w

^^co

2^^ CM
.

'' -

C>

CD
00

Digitized by tine Internet Arcinive

in

2007

witii

funding from

IVIicrosoft

Corporation

littp://www.arcliive.org/details/apologyforseptuaOOgrinuoft

/
<^^

AN APOLOGY FOR THE

SEPTUAGINT.

AN APOLOGY FOR THE SEPTUAGINT,

IN

WHICH

ITS CLAIMS TO BIBLICAL

AND CANONICAL AUTHORITY ARE BRIEFLY STATED AND

VINDICATED.

BY

E.

W.

GRINFIELD,
TESTAMENT.

M. A.

EDITOR OF THE HELLENISTIC GREEK

LONDON:
WILLIAM PICKERING.
1850.

,^

RIMA

et

omnium

antiquissima est nobilis

in

ilia

LXX

Seniorum (Versio),exHebra3o

Grsecum

sermonem
ciali

traducta, sub Ptolemseo Philadelpho,

annis ante Christum 277.

Quse, non sine spein

Dei Providentia facta est

:

linguam om-

nium
titice,

latissime per

orbem propagatam

ut,

ante ortum Solis Jusaliquo

quasi Prodromus, orbem tenebris

;

immersum

modo

illustraret

et

viam pararet pro adventu Salvatoris, qui, pulsis

radiis Evangelii illuminavit.

errorum tenebris, omnes gentes

Waltori. Proleg. v. 4.

Hoc tempore, quo tanta auctoritas LXX. Interpp. erat attributa,

vixit Christus ipse, Apostoli,
toli,

Apostolorum successores.

Apos-

qui et Hebraice et Grsece loqui noverant, cCmi Grasce scri-

berent hac interpretatione usi sunt.

et suppares, qui

Successores Apostolorum

Graece tantum loquebantur, sola hac versione

utebantur ; qui Latine, hujus Latina interpretatione.

toritate freti, Hellenistas et ^ej^ofiivovg

Hujus auc-

ad Christianam fidem
Paulus, et Hebrseo

convertebant.
et Grseco

S.

Barnabas, opinor, ut

et S.

Codice utebatur; S. autem Clemens, hujus discipulus,

Graeco tantiim, cujus Versionis plurimas pericopas una nobis

Epistola conservavit.
sola,

Reliqui Graeci Patres Latinique Grseca

utebantur, aut ejus Versione Latina.

Grabii Proleg. tom.

ii.

19.

INTRODUCTION.
;H1S " Apology
''

may be regarded

as

a natural sequel to

my

Hellenistic

Edition of

the

Greek

Testament.
I felt it

Whilst acting as an editor,

my

duty, to abstair strictly from

all

general and
solely to

argumentative
the value and

reasoning.

Trusting

amount of

the copious materials

I

compiled from the

interpose any

LXX.

never presumed to

comments or observations of

my
may

own.

Ahatever of comment or illustration

is

be found in that Edition,

always stated in the

words and language of others.

But
to

the time has arrived,

silence,

when

may
to

venture

break

and give vent

thoughts,

which have been long brooding.

After such a
it

long and continuous study of the Septuagint,

was
clear

natural, that I

should have
conclusion,

come
It

to

some
its

and

definite

concerning

Scriptural and Canonical authority.

was not
it

a conclusion formed hastily, nor did

result


viii

INTRODUCTION.
its

from any previous conviction of

reception in the primitive Church.

universal

It crept

on

from chapter
It

to chapter,

and from year

to year.

grew up with thousands, and tens of thouI

sands of incidental resemblances.

gradually

ascertained, that, almost every quotation in the

New
tially,

Testament, was either

literally,

or substan-

taken from the

LXX. that it was perpetually

I

present to the minds of the Evangelists and Apostles,

it,

nay, that, where

had

least

expected to find
constituted the

the Apocalypse, even there,

it

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

sion of the
for
its its

authenticity of this
it

Greek

ver-

Old

that

stands pledged, not only

general truth and historic authenticity, but,

Scriptural and canonical authority.
I
felt,

for

The New Testament,

record.

was not

to

be

treated, in this respect, like

any merely human

offspring

As
Spirit,

the
it

immediate

of

the

Divine
its

claims to be so far inspired in

language, as to admit of no material mistake,

or error.

