Imágenes de páginas

Ans. 1. The editions of the Septuagint, commonly published, as the version of the Seventy, do not in all particulars agree with each other. The editors, however, all boast that theirs is the genuine version of the Seventy.

2. The Greek editions of the version may, in general, be reduced to four. ist, The Complutensian, which appeared in the year 1515, edited by the divines of Complutum, at the expense of cardinal Ximenes, archbishop of Toledo, together with the Hebrew text, the Chaldee paraphrase of the Pentateuch, and the Latin vulgate, in corresponding columns. In the year 1571, this was inserted, by Arias Montanus, in the Royal Polyglot, and in 1645, by Michael de Jay, in the Parisian Heptaglot. This edition, though of all it approaches nighest to the Hebrew text, is still mixed and interpolated, and differs very much from the genuine version of the Seventy, so celebrated among the ancients.

3. The 2d is the Venetian, formed from many ancient copies, by Andrea Asulinus, and printed by Aldus Manutius, in the year 1518. This is purer than the Complutensian edition, and approaches nearest to the Roman. From this edition of Manutius have flowed all the German editions. 1st. The Basil edition, by Andrew Cratandrus, in the year 1520. 2d. The Strasburg edition, by Wolfius Cephalæus, in 8vo. anno 1527. Sd. The 2d Basil edition, in folio. 4th. The 3d Basil edition, by Nicholas Brylinger, in 8vo. in 1550. 5th. The Frankfort edition, by the Wecheliani, in fol. 1596. See the other editions from the Venetian, in the preface to the Polyglot Bibles.

4. Sd. The Alexandrian, which the English have printed in their Polyglot Bible. It is called the Alexandrine, because originally brought from Alexandria, by Cyrillus Lucaris, late patriarch of the see of Alexandria, who, when he was transferred to that of Constantinople, brought this manuscript with him, as an invaluable treasure, and presented it to the king of England, through Sir Thomas Rowe, his ambassador to the Porte. The Alexandrine manuscript was written on parchment, in ancient capital letters, without any division into chapters or verses, with no intervals between the words, and without any accents or stops, by Thecla, a lady of rank, about thirteen hundred years ago.

5. The 4th edition is the Roman, published under the auspices and by the order of pope Sixtus V. from a very ancient Vatican manuscript, by cardinal Anthony Caraffa, and other learned men,

[ocr errors]

who laboured upon it for nine years. This edition was published at Rome, in the year 1587, at first, in Greek only with Greek scholia, afterwards also at Rome, in Latin, with notes by Flami. nius Nobilius, in the year 1588. At length, Johannes Morinus united the Greek and Latin, and superintended its publication, at Paris, in the year 1628. This last edition was likewise published, in 8vo. and 4to. at London, in the year 1653, and in a small but thick 12mo. at Cambridge, in 1665. This edition was published at Amsterdam, by those excellent printers, H. Boon & J. Somera, in very fair letters and type, and in a portable form, in 1683, from the London and Cambridge editions. ,

6. The Complutensian editors, and others, have corrected the Greek version by the Hebrew text, but this is not giving us the pure Greek text, as it was anciently read : for it is one thing to publish a Greek version according to the Hebrew text, and it is another to give us the version of the Seventy, as extant among the ancients. For example, in the Greek editions, Genesis, i. 9, many things are added which do not appear in the Hebrew text:

και συνηχθη το υδως το υποκατω τα υρανε εις τας συναγωγας αυτών και οφθη και ξηρα,” 6 and the water which was under the Heaven was gathered together into its collections and the dry land appeared." These words, nevertheless, are found in ancient manuscripts, and therefore should be retained in the editions of the Greek version.

Of the Citation of Passages from the Old Testament in the New.

XIII. Christ, the Evangelists and Apostles, very often in the New Testament cite certain texts from the Old Testament, sometimes exactly agreeing with the Hebrew text, but sometimes a little differing ; even also some which agree with the Septuagint version, and some which do not agree with it. This version was much in use, in the time of CHRIST, among the Hellenists, i. e. Jews by nativity and religion, but who used the Greek tongue, and publicly read the Greek Bible in the synagogues ; on account of such, as they were frequently conversant with them, some are of opinion, that Christ and the Apostles, in citing texts from the Old Testament, used only that celebrated Greek version.

XIV. Therefore, we now inquire : Did CHRIST, the Evangelists and Apostles, in citing texts from the Old Testament, always use that celebrated version which is known by the name of the translation of the Seventy interpreters ?

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

I answer, 1. Many of the Roman Catholics assert the affirmative, viz. that CHRIST and the Evangelists always cited from the Greek version : so testifies Sixtus Senensis, in Biblioth. lib. 8, when he says, “ The Apostles not only did not disregard the edition of the Seventy, but every where acknowledged it, and from it laid the first foundation of the Christian faith.Morinus also maintains the same opinion, in his preface to the Septuagint, published by the authority of Sixtus V. This the Apostles and Apostolic Fathers used and no other ; by this they verified the dogmas of their faith, and their doctrine ; this in their ser. mons and homilies they cited before the people.2. We, on the contrary, assert that CHRIST and the Apostles sometimes followed either the Hebrew text, or the Greek version, and sometimes passing by both, cited texts freely in the New Testament, so that those citations agree neither with the Hebrew text nor the Greek version.

XV. First, we shall show, by the authority of Jerome and certain texts, that Christ and the Apostles, in citing passages from the Old Testament, followed the Hebrew itself. Jerome, de Script. Eccles. where he comments on Matthew, says, It is to be observed, that wherever the Evangelist, whether in his own person, or that of the Lord the Saviour, uses the testimony of the Old Testament, he does not follow the Septuagint but the Hebrew.

