficient. — To others, who are not satisfied, without analysing the light, the Hebrew and Syriac are necessary. The Hellenistic idiom cannot be explained, however, by anything further. — The knowledge of Arabic may serve to illustrate Hebrew etymologies, but it will not conduce to pointing out the connexion between

APPENDIX. 179

Hebrew and Greek. It cannot illustrate the idiom either of the LXX. or the New Testament, still less, can it determine the force of any doctrinal term.

These observations are designed to define the marks and bounds, which strictly belong to a Theological education, apart from those interminable pursuits, which the German neologists would now represent, as the proper ends and objects of Theolo gical enquiry. To those, who devote their lives, to the professed study of Philology, the knowledge of all languages, whether ancient or modern, may be thought fit and desirable. But, it is consoling to the Christian Divine, to know, that a competent knowledge of the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, is all that is requisite, to render him thoroughly conversant with the Scrip tures of the Old and New Testament. — I am speaking only of Theological requirements.

The Hebraic, or Hellenistic Greek, constitutes the sacred idiom, as distinguished from the classic, or profane. To keep them apart, not to blend them, is the characteristic of theological good taste — nay it is, I apprehend, something more. It con stitutes the garb and livery of sound doctrine. — If you attempt to attire the language of the Scriptures, in a classic form, you are in danger of substituting heathen ethics, for Christian mo rals, by bringing down the doctrines of the Bible, to the level of human speculations.

The Divine Wisdom, or, as I would rather term it, the verbal Inspiration which characterizes the Greek Version of the Old Testament, is chiefly developed, by enabling the translators to use Greek words, in such peculiar acceptions, as might gradually discipline and dispose the mind, to embrace the peculiar doctrines of Divine Revelation, 'and thus prepare for the advent of the Gospel Dispensation. — Thus Tnoroe, in profane writers, signifies, one who adheres to truth in his promises, or is worthy of credit, and aTritrrog signifies a liar, or one unworthy of credit. But, in the Hellenistic idiom, he is called Trtoroc who gives credit to another, and he OTTKTTOC, who is unbelieving, or, will not give credit. So, Sfcacoc, in the LXX. and the New Testament, is one, whom the Judge pronounces innocent, i. e. whom he absolves, or par-

180. APPENDIX.

dons. Whereas Sticaioe, in Classic Greek, signifies one, who is just in himself, and on his own account, — rectus in curia, — who therefore needs no pardon. — Hence the word SIKCIIOVV, in Classic Greek, means to adjudge, and even to punish ; — never to absolve, or pardon. — It is needless to add, that the doctrine of Christian Justification depends on this verbal, yet essential, difference.

When Augustine claimed for the LXX. the privilege of Divine aid in carrying on their Version, no doubt, he was led, by his deep knowledge of human nature, to infer this Divine help, from their adoption of such remarkable phraseology. He considered, that, nothing less than supernatural assistance, could have en abled Alexandrian Jews, to anticipate the very names, terms, and intents of Christian theology. — Though it may expose me to ridicule, I make the same avowal. — The inspiration of the Hellenistic Greek of the New Testament appears to esta blish the corresponding fact, — the antecedent inspiration of the Hellenistic Version of the Old Testament. Let the reader me ditate the moral and spiritual import of these doctrinal terms, — aycnrr), ayia^etv, ayia aytwv, aytov TTvev/uLa, aytoavvr), airarr] rr\g fltfiatovaOai TI)V MflpSfav, jSejScuou/utvoe Iv ry

, tiacaKetv, ivrvy^aveiv TIVI — tJ £7noTT)|Oi£av rag ^v\aq &C. &C. From such expressions in the LXX. and the New Testament, he will be able to judge, how far this theory of verbal inspira tion is justified. The diligent study of Valckenaer's Schola in Nov. Test, will much assist him, in these researches.