By
its

its

continual appeal to the

it

Greek

version of the
version, to

LXX.
own

necessarily raises that

standard.

To

cite

from an

uninspired version, thus frequently and statedly.

INTRODUCTION.
would be to
forfeit

ix

and annul

its

own claim

to

plenary Inspiration.
This conviction was so impressed on
that,

my

mind,

even had no supplementary evidence arisen,

I 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;

all

was led

to

take a calm review of

the ecclesiastical facts,

belonging to the history of the

of that enquiry, I
the

LXX. The

result

now most

respectfully submit to

judgment of the Christian Church.

the materials of this "

As

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

it

suffered

much decay, when

and had
the

was no longer vernacular

in Palestine,
b}^

ceased to be understood,
Dispersion."

Jews of "the

INTRODUCTION.
3rd. That, this Version was

made by Jews
Greek,
in

of
j

the Dispersion, living at Alexandria, and

comwhich
I

posed
the

in that peculiar style of

New

Testament was subsequently

it

written.

4th. That,
Hellenists, or
tative

was universally received by the

the Dispersion, as authoriin their

Jews of

and canonical, being publickly used

Synagogues, both before and

era.
5th.

after the Christian

That, Jesus was instructed from his child-

hood, in the knowledge of the Septuagint, the

Hebrew text

beino- altooether

unknown

in Galilee.

6th. That, all his disciples

were Galileans and

Hellenists, possessing

no knowledge of Biblical
gift

Hebrew, before the miraculous

7th. That,

of tongues.

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
text.

it

differs

from the Hebrew

8th. That, the believing Hellenist

first

Jews were the

converts to Christianity, and constituted the

earliest

members of the
this

Christian Church.

9th. That, the unbelieving Hellenists continued

to use

version,

till,

pressed

by

authorities

drawn from the

LXX. they made (a. d.

200

300)

the Jewish versions of Aquila, Theodotion, &c.

INTRODUCTION.
10th. That, the whole Christian

xi

Church, during

the

first

four centuries, received this version, as

it

canonical, and used and read

11th. That,
all

in public worship.

the ancient versions of the

Old

Testament, with the exception of the Syriac, were

made

exclusively from the

LXX.
ver(a. d.

12th. That,

when Jerome made a Latin

sion from the

Hebrew

text

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

13th. That, the

Canon.

Hebrew language was underChristian

that
its

stood by none of the

Fathers,

save

Jerome and Origen, and

era of the Reformation.
l4th. That, the

study and knowtill

ledge continued dormant in the Church,

the

Hebrew and Greek MSS.have

and that no arguto

suffered

ahke

in transcription,

ment can be

raised

on that account,

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 BibHcal authority of the LXX. has not been abrogated amongst
Protestants,

by any

authoritative decision.

xii

INTRODUCTION.
CoroU.
I.

That, the Scriptural authority of the

is

Septuagint

attested
b}^

by

the

ancient

Jewish
Testa-

Church, and
ment.
Coroll. II.

the writers of the

New

That, to deny this authority,

is

to

depart from the Canon of the primitive Church,

and thereby, to invahdate our appeals to the

Fathers of the three
Coroll. III.
first

centuries.
is

That, to deny this authority,

critical

to

endanger the

study of the Old Testament,

and

to impair the plenary Inspiration of the

New.

Coroll. IV, That, the

Church of England de-

mands no such
Psalms
in her

denial, adhering to the primitive

Church, by retaining the

LXX.

version of the

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 general statement.
*

deeply interesting question

is

now pending, which would

Should the

seem

either to confirm, or invalidate, this assertion.

Legislature decide, on legalizing the marriage of a deceased

wife's sister, with her late

husband,

it

will

annul the Vatican

fitTa rtjg

LXX.
(prjg Trig

Deut. xxvii. 23, tTriKarapaTog 6 KOifiwiuevog

aStX-

yvvaiKog avTov, a text, which has hitherto influenced the

whole Western Church.

But the

entire passage

is

a gross interto justify

p. 191,

polation, introduced probably by

Romish Canonists,

the sale of matrimonial Dispensations.

See Postscript,

AN APOLOGY FOR THE SEPTUAGINT.

CORRIGENDA.
Page 41.
this church,

read the church.

