« PoprzedniaDalej »
speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." See Luke, xxiv. 49. Acts, c. i and ii.
From the circumstances here recorded, it appears that the apostles were commanded to remain at Jerusalem, and were not permitted to commence their ministry, and teach the truths of the Gospel, until their number was completed, and they were, by receiving the Holy Ghost, endued with power from on high. Thus they were constituted a Church, and as such were internally ordained, or consecrated, by the Holy Ghost. We find no other ordination of the Apostolic Church. Being then completely formed into a Church, they were authorized to mould and order its externals for worship, for the admission of new members, and for the regulation of the priesthood, as should, from time to time, seem advisable. But, it is remarkable, the only ordination they received was internal, that is, by the Holy Ghost. It was this which enabled them to teach and to spread the New dispensation throughout the earth. To this Church the promise was “and lo! I am with you alway unto the consummation of the age."
(To be continued.)
BIBLICAL CRITICISM. Extract from Butler's “ Bible Hours.” ( Continued from p. 375.)
II. The only instance in which, before the birth of Christ, the Jews appear to have used a profane language, was in the translation of the Bible made by the Seventy.
II. 1. With respect to the Style: It has been observed, that the policy of the Romans to extend, with the progress of their arms, the use of the Latin language, was attended with greater success in their western than in their eastern conquests ; so that, while the language of Rome was readily adopted in Africa, Spain, Gaul, and Pannonia, the Greeks preserved their language ; and it continued to be spoken in their various colonies, from the Hadriatic to the Euphrates and the Nile, and in the numerous cities in Asia and Egypt, founded by the Macedonian kings. All of them abounded with Jews. They were known by the name of Grecian or Hellenistic Jews, from the application which the Jews made of the term Hellenistic, to describe them as residing in Grecian cities, and speaking the Greek language. Alexandria, upon many accounts, was, in regard to them, the capital of the countries they inhabited. By living among the Greeks, they naturally acquired their language ; but they incorporated into it numberless words and phrases of their own. This must always be the case, where foreigners acquire a language. It was so in a particular manner with the Jews, as they acquired the Greek language rather by practice than grammar, and as they did not live promiscuously among the natives, but separately, in large communities, among themselves. Besides, they had a more than common reverence for the Sacred Book. It comprised all their religion, all their morality, all their history, all their politics, and whatever was most excellent of their poetry. It may, therefore, be said to have contained all their language and its phrases. Unavoidably they would be led to adopt its idiom even in their ordinary discourse, and to introduce it into their writings. The consequence was, that, always bearing in their mind. the idiom of their mother tongue, they moulded the Greek words into Hebraic phrases, and sometimes even used words, which resembled certain Hebrew terms in their sound, in an Hebraic sense. The effect of this was the more striking, as no languages are more dissimilar than the Hebrew and the Greek; the copiousness and variety of the latter forming a strong contrast to the simplicity and penury of the former. Hence, when the Jews came to translate the Sacred Writings into Greek, their version carried, in every part of it, the strongest tincture of their native idiom ; so that, though the words were Greek, the phraseology was every where Hebrew. This was greatly increased by the scrupulous, not to say superstitious,* attachment of the Jews to the Holy Writings, which led them to translate them in the most servile manner. To this must be added, that the whole tenor of the Holy Writings relates to facts and circumstances, peculiar, in many respects, to the chosen people. Besides, the duties which they inculcate, and the sentiments they contain or raise, were unknown to the writers of Greece. In expressing them, therefore, the translators were often at a loss; and then, for want of
a corresponding or equivalent word to convey their author's meaning fully, they were constrained to do the best they could, by approximation. The letter written by the German Jews, residing in England, to their foreign brethren, recommending Dr. Kennicott to their protection and assistance in his Biblical pur. suits, (published by him in his Dissertatio Generalis,) is a curious specimen of the language of a Jew, when he attempts to ex. press modern, and, in respect to him, foreign ideas, in the Hebrew language. One of the most striking peculiarities in the Greek Testament is the total absence of the qual number. Mr. Marsh's observations on this singular circumstance, (see his note 67, to ch. 4. 55, of Michaelis) deserve great consideration.