This view of the Greek Version may be still further illustrated, by considering, that the Septuagint is, by no means, a close or literal interpretation of the Hebrew text, that it often amplifies, and often abbreviates, and that it not unfrequently gives a dis tinct sense, which is more accommodated to the purposes of the New Testament. Hence it is, that this Version is often quoted by Jesus and the Apostles, when it clearly differs from the Original. The comprehensive character of the Septuagint can never be understood, unless viewed as a stepping-stone to the New Testament, not a servile translation of the Hebrew. Had the LXX. confined their version, to a strict and literal repre-

APPENDIX. 181

sentation of the Original text, their version never could have been adopted, as the vocabulary of the New Testament. It could not have been applied, to interpret the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel. The objections, which are urged against it on this subject, are the strongest evidences of its Divine Inspiration. Whilst it confers a new meaning on Greek words, distinct from that of classic writers ; it also frequently modifies the Hebrew, to meet the more spiritual import of the better covenant. — Such a sacred peculiarity, is of itself, sufficient to intimate its supernatural character.

It may be questioned, indeed, whether the peculiar evidence, resulting from the intimate and continuous connexion of the New Testament, with the language and phraseology of the LXX. has hitherto been sufficiently appreciated and developed. It is such a degree of philological coincidence, as pertains to no other composition, whether ancient, or modern. There is not a single versicle, in the New Testament, which may not be illus trated, both in thought and expression, from the Alexandrian Version. After more than twenty years of diligent examination, I am constantly alighting on new correspondences. We may challenge infidels to produce, from all the books which ever have been written, any thing, which can even approach such a sin gular phenomenon.

If this identity had taken place between any two single au thors, it might have been assigned, to a studied and artful imita tion. But, as the Old and New Testament is composed of a great variety of distinct writers, each of whom has some charac teristic style and manner, this general and pervading likeness, is something marvellous and singular. It cannot, I think, be ac counted for, on any ordinary theories of human nature, and till some rational solution can be given, we are justified in viewing it, as peculiar to Divine Inspiration. It is the unity of the Spirit. — These verbal coincidences, when carried out, to such an amazing extent, are no less real, though less striking, than the coinci dences of fact, collected in Paley's Horce Paulma^ and they may be logically considered, when grouped, as forming a kind of philological evidence for Divine Revelation. — But everything,

182 APPENDIX.

in such evidence, depends, on the aggregate and amount of the examples. — It is altogether cumulative.

Having furnished the data of this new and striking species of grammatic evidence, for the authenticity of the New Testament, may I be permitted to offer a few observations on its nature and extent ? Considered merely as expositive, it is extremely valu able. It provides us, with the exact and scriptural import of every word and phrase, apart from all metaphysical speculation, and all doctrinal controversy. To collate parallel words, expres sions, and thoughts, between the LXX. and the New Testament, is the most exact method of arriving at their real meaning, with out provoking any party passions, or opinions.

But this is not the philosophic view of such evidence. It would have been scarcely worth the time and labour, to have employed such enormous drudgery, on any merely philological enquiries. The problem to be solved was this : Can you, by the process of exhaustion, or as it were, by superimposition, make it appear, that the entire phraseology of the New Testament, even in its minutest point, is identical, with the words, thoughts, and expressions of the LXX ?

After many years of unabated labour, the result of this uni versal collation has been submitted to the public, and it may now be assumed, I trust, that this question is satisfactorily answered. — As a fact, a phenomenon, peculiar to the New Testament and the LXX. it may justly challenge enquiry into its nature and origin. The solution, which I humbly proposed is this — that it arises out of the verbal inspiration of both, and that it can be explained, on no other hypothesis.

With respect to the verbal Inspiration of the New Testament, perhaps it has not been sufficiently considered, that, as most of the conversations which are recorded in the Gospels, took place probably in the native and provincial dialect, they imply such a subsequent change into Septuagintal Greek, as could not have been safely accomplished, without the immediate and un erring influence of the Holy Spirit. This view of Inspiration, in relation to the writers of the Gospels, as distinct from the speakers, approaches very nearly to that species of Inspiration, which

APPENDIX. 183

we believe, was imparted to the Greek translators of the Old Testament. It was chiefly verbal, enabling them to transfer faithfully into Hellenistic Greek, what had before been spoken in the Syro-Chaldaic dialect. The first kind of Inspiration, was imparted to the original speakers, — the second to the transla tors. — We thus secure the plenary Inspiration of the Gospels, by uniting the real, to the verbal ; the thought, to the language.