Page 52.

Peter,

read Phihp.

Page 57. Gessenius, read Gesenius.

Page 177. Wardworth, read Wordsworth. Page 191. The statement respecting Dr. Holmes's
the following modification.
collated for the Pentateuch.
It

collations requires

was not 136, but 72

these,

MSS.
is

which were

Of

33 apparently omitted, and 39

so obscure, that

admitted the interpolated passage.

it is difficult

But the statement

numbers.

to arrive at the exact

/k^il-J iV^ii. \JM.i.vD

\^^^I.Xl.J CLl

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 primitive

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

is

Septuagint

attested

by

the

ancient

Jewish
Testa-

Church, and by the writers of the

ment.
Coroll. IT.

New

That, to deny this authority,

is

to

depart from the

Canon of
first

the primitive Church,

and thereby,

to

invaUdate our appeals to the

centuries.

Fathers nf the three

deeply interesting question

is

now pending, which would

Should the

seem

either to confirm, or invalidate, this assertion.

Legislature decide, on legalizing the marriage of a deceased

wife's sister, with her late

husband,

it

will

annul the Vatican

oSeX-

LXX.
^rig Trig

Deut. xxvii. 23, liriKaTapaTog 6

KOifiivjuievog fxiTa riig

jvvaiKog ahrov, a text, which has hitherto influenced the

whole Western Church.

But the entire passage

is

a gross interto justify

p. 191.

polation, introduced probably

by Romish Canonists,

the sale of matrimonial Dispensations.

See Postscript,

AN APOLOGY FOR THE SEPTUAGINT.

fflg^TV5/lfa

^-HE

various and conflicting- opinions M^hich

^^rf^j

have so long prevailed amongst Christians,

concerning this Greek version of the ancient
Scriptures,

i-S^

To^^i,
real

must render an enquiry

into

its

rank and importance, amongst the most interesting

topics of Biblical investigation.

As

the entire phraseology

of the
the

New Testament is formed on the peculiar style of LXX, as all our doctrinal terms are taken from its voby
far the greater
its

cabulary, whilst

number of

its

quotations

are transferred from

text;

it

becomes of the utmost

were

moment
right, or

to decide, wdiether the primitive Christians

wrong, in their opinions concerning

it,

and w^he-

ther

we

are warranted in maintaining opinions contrary to

all

those,

which were held by

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 primitive

Church of the
fair

first

three centuries, has hitherto been

regarded, as a

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

2
a standard.
fact, like that

AN APOLOGY FOR
But on a matter of Scriptural and
historical

of the universal reception of the Septuagint

Version, the usage and authority of the primitive

Church

become absolute and paramount.

As a member
called nion.

of the

Church of England, honestly

I

at-

tached to the Articles and Liturgy,

do not

feel

myself

upon
I

to

make any apology

to learn, that I

for this

avowal of opi-

have yet

am

departing from any

this en-

decision,

which she has made on the subject of

quiry.

Individuals in her

communion have taken

do not

different

sides in the argument, but these opinions

ecclesiastical authority.
*'

affect

her

In these matters," says Bishop

alluding to the differences be-

Burnet on the sixth

article,

tween the Hebrew and the Septuagint, " our Church has

made no

decision,

and so divines are

is

left to

a just freedom

in theirs."

This indeed

the lowest view which can be

taken of the question.

Considering that our Church has retained the use of

the Septuagintal Psalms, and that our reformers avowed

and expressed a high esteem

first

for the Fathers of the three

centuries,

think, that a strong inference

may be
those

drawn

in favour of

my

general conclusion.

Even

who may

question such an appeal on points of doctrine or

discipline,

can scarce refuse

it

on a question relating

to

the canon of Scripture.

Without resigning our

belief in

Divine superintendance,

we cannot admit
It follows as

that the universal

practical

Church could have been mistaken, on such a

fundamental question.
able inference,
that
if

and

a plain and unavoid-

this

Greek version of the Old

Testament be not of Scriptural and Canonical authority.

THE septuagint:
the entire Christian

Church

till

the days of Jerome, pos-

sessed no authentic or canonical record of the

Old Testa-

ment.