II. 2. With respect to the History of the Septuagint, there scarcely is a subject of literature upon which more has been written, or of which less, with any degree of certainty, is known. The popular account of its being made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, at the suggestion of Aristeas, and under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus, by seveuty or seventy-two Jews, shut up in cells, appears to be generally exploded. The prevail. ing opinion is, that it was made at Alexandria, at different times, and by different interpreters; but that all of them were Jews. The Pentateuch, the book of Job, and the Proverbs, are the parts of the version most admired. The principal editions are, Aldus's edition, published in 1518; the Vatican, published in 1587 ; Mr. Grabe’s, printed at Oxford, in 1707, froin the famous Alexandrine manuscript; and professor Breitinger's, published at Zurich, in Switzerland, in 1730-1732, in four volumes, quarto. The last edition is particularly valuable, because it not only contains the text of Grabe's edition, or the Alexandrine manuscript, but because, in the margin at the bottom of the page, it has the principal variations of the Roman edition of 1587, or the Vatican manuscript. To these editions should be added, the Complutensjan, published in 1515. Dr. Owen says, “ that it adheres to no particular copy; but that, taking out of all, the readings which came nearest to the Hebrew text, may be looked upon rather as a new translation, than the ancient Greek version of the Seventy. A splendid edition of the Septuagint is now preparing at Oxford, under the care of Dr. Holmes. The version of the Septuagint is the version generally cited by Christ, and by the Apostles and Fathers.* It has always been of the highest authority in the Church of Rome: but, in the middle ages, it was little known, and hardly ever used. It is the authentic version of the Greek Church; the early Latin versions were generally translations from it. In many instances it differs materially from the Hebrew. In the Pentateuch, the version of the Seventy approaches nearer to the Samaritan, than to the Hebrew text. The difference between it and the Hebrew has not yet been accounted for on satisfactory grounds. At first, it was unfavourably received by the Jews. But the number of Hellenistic Jews increasing, and a Greek translation of the Sacred Writings being necessary for them, it came into use among them, and was sometimes used: in the Synagogues in Judea. The Ancient Fathers generally referring to it in their controversies with the Jews, it grew out of favour with them; and some of the Talmudists have spoken of it in the strongest terms of reprobation. They declare, that the day in which it was made, was as fatal to Israel as that of the golden calf: that, in consequence of it, the earth was three days covered with darkness; and an annual fast, on the 8th of December, was established.
II. 3. Connected with the history of the Septuagint is, the history of the other versions made of the Old Testament, from the Hebrew into Greek, in the early ages of Christianity, and the Biblical labours of Origen. The first of these versions was made by Aquila, who from a Christian became a Jew, and was accused of designedly mistranslating those passages of the Old Testament, which established the divine mission and character of Christ. He published two distinct translations; the first was free; the last, and most in use, servile. He was followed by Symmachus, whose translation is supposed to have been clear and elegant; and by Theodotion, whose translation was thought to be more liberal than the second of Aquila, but more strict than the version of Symmachus. A fifth, a sixth, and a seventh version of some parts of the Old Testament were made; the authors of them are unknown.
II. 4. The Biblical labours of Origen are known under the appellation of his Tetraples, Hexaples, and Enneaples. The Te
. But see the observations of Leusden on this subject, in some of the subsequent pages. VOL. I.
traples contained, in four columns, the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. Having discovered two other versions, he added these to the Tetraples. They constituted together the Hexaples. By prefixing to them the Hebrew text, and transcribing it in a separate column, in Greek letters, he increased them to Octaples. He afterwards added to them a separate version of the Psalms. With that, they are called his Enneaples. So that, the first column contained the Hebrew text in Hebrew letters; the second, the Hebrew in Greek letters; the third, the version of Aquila; the fourth, the version of Symmachus; the fifth, the Greek text of the Septuagint; the sixth, the version of Theodotion; the seventh, his fifth Greek edition; the eighth, his sixth Greek edition; the ninth, his last version of the Psalms.
In all his labours, he appears to have directed his attention principally to the Septuagint, with a view to make it conform to the Hebrew text. For this purpose, leaving the text itself of the Septuagint untouched, he showed, by certain marks, the differen. ces between it and the Hebrew text. His admirers and followers are accused of a want of a similar respect for the text of the Septuagint; they are charged with altering the text itself, to make it conform to the Hebrew. If the charge be founded, there may be a wide difference between the present and the original text of the Septuagint; and the discovery of a manuscript, anterior to the time of Origen, or bearing evident marks of expressing the original text, would be an invaluable acquisition.
(To be continued.)
BELLAMY'S TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE. A new translation of the Bible, by John Bellamy, is now pub. lishing in England, it is said, under the very imposing patronage of the prince regent, queen and royal family, many of the bishops and dignified clergy, and the chancellors of both universities. This work presents itself with great pretensions, and, it is said, “ there can be no doubt of the high reputation of the author, and even orthodoxy of the work," and that it 6 will form an epoch in the Christian Church.” These great claims on the public respect would seem at once to look down opposition, and characterize as presumptuous even an attempt to examine their truth