No. 16.

IT may seem somewhat narrow-minded and old-fashioned, in these days, to recommend the old Dutch critics and phi lologists, in preference to those of modem Germany, as far safer guides, in the study of Sacred Scripture. The School of Holland began with Drusius, arrived at maturity with G~o- tius, and was continued by Lampe, Markius, and Vitringa, &c. Amongst its Scriptural philologists, the names of Leusden, Vorstius, Bos, Schultens, Alberti, and Valckenaer will ever remain illustrious. There is a vein of moderation and good sense in these writers, blended with devotion and submission to the Holy Scriptures, which should ever recommend them, to the attention of the Christian scholar and divine. The annota tions of Krebsius and Ottius, on Josephus; of Lcesner, Hornman, and Carpzov, on Philo, are of indispensable value, in elucidating the style of the LXX. and the New Testament. — In the biogra phies of Wyttenbach and Ruhnken, the reader will find many pleasing anecdotes of these eminent scholars.

No. 17.

LET me not disguise from the reader, that I had drawn up the whole of this Apology, before I arrived at the conviction, that Jesus, when a child, was instructed in the knowledge of the LXX. As in the course of my studies, I had never met with this suggestion, it did not occur, till reviewing the entire train of this enquiry, which may account for some apparent dis location, in the subordinate arguments. Yet this inference seems

* D

184 APPENDIX.

so obvious, that we may wonder, it has not been often dwelt on. As it is now proposed, I believe, the first time to public con sideration, it is only respectful to support it, by such collateral evidence, as may familiarize its reception. Let me be pardoned, therefore, for exhibiting, somewhat in detail, the historical and local facts, on which it is based.

The parents of Jesus resided at Nazareth, a small village of Galilee, about ninety miles north of Jerusalem. This was the most northern division of Palestine, and far inferior to Judea, or Samaria, in civilization and repute. It was totally subdued 740 B. c. by Tiglath-Pileser, and its original Jewish inhabitants led captive into Assyria. (2 Kings, xv. 29.) Galilee was divided into two provinces, the Upper, and the Lower. The former was called Galilee of the Nations, or Gentiles, (Esa. ix. 1,) because it had the larger proportion of heathen, mixed with Jewish inhabitants.

The coast of Galilee was well adapted for commerce, and through the port of Ptolemais (hodie Acre), kept up a constant traffic with Alexandria. It is repeatedly mentioned in the Mac cabees. Hence, the Greek version of the Old Testament found a ready access to the neighbouring regions. See 1 Mace. v. 15, 21, 55. — Ptolemais was amongst the earliest stations of the pri mitive Church. See Acts xxi. 7.

It was in the Lower Galilee Jesus resided, and here he chiefly remained, till about thirty years of age, paying only occasional visits to Jerusalem, at the great festivals. His mother, though of the regal family, was so reduced that, on her purification in the Temple, she offered the less costly oblation. Joseph, his reputed father, exercised the trade of a carpenter, and thus Jesus was educated amongst Galileans, in the humblest condition of society.

Now, there can be no question, that the Galileans had not only lost every vestige of the original Hebrew, at the Christian era, but, that their provincial Syro-Phcenician dialect was of the most rugged kind, in comparison with that of Judsea and Jerusalem. See Mark xiv. 70. The plain inference is this,— that Jesus was instructed by his parents, not in the Hebrew, but in the Greek

APPENDIX. 185

Version, of the Old Testament. And this inference is confirmed from the following fact — 1st. That Mary, his mother, in her hymn of praise, Luc. i. 46-55, employs entirely Septuagintal expressions, which I had long since marked, Citata fere omnia. 2nd. That, nearly all the quotations made by Jesus himself from the Old Testament are taken verbatim from the LXX. and occasionally, where they differ from the Hebrew (see Matt. xv. 8, 9); whilst several quotations made by the Evangelists, differ from the LXX. and agree with the Hebrew.