To
it is

avoid this painful dilemma,

we

at

once submit, that

not within the jurisdiction of any national Church to

as uncanonical, a version of the

reject,

Old Testament,
and
ca-

which was universally acknowledged,

nonical, during the
first

as inspired

four centuries.

This Greek ver-

sion
tles,

was received by the immediate successors of the Aposon authority, which they could not hesitate
to

acknow-

ledge.

They had heard

it

preached and quoted by the

or less in every chapter of
it

Apostles
the

they found
Testament.

it

more

New

They knew

had been the great

that
it

scaffold of building

up the Christian Church, and

had been used and received amongst the

nearly 300 years before the Christian era.

Hellenists, for

When 400

years had passed away, could the introduc-

tion of Jerome's Latin version

from the Hebrew, destroy

the acknowledged and canonical authority of that Greek

version,

which had hitherto been universally received

?

as

inspired
plead,

This new Latin version might plead, and justly

right

its

and authority

to

supersede the use of the

Italic^ or

any other Latin

version,

which had been

it

trans-

lated from the

LXX.

But how could

destroy the au-

thority of the original, from

which such versions were

affected to

made ?

Jerome was no prophet, and he never

office or character.
all

hold a prophetic

He

could not abro-

gate the usage and authority of

who had preceded

to

him.

He was

in

no respect, but as an Hebraist, superior

Au-

gustine, either in learning or talent.

He

acted wisely and

4
meritoriously,

AN APOLOGY FOR
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 Septuagint itself

was

translated.

But

this

Latin version, however

valuable, could not invalidate the previous fact, that the

Greek version had been de facto canonized,

vidential

as the profor
in-

medium

of preparing both
;

Jews and Gentiles

had been largely
ratified

their reception of the gospel

that

it

corporated with the

tions of Evangelists

New

Testament,

by the

cita-

and Apostles, and sealed with the

hundred

indelible

stamp of

ecclesiastical consent of four

years.*

Yet

it

should ever be remembered, that the reverence

to this

and respect which were paid by ancient Fathers

Greek

version, implied

no disregard or degradation of the

providential
text.

Hebrew

archetype.

They were prevented by

arrangements, from consulting the

Hebrew
But

They

could not read or study a language, which, for so

ages,

many
not

had ceased

to

be vernacular.

this reverence of
if

the version, must always have implied an equal,

superior reverence of the original Ego,
jJro

meo modulo,

saith Augustine, vestigia sequor Apostolonwi, qui ipsi utra-

que testimonia posueruiit.

They

believed, that for wise

to

and gracious purposes,

this

Greek version had become

the Gentiles, what the original

Hebrew had been

to the

Jews, during the

consequently, that

first

age of the Jewish economy;

and

when Jews and

Gentiles were brought

* Grabe's Prolegom.

torn.

ii.

prop. 3.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
into the

same

fold,

both the original and the version should

be regarded of co-ordinate authority, and forming conjointly 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.

it

To

expel

the Greek version from that rank which

in

held so lonof
pri-

the primitive Church,

If

is

virtually to

change the

mitive Canon.

we

proclaim, that the

solely

Canon

of the

Old Testament depends

on the Hebrew

text, whilst

they admitted the Greek version to a conjoint alliance,

practically set

we

up our own standard against

whole Greek Church
still

theirs.

We

also declare the

to

hold a false
strictly to the

Canon.

The Greek Church

adheres

usage of the primitive Church. This mutilation of Canon can never be

justified.

The

Greek Church

asserts

no more than what Auofustine and

the early Fathers maintained and believed.

liberty in our public worship, to prefer the
to the

We are
;

at full

Hebrew original,
but

Greek version of the Old Testament

to

we have
The

no right

denounce that version as uncanonical.

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
this wise

AN APOLOGY FOR
and comprehensive accordance with primitive and have thereby thrown insurmountable ob-

Christianity,

stacles, in the

way
the

of any general ecclesiastical re-union

It

between the Eastern and Western Church.

deplorable,
if

would be
indirectly
distin-

Church of England should

countenance

this schism.

We

have hitherto been

guished

for moderation,

and especially for our attachment

to the ecclesiastical authority of the Fathers of the three

first

centuries

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

Protestants

many

zealous

that

the Septuagint version of the

Old Tes-

tament has no longer any claim to be considered of Scriptural authority

that

it is

superseded by the Hebrew Text.