The texts are many which show that Christ, and the Apostles also, followed the Hebrew text itself : e. g. Matt. ii. 45, “ Out of Egypt hare I called my Son," quoted from Hos. xi. 1, in agree

, s . sion has, “ From Egypt have I called his Sons.In like manner, in the same Evangelist, viii. 17, the Hebrew text is given, and not the Greek version, “ He hath borne our iniquities and carried our diseases,” with this, Is. liji. 4, agrees had 13'2x3DI NVI NIT 13:50 He bore our languors and our griefs he carried them.” But the Greek version differs greatly, for it says, “ He carries our sins and grieves for us." This assertion is confirmed by the Evangelist John, xix. 37, where it is ofertes aus OV BĞEXEYTUOHY, “ They shall look on whom they have pierced," where that Evangelist follows the Hebrew text, which is found in Zach. xii. 10, where the Prophet

, , “ have thrust through.” But the Greek text is, errorsfortes Ages fes, au9 to'y i4TWEXnsepto, aspicient in me pro eo, quod insultaverunt, sive sal

-But the Greek ver .ממצרים קראתי לבני ,ment with the Hebrew

They shall look to me whom they " הביטו אלי את אשר דקרי ,says

tarunt.* In like manner, Paul, in Rom. ix. 17, when he says, “ For this very purpose have I raised thee up,” follows the Hebrew reading and not the Greek : for Exod. ix. 16, has 6 For this thou hast been preserved.” Compare same epistle, x. 15, with Is. lii. 7, and xi. 4, with 1 Kings, xix. 18, and xii. 19, with Deut. xxxii. 35. If any one desires more passages to the same purpose, let him turn to Hottinger's Thes. Philol. and Usher's Treatise on the Septuagint, and the third book of Crit. Sac. of Capellus, c. 1.

XVI. Christ and the Apostles often, in citing texts from the Old Testament, follow the Greek version.

It is therefore asked: Why do they sometimes quit the origipal text, and follow that version ?

Answer. 1. That they might accommodate themselves to their bearers, to whom this version, at that time, was most known, and with whom it was of the greatest authority ; indeed to many it was more known than the Hebrew text itself.

2. That no ground of misinterpreting might be given to the Hellenistic Jews, to whom the texts adduced were known as given in the Greek version. For if the Apostles had cited those texts differently, and according to the Hebrew, perhaps the might have thought them to be unfairly quoted; and thus attend. ed rather to the disagreement, than to the words themselves of the Apostles. Read on this subject, Spanheim, dub. 19. par. 3, in loc, Matt. iii. 3. It is to be observed, that the Evangelists followed, for the most part, the version of the Seventy, which was of the greatest authority among the Hellenists, and in the hands of many, when it could be done consistently with the substance of the words of the Prophets, that they might both show their liberty, and at the same time avoid affording any occasion of scandal to weak minds, by cavils in a matter of little or no consequence." if the Greek version had contained any things contrary to the

• In turning to Thomson's translation, it appears that he has deserted the Septuagint, and taken the words of the common English translation of John's Gospel, xix. 37, as above quoted. The meaning of the Septuagint seems to be, “They shall look upon me on which account they have danced in derision, or have derided.The word “me” is both in the Hebrew and the Sepluagint, the word “him” in neither ; nor is it expressed in the quotation made by the Evangelist, as that merely contains the relative pronoun, “whom,” which might refer to “ me” as a correlative.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

congruity of the faith, the Apostles would never have followed that version.

XVII. It is now to be shown, that Christ and the Apostles, very often, in the citation of passages, follow the Greek version : l. g. Acts, vii. 14, Stephen saith, “ Jacob went down into Egypt with his whole family, which consisted of seventy five souls,” as it is in the Greek version, Gen. xlvi. 28, whereas in the Hebrew text only seventy souls are enumerated.

Likewise, in the epistle to the Romans, ix. 33, the Greek text has, “ shall not be ashamed,as it is in the Greek version ; but in the Hebrew text it is vir sy “ shall not make haste.” See many similar passages in Capellus, Crit. Sac. lib. 2. c. 3.

Therefore it is further asked, In what cases chiefly did the Apostles follow the Greek version ? I answer. Hottinger says, it was done chiefly, 1. When that version expresses the sense. 2. Or when the Holy Spirit would extract some mystical meaning from that text. 3. Or when, by a kind of Syncatabasin, (a coming down to their state,) the Holy Spirit would accommodate itself either to the Hellenists amongst the Jews, or to the recently converted Gentiles, among whom that version was held in the greatest estimation. 4. Or when a departure from the edition received among the Hellenists was considered as dangerous, and without benefit to the Church.

XVIII. Christ and the Apostles sometimes follow neither text, i. e. neither the Hebrew text nor the Greek version, but passing by both, quote the passages freely; which, if necessary, could be shown by many examples : but from these few, following, the truth will be made manifest. e. g. In Matt. ii. 6, it is said, “ And thou Bethlehem land of Juda, art by no means the least among the princes of Juda ; for out of thee shall come a leader who shall rule (or feed) my people Israel.” This text agrees neither with the Hebrew nor the Greek text. For the Prophet Micah, v. 2, thus speaks, " And thou Bethlehem Ephrata, a very little one, to be (or exist) in the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall he come forth to me, to be a ruler in Israel.And the Greek version has, “ And thou Bethlehem, the house of Ephrata, thou art very little, to be in the thousands of Juda, out of thee he shall come forth to me that he may be prince of Israel."

In like manner, Mark ii. 26, speaks of “ Abiathar.In 1 Sam.

3 L

« AnteriorContinuar »