It is with pleasure, I make the following extract, from a mas terly Article, which appeared in The Quarterly Journal of Pro phecy j for October, 1849.

Quotations by our Lord from the Old Testament. Matt. iv. 4; Luke iv. 4. . . Verbatim with the Septuagint.

iv. 6. [By Satan.] . . Taken from the Septuagint.

iv. 7. . . . . Verbatim with the Septuagint.

iv. 10 Taken from the Septuagint.

ix. 13; * xii. 7. . . Verbatim with the Septuagint.

xi. 10; Mark i. 2 ; Luke vii. > Differs from both Hebrew and Septua- 27 5 gint.

xiii. 14, 15 ; Mark iv. 12 ; ) ™ , r

Luke viii. 10 . . J Taken from the SePtuaSint-

xv. 8, 9 Differs from the Hebrew, agrees with the

Septuagint.

xix. 5. .... Taken from the Septuagint.

xix. 18, 19. . . . Verbatim with the Septuagint.

xix. 19; xxii. 39. . . Verbatim with the Septuagint.

xxi. 13 ; Mark xi. 17; LukeV A^fs both with Hebrew and Septuagint. x|x 46 < Blooinfield on Mark ; Govett on Isaiah

C Ivi. 7. Not mentioned by Home. Matt. xxi. 16 . . . . Verbatim with the Septuagint.

xxii. 42; Mark xii. 10; Luke) ,r ...

xx 17 • Verbatim with the Septuagint.

xxii. 32; Mark xii. 26; Luke) A7 , .. . , , 0

xx 37 J Verbatim svjth the Septuagint.

% xxii. 37 ; Mark xii. 30 ; Luke ) Agrees with the Septuagint in sense, not in x. 27. . . . J words; nearly agrees with the Hebrew.

xxii. 44 ; Mark xii. 36 ; Luke ) TT ,

xx 42 - Verbatim with the Septuagint.

xxvi. 31 .... Verbatim with the Septuagint.

xxvii. 46. [In Hebrew]. . Differs from the Septuagint; agrees with

the Hebrew. Luke iv. 18, 19. . . . Taken from the Septuagint.

xxii. 37. .... Agrees in sense, not in words, with the

Septuagint. Exact with the Hebrew.

* But Moses Stuart says, this a direct translation from the Hebrew.

B B

186 APPENDIX.

" Here it will be observed, that our Lord's quotations almost universally agree with the Septuagint,* some of which, at the same time, differ from the Hebrew."

Now, we may fairly, I think, deduce from these facts, that our Lord was instructed by his parents, in the Hellenistic version; and this is further confirmed, by remembering, that, when Jesus put the Scribes and Pharisees to silence, by the argument from Ps. cix. 1, he adopts the LXX. so literally, that, it could hardly apply to the Hebrew text. It should be remembered, that this argument was addressed, not to the multitude, but to those, who " sat on Moses' seat," — and that they made no objection to the quotation, being taken from the Greek version. Hence an irresistible inference arises, that the Version was esteemed, even by the Scribes and Pharisees in our Saviour's age, of Biblical and Inspired authority.

The general deduction, that Jesus was himself instructed, from his childhood in the Greek Version, by no means, in terferes with any knowledge, which he might possess, either supernaturally, or by his own study of the Jewish Scrip tures. Thirty years form a long period even in an ordinary life. How inconceivedly great and rapid must have been His growth, in Divine Wisdom, whilst he remained outwardly sub ject to his earthly parents ! But we are merely called upon to record historical facts, and thence, to infer their probable result. — That Jesus was born and educated in Galilee, where no Hebrew was known, and where no Hebrew Scriptures were studied — that his parents were poor, and engaged in a handi craft employment — that his mother was conversant with the LXX. and that, immediately on entering upon his public mi nistry, he evinced his deep acquaintance with the Greek Version — that he argued from it with Scribes and Pharisees, and that they made no objection to its authority — nay — that, they marvelled at his Scriptural knowledge, knowing that he had not received a regular and learned education (see John vii. 15.)