Whilst
popular,
I

this essential

discrepance on the

Canon continues
ground
will na-

fear that unbelievers will find a plausible

of attacking the outworks of Christianity.

turally object, that if

They

we do

not refer to the same scriptural

record as the primitive Church,

to

we cannot

fairly

appeal

her authority, on any matter relating to the doctrines

or facts of the consistently

Old Testament.

Nor can we,

think,

defend the plenary inspiration of the

if

New

Testament,

we admit

that

it

comprises such a large

portion of uninspired material.

are taken from the
that

As most

of

its

quotations

LXX,

the infidel will always object,

by our own

confession, both Christ

to Patriarchs

and

his Apostles

have founded their appeals

a version, which

and Prophets on

we

assert to

be merely human.

Nor

are

we

less assailable,

on the same ground,

to the
af-

attacks of the

Romish Church.

She may reasonably

THE SEPTUAGINT.
\

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.
I

We are right in condemning Rome, on the

;

subject of the

Apocrypha

but

we

are not justified in con-

demning
agint.

her, for her reverence

and veneration of the Septu

She may

justly reply.

You

not only disregard the

authority of the primitive Church, but you invalidate the

plenary inspiration of the

to

New

Testament.

If

you object

me, that

have corrupted the Canon, by the addition of

I

Apocryphal matter,
lidated the

object to you, that

off

you have invaits

Canon, by cutting

one of

co-ordinate

members.
It is
solicit

on such grounds, that we now most respectfully

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.
tians,

Above

all, let

us reflect as Chrisinspi-

whether we do not weaken and invalidate the

ration of the

New

Testament, by blending

it

with a version
of secular

of the ancient Scriptures, which

we proclaim

and uncanonical authority.

It is

painful to contrast the low estimation to

which

this

version has

now fallen, when compared with

which
it

that high rank

and

station,

held in the

first

and purest ages of

it,

Christian antiquity.

The

early Fathers resorted to

as

8
the basis of
luted
it

AN APOLOGY FOR
all their

scriptural interpretation.
St.

They

sa-

as the ostium of the Gentiles.

its

Chrysostom

speaks of

origin, as " that rare and singular miracle by

which divine truth was circulated amonofst the Gentiles"

(Horn.
4, hi

Gen.).

St.

Austin views

it,

as " the foundato

tion of that

immense Temple, which was afterwards

be
lib.

raised for the worship of all people"

2.
caj-).

(De T)oct.

Christ,

15J.

But now, Professor

Stuart, in an express

treatise

on " The Canon of the Old Testament," scarcely

to notice its existence.

deigns even
the
fact,

He

never alludes to
other

that centuries rolled away,

when no

Old

Testament could be studied or consulted.

Even Doctor
for

C. Wordsworth, so well known and so distinguished

his high attachment to Ecclesiastical antiquity, describes

it

as " a blessing turned into a

to

bane;" and as the means

employed by the Tempter,

the
its

draw

off the attention

of

Church from the

inspiration.*

.Jewish Scriptures,

by the

belief of

"No

one amongst the Moderns," says

M. Gaussen
terpreters

in his Theopjieustia, p. 79, " will

now

con-

tend (as was done in times past), that the Alexandrian in-

were inspired.

affirm, that this version,

Would any one still venture to human even in the time of Jesus
fact of Apostolical quotations ac-

Christ, has

by the mere

quired a divine character, which did not previously belong

to
it
?

"

He then

derides the supposition, " as on a

par with

canonizing the Vulgate."

"

Would

it

not," adds he, " re-

semble the absurd

his edition of

infallibility of Sixtus

V.

who

declared

1590

to

be authentic?

Or

that of

Clement

* Wordsworth

On

the Canon, p. 82.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
intolerably incorrect, suppressed
it

VIII. his successor, who, finding the edition of Sixtus V.

in 1592,

and substituted

a very different,

still

however, an authentic edition?"

to these learned

Now,

with

all

due respect

and orthodox
this

divines, I

beg

to

be considered as protesting against

of the primitive

modern mutilation
tament.
It

Canon
to

of the

Old Tes-

can indeed be no reproach

hold the same

first

opinions, as were universally held during the

centuries.
I

three

repeat, that

it

appears subversive of

all

ap-

peal to ecclesiastical antiquity, should

we admit

that the

Church could have held an erroneous

tament, during this long period.
pillar

text of the

Old Tes''

If the

Church be

the

and ground of the

it

truth," as the keeper of the

Sacred

records,

is

impossible that she could have been mis-

taken on this Scriptural question.

What
now
?

is

the value of

Patristic Theology, if interpretations founded

rential deference to the

on a reve-

LXX,

are

discovered to have

been based on uninspired authority

terpretations of Theophylact,

The

Scriptural in-

of Theodoret, of Chrysosif

tom become worse than

useless,

based on a merely

secular and secondary standard.

In the valuable Appendix which Dr. C.

Wordsworth

has afiixed
rities

to his

Hulsean Lectures, he adduces the autho-

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
version,

either

expressed, or implied.

It is not to

be supposed, that Philo

or Josephus repudiated that

Greek
e

which they

10

AN APOLOGY FOR
The
all

constantly cited, and appealed to in their writings.

united testimonies of

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

rent, not only

original.

This

is

appaci-

from their direct acknowledgments and from their belief of

its

tations,

but

also,

supernatural origin

and formation.*

The same
lar

inference

may

also

be drawn from the simi-

Appendix of Professor

Stuart.

The
list

earliest of all the

Christian writers,

who

has given a
d.

of the Old Testagives their

ment books,

is

Melito (a.

170).
It will

He

names
lists

in the Septuagintal titles.

apply also to the

See. Sec.

of Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen,

If then

we

set aside the authority of these

it

Canonists on

the subject of the Greek version,

may

be reasonably

questioned, whether

we do

not subvert their authority on

If Tertullian, Cyril, Hilary,

the subject of the Apocrypha.

or Augustine could have been mistaken in their belief,

that the Septuagint

was of divine and

scriptural authority
jurisdiction,

how can we
ical?

rely on their

judgment or

when

they distinguish the Apocryphal books from the Canon-

But before we enter on

it

this
I

important enquiry,

feel

my

duty to declare, that

have no desire
relative

to

awaken

any controversy, concerning the

importance of the
All such
It

Hebrew

original,

and the Septuagint version.

comparisons appear to

me

fundamentally Unscriptural.

Appendix No.

.5.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
is

U
;

my

object, not to contrast, but to

combine

not to lower caution of

the Hebrew, but to raise the Septuagint.

The

Jesus respecting the conjugal union

may

be reasonably
value

applied to the object of our argument.

The whole

of the version must depend necessarily on the truth and

authenticity of the archetype.

To

raise

up any dispute
to
stir

concerning their relative importance, were only

up "vain jangling, and oppositions of science

called."

falsely so

Yet, in defence of every caution

it

will

be urged,

The
Such

Septuagint

is

only a version, and therefore can never be

esteemed of the same rank and value, as an original.

is

the popular objection, but

?

is

not this begging the quesis

tion at issue

Whenever

a version
it

made by

the

same

authority as the original,

surely becomes of equal force

and authority. Thus

it is

with our

own

Articles

the Latin
If the

and the English are both of equivalent authority.

original Syro-Chaldaic of St. Matthew's Gospel

had been

now
the
it

extant (admitting that hypothesis),

to the present

it

would not have

been superior

Greek

version.

Or

if

we had

Hebrew archetype

of the "Jewish

Wars"

of Josephus,

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

]2
in the

AN APOLOGY FOR
language in vvhich they were spoken.
It is

^
scarcely

credible that the poor

woman, who came out of

the coasts
la-

of Tyre and Sidon, could have uttered her cries and

mentations in Greek.
her country.
It

She spoke the native language of

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

viour's conversation with the Scribes

"our Sa-

and Pharisees, and

people, were spoken
it

that all his addresses to the

in this vernacular tongue.

common
when

But,

was subsequently
in

ordered that the

New

Testament should be composed

Hellenistic Greek, they were enabled by that divine

power
and

which we term

Inspiration, to convert this provincial

its

transient dialect into

present fixed and enduring form.

Now

this

kind of Inspiration seems closely analogous,

to that

though of a higher grade,

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.
native

The

other

were enabled

to translate their

Hebrew

into expressions,

which should hereafter be

Greek of the

received

and accommodated

to the

New

Testament.