* There are four exceptions, — Matt. xi. 10 ; xxii. 37 ; xxvii. 46 ; Luke xxii. 37; which shall be noticed after the theory has been propounded.

APPENDIX. 187

' — these are the data, which we now submit, to the serious consideration of all who doubt, or deny, the Scriptural authority of the LXX. — If correct, they throw a flood of light on the Septuagintal citations of the Evangelists, they justify the Canon of the Primitive Church, and will henceforth indissolubly asso ciate the Septuagint, with the nativity of Jesus.

As this is unquestionably the crowning argument of this Apology (presidium, et dulce decus meum!}, may I be indulged, in a few further observations on its nature and results? — Most happy should I be, to claim the authority of any commentator or divine, whether ancient or modern ; but my researches do not enable me to mention a single author, who has alluded to it, either as fact, or hypothesis. That Jesus was instructed, from his cradle, in the knowledge of the Greek version of the Old Testament, will henceforth, if I mistake not, be considered as a self-evident and incontrovertible proposition, amongst theological students. The same inference will apply to all his disciples : — Behold, are not all these men who speak, Galileans ? The pre diction of Isaiah, cap. ix. 1, 2, will also hence derive a more striking and appropriate fulfilment. See Matt. iv. 15-25 ; xii. 18-21 ; Mark iii. 6, 7 ; John iv. 1 ; xi. 54.

The Galilean was the term of indignity and reproach, applied to Jesus, by Julian, and others of the ancient scoffers against Christianity. But they little thought, that an irresistible argu ment would be drawn, from that despised province, on behalf of The Version, which Jesus delighted to honour.

The Lower Galilee, it should be remembered, was the prin cipal department of our Saviour's life and ministry. Its chief towns were, Tiberias, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Nazareth, Cana, Caper naum, Nain, Caesarea, and Ptolemais. The Galilean dialect, according to Buxtorff and Lightfoot, was of a broad and rustic tone, differing from the Judsean Syriac. It is probable, the Sermon on the Mount was originally delivered, in this provincial dialect; and that, when our Saviour preached in the smaller towns and villages, he also used it. See Mark v. 41. But when he preached in their synagogues (Matt. iv. 23; ix. 35; xii. 9; Mark i. 21, 39; iii. 1 ; vi. 2; John vi. 59,) it is probable, that he

188 APPENDIX.

used the Greek language, and the Greek Version. Certain, ever, it is, that it all now comes to us alike delivered in Sep- tuagintal Greek. The following passage is remarkable : — There were certain Greeks, amongst them that came up to worship at the Feast ; the same came to Philip, which was of Bethsaida, of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. John xii. 20, 21. It should also be remembered, that Jesus made his first appearance to the Apostles, after his resurrection, on a mountain in Galilee, Where, he had appointed them. Matt. ii. 7,16.

The only anecdote, which is related by the Evangelists, con cerning Jesus during his youth, is that of his disputing with the doctors in the Temple, when he was twelve years of age. The subjects of debate are not recorded, but they probably referred to the predictions of the Ancient Scriptures. Nor is it recorded, whether the arguments were carried on, in the Hellenistic, or Syro-Phcenician dialect; we must therefore remain content with our ignorance. — But, when the narrative proceeds to inform us, that he returned with his parents to Nazareth, and was subject unto them; we can scarce understand any filial subjection, which did not imply diligence and care in his education, more espe cially, as it is added, Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. Luke ii. 52.