We

should ever speak with

this mysterious subject.
it

much

reserve

and humility on

But, as far as

our conceptions can reach,

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.
rceij

13

simply on account of

its

being a version, would be instantly

in

removed by considering, that

11a.

no other way than as a

it

canonical version of the Hebrew, could

have brought

:eoi

about the great objects, for which

Hellenistic Jews,

it

was ordained.
be able
to

The

'K

when they ceased

to

read their

native Hebrew, could not have been addressed in any

lite,

other manner.

It

was only by a version of

their ancient

scriptures, that they could retain a

aofl

knowledge of the proshould that ver-

mises

made

to their ancestors.

And why

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
when

should the version be deemed inferior to the original,

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
if

force of this reasoning will be at once apparent,

for a

we suppose

moment, that the Septuagint had never

then have ceased

existed.
to

The Hebrew language would

be vernacular several hundred years before the Chris;

tian era

but no Greek version could have aided to supIn that case, the Jews would have wandered
east

ply
far

its

place.

and wide over the

to

and west

but they would have

had no Scriptures
prophets.
ditions,
It

remind them of their patriarchs and

all

must have

depended on unwritten

tra-

and on dubious

historical reminiscences.

In the

fulness of time, the era of Christianity

would have arrived;

its

but where would have been the people, awaiting

vent,

ad-

and prepared
is

to

welcome

its

tidings?

The Gospel

preached in Judoea by Christ and the

14

AN APOLOGY FOR
made
to

Evangelists in the native dialect, and various references

are

Moses and the prophets,

to

prove that " the

Great Prophet had come

into the world."

But how were

they to verify these allegations,

sult

when they could not conApostles travel into Asia

the

Hebrew

text

The

Minor, and Greece, and they publish the same tidings in

the Greek tono;ue.

But who

are to be their hearers

The

Scriptures they had no The Gentiles whom such Hebrew-Greek, on

Jews?

intelligible

in their hands.
this

to

hy-

pothesis,

would have been equally

is

unintelligible

The New Testament

peculiar Greek, with
all

subsequently composed in this

references to the

its

Old Testais

ment exclusively directed

able to read and interpret

to the
it ?

Hebrew.

Who

there

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 authority

would they

be, either to Christians, or to unbelievers

to the

Being made subsequently

coming of

Christ, they

could not be adduced, as any evidences of his Divine Mission

;

and as taken from a language, which none but the

their fidelity

Jews understood,

must have

entirely

depended
it is

on such translators as Aquila or Theodosion.

useless to pursue the supposition.

But

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.
tested

15

by that of any

other,

whether ancient or modern.

to

Others are national, confined

time and place, and adapt-

ed to the language and circumstances of some particular

people.

But the version of the

LXX

has influenced
century,

all

other versions, from the Italic of the

first

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 diflfer

from
to

it,

when
value.
;

examined, will be found to bear witness

its

The Vulgate

is

perpetually illuminated by

its

lustre
its

and
com-

our English translation could never have fittained

parative perfection,
its

if

it

had not continually been aided by

single fact, that the

interpretations.

The

LXX

version
to the

was

anterior to

the Christian era,

and previous
it

existence of the category, and

New
it,

Testament, places
as
it

in a distinct

makes

were, an original, as well as

a version.

To borrow an

illustration

from the language

its

of the Feudal system, the

capite,

LXX

version holds

fief

in

immediately from the Hebrew; whereas

it,

all

other

versions are held under

and possess only subordinate

and

servile tenures.
if

But

the objection against the Septuagint,

to its full extent,
it

t/iat

it is

a version, be pushed

will also

apply

to

that entire system of Providential mediation,

which forms

one of the main

Butler.

pillars

and supports of "The Analogy" of

The

aid and assistance

is

which we daily derive

from each other,

only a constant exemplification of the

principle.

same all-pervading
knowledge comes
to

The

greater part of our

us from secondary instruments, and

16
for one,

AN APOLOGY FOR
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 the

Hebrew with
and

LXX,

is

so monstrous, that

it

scarcely deserves an
difficulties

answer.

Who

that

knows anything of the

text, is

obscurities of the

Hebrew

not rejoiced to lay hold

of assistance, like that provided by the Alexandrian version

?