Galilee, it should be remembered, was divided from Judsea, by the large intervening province of Samaria. This was inhabited by the Cuthites, who had partially assumed the Jewish profes sion, and were detested by the more regular Jews, residing at, or near, Jerusalem. Amongst the reproaches heaped on Jesus by the High priests and Pharisees, was one, that he was a Samaritan (John viii. 48); which, though false and unfounded, tends to show, that the Galileans were often confounded with the Samari tans, and held in the same low estimation. The communications between Galilee and Jerusalem were much impeded, by the mutual divisions of the Jews and Samaritans, as we may infer from the expression — They (the Samaritans} did not receive him, because his face was, as though he would go to Jerusalem. Luke ix. 53. — The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. John iv. 9.

APPENDIX. 189

It does not appear, I think, that any of the Scribes or Phari sees resided constantly in Galilee. They are mentioned as coming down from Jerusalem. Matt. xvi. 1; Mark iii. 22; vii. 1; viii. 1 1 ; Acts xxiv. 1, a phrase, which seems to denote, that they were deputed, from the high priest at Jerusalem, to go down to oppose the rising sect of the Nazarenes, without possessing any habitual residence in that province. Perhaps the same in ference may be drawn, from the accusation laid against him, before Pilate : — The chief priests said, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee, to this place. Luke xxiii. 5. There is a distinction also made between the leaven of the Pharisees, and the leaven of Herod, v. 15, which intimates, that the jurisdiction of Herod had led to some difference of religious feelings, from those prevalent amongst the Jews, at the Capital. They were less under the influence of the Sanhe drim, and therefore more disposed to listen to the teaching of Jesus.

In the synagogues of Judea, it is probable, as we have mentioned, that the Hebrew text was read, accompanied with theChaldee paraphrase; but, in the Synagogues of Galilee, it can scarcely be doubted, that the Greek Version was generally adopted. Indeed, this is rendered almost certain, from Luke iv. 17, 18, where the passage from Isaiah Ixi. 1, accords with the LXX. — The vernacular language of Galilee was Syro-Chaldaic, which differs so little from that of the Peshito, that in Mark v. 41, there is no interpretation given of the words Talitha cumi. The same observation will apply to the last solemn words, uttered from the Cross. They are not Biblical Hebrew.

But, if we accept the hypothesis, so ably advocated by Diodati,* that Jesus constantly used the Greek language, the suggestion

* De Christo Grace loquenti. Napoli. 1767, 8vo. reprinted by Dobbin, Lond. 1843, 12mo. I had not an opportunity of consulting this learned Work, till this Apology was well nigh printed off; but it gives me great pleasure to find, that Diodati accords with nearly all the facts and arguments, which I have ad duced. He does not, however, touch the suggestion, though he comes very near it. He proves, with great force, the spread of the Greek over the East. The same fact may also be deduced, from various incidents in Xenophon's tfAnaba$it."

190 APPENDIX.

will follow, as a necessary corollary, that he was taught, as a child, to read the Version of the LXX. Indeed, it so admirably accords with that hypothesis, as to confer on it evidence, which it could not otherwise possess.

The Galileans in the neighbourhood of Nazareth, were strongly prejudiced against Jesus, from being acquainted with his humble parentage and connexions (see Mark vi. 2, &c.). But the know ledge of the Ancient Scriptures must have spread far and wide, by means of the LXX. over their coasts. The Syro-Phoenician woman (who is termed a Greek Mark vii. 26), saluted him, as the Son of David, Matt. xv. 22, a title, which she would have hardly learnt, but, from the Greek Version.

" Was not our Lord a little child,

Taught by degrees to pray ; By father dear, and mother mild, Instructed day by day ? " — KEBLE.

— This suggestion, however, is not designed to favour any Arian, or Socinian theory. Something there was, no doubt, infinitely superior in the mind of Jesus, to all others, even from his infancy; and this, I think, is plainly intimated: — The Child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon Him. Luke ii. 40. But, with the deepest reverence for the divine character of Christ, we may modestly enquire into the probable means, employed by his parents, in his early education. Joseph, we are told, was a just man ; and Mary kept these things, and pondered them in her heart. They were zealously attached to the Mosaic law, and observant of all its precepts and ordinances. They, therefore, felt it their duty to bring up their child, in the love and knowledge of the Ancient Scriptures, — Scriptures — which could have been no other, as far as we can judge, than those of the Greek Version. It should be remembered, also, that the anthem of Zacharias, concerning the birth of John, is uttered in Septuagintal language ; and that the Annunciation to Mary, is likewise recorded in the same pe culiar phraseology.

My defence for this long note, must be found, in the value of

APPENDIX. 191

the fact (if I may venture to call it so), that Jesus was instructed, as a child, in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. This fact, if admitted, is essentially paramount and decisive. It super sedes all further argument or enquiry. It harmonizes every dis cordance, it explains every difficulty, and illustrates every ob scurity. — Like the principle of gravity, it subdues and attracts all things to itself. If the fall of an apple were sufficient to in timate, to a philosopher, the centralization of the Universe ; the fall of the Septuagint into the cradle at Nazareth, will be suf ficient to intimate to a Christian, its Divine origin and its perpetual authority.

POSTSCRIPT.

In this Note (lutroduct. p. 10), I have cited the Vatican text, which has been generally acknowledged superior to any other. It is proper, however, to observe, that it appears in no other edition, except the Complutensian, the MSS. of which have never been produced. It is altogether absent from the Alexandrian MS. and from the Aldine Edit. (1518). — In the Frankfort Edit. (1597) there is this note, al. addunt cTn/ca/oaroe « KOtytw/itvoe jusra d§t\(f>r\Q T*)c ywcujcoe dvrov. In the Basil. Edit. 1530, it is /ultra TrtvOtpag avrov, but the Latin version is, cum sorore uxoris sues,! Bos gives the authority of an Oxford MS. TOV irarpos, deinde eandem maledictionem repetit, et pro TOV Trarpbg habet TOV fjL^rpoQ. Breitinger remarks, Cod. Horn, haec intertexit, liriKaraparo^ K. T. X.

This passage is absent from all the MSS. (136) collated by Holmes, except Nos. 54, 75. The first, is of little, the latter, of great value, being the celebrated Codex Oxoniensis, above cited by Bos. — It is absent also, from the standard text of the Greek Church, and from all the ancient Oriental Ver sions. — It is not alluded to by Philo, or Josephus, or, in the controversy between Augustine and Jerome. — With such strong- evidence against the Vatican MS. I am compelled to come to the painful conclusion, that it is an interpolation, and that such

192 APPENDIX.

interpolation was made, subsequent to the translation of the Vul gate, A. D. 400, but previous to 1126, as that is the recorded date of the Codex Oxoniensis.

If any further evidence were required to justify this accusa tion, it might be found, in the silence of St. Basil (A. D. 370), who professedly treats of this question, in his 197th Letter to Diodorus, Bp. of Tarsus. — Basil strongly deprecates such mar riages, as opposed to the usage of the Church. He also alludes to Levit. xviii. 6, and thinks, that it indirectly prohibits these unions. He does not allude to the passage in question, a plain evidence, that it was not then in the text of the LXX. The same decision had been previously made in the Councils of NeocaBsarea (A. D. 315), and Elvira (A. D. 325) ; but no such Curse is quoted. — This is the gravest charge which has been ever substantiated against the Romish Church, for having wilfully depraved the Scriptures. The Vatican, containing this interpolation, was printed at Rome 1587, edited by Cardinal Carafa; the Complutensian 1515, by Cardinal Ximenes. — This interpolation is the more bare faced, because the Aldine Edition, Venice, 1518, did not contain the passage. Considered, however, in reference to the LXX. it is a purely critical question, and has no influence on the general ar gument of this Apology. — Whilst it exhibits the sordid treachery of the Romish Church, it establishes the purity of all the Sep- tuagintal MSS. with the small deduction, above stated. — The authority of the Vatican MS. will be much impaired by this disclosure. It proves also the want of another and more critical edition of the Septuagint.

FINIS.

PRINTED BY C. WHITTINGHAM, CHISWICK.

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

Bib. Lit Grinfield, E W

An apology for the Septagint

mm-

fc

r

t §' £ # 16 &ia JPI* - ,