To

insist

on the exclusive inspiration of the Hebrew

text, is to insist

on that of which no man can form any

relates to himself.
?

conception, as

it

Is doubt, or difficulty,

or uncertainty, Inspiration

This version of the Hebrew Scriptures has been providentially held out for our assistance

It

comes

to us reits

commended by

its

own

origin and antiquity

by

use

its

amongst the Jews 250 years before the Christian era by and 400 years the Church, adoption
in
for

after it,

by
It

its

continual citation in the

Is this

New

Testament.
to its

You

say,

is

but a version.

any objection
?

being of

sacred and divine authority

spired, as well as

Prophets?

May not interpreters be inWas not the miraculous gift

xii.

of " the interpretation of tongues" (1 Cor.

emplification of this species of Inspiration
?

10),

an exto

To attempt

debase the Septuagint on account of

is to

its

being a version,

impugn the whole system of Providential intercourse,

to

and

throw contempt on every argument of Divine mediIf Infidels

ation.
least,

employ such

objections, Christians, at

should abstain from them.

it

But

should also be considered, whether the

fact,

that

THE SEPTUAGINT.
it

17

was by means of

this version the Gentiles

were prepared

for the
pel,

advent of Christ, and for the reception of the Gosfact, that

it is

be not indicative of the corresponding

by means of versions of the Scriptures, that the knowledge

of Christianity has been published amongst
all

nations?
(Toqiia,

Since the manifold wisdom of

0foj) has seen
fit

God

(n TroXvrroUiXoq

tou

to render the progress of divine

it

know-

ledge dependant on Biblical versions,

that he chose the version of the

cannot be objected
as the prototype

LXX,

and pattern of

all

succeeding translations of the Scriptures,

office to the

thereby dignifying and consecrating their

of the world.

end

Above

all,

the example of Christ himself should be rehimself, as a child, to learn his

this

membered

He humbled
in stature
its

knowledge of the Scriptures from

as

Greek

version,

and

"he grew

and

in

grace," he

became daily

more conversant with

tentedly

sacred phraseology.*
all

How

con-

may

the poor, in

ages of the Church, rely on

the instruction to be gained from versions of the Bible,

when even Jesus himself was taught

and when he continued
appeals to Moses and the Prophets

to read

from the

LXX,

to use that version, in

!

most of his

Or, to touch on an

example more within our reach,

who can doubt, whether

faith the

knowledge the most profound, and

love the most pure and ardent
Biblical version,

most

firm,

and

may

not be attained from a

other
this

when Augustine could study no

which
is

Bible, than that

embodied

in the

theme of

Apology

* Appendix, No. 17.

18

AN APOLOGY FOR
The
question at issue, therefore, cannot be determined
fact, that the
It

by the bare
the version.

one

is

the original and the other

all

must be decided by

the historical

cir-

cumstances and events attending both the original, and

the version.

Unless we can show from sacred and profane

history, that the

Hebrew Canon
its

required this alliance of

the Greek version, as

support and assistant, our argu-

ment

will necessarily fall to the ground.

We

are willing

to admit, that
its

nothing but the exigency of the case, and

justify the prerogative

overwhelming importance, can

for the Septuagint.

which we claim
But, whilst

we

willingly

make

this admission,
all

it is

only

just that the reader should divest himself of

prejudice,

and enter on
ality,

this
its

enquiry with that candour and imparti-

which

importance demands.

We

therefore refacts.

quest his attention to the following scriptural

First, that

about 700 before the Christian era, the ten

tribes of Israel
dia,

were carried captive

into Assyria

and Me-

from whence they never returned

the Lord
his

to their native land.

Israel,
left

"

Then

was very angry with

:

and removed

them out of

sisi-ht

there

was none
18.

but the tribe of

of Assyria

Judah only."

2 Kings

xvii.

The King

sent colonies to take possession of Samaria,

and the remfo-

nant of the Israelites became incorporated with these

reigners,

and acquired

their language.

Secondly, that about a century after the destruction of

Israel,

we may

date the

commencement of
I

the Babylonish

Captivity.

"And
sight, as

the Lord said,

I

will

remove Judah
2 Kings

out of

my

have removed Israel."

xxiii. 27.

After 70 years, they were permitted to return,

THE SEPTUAGINT.
in

19
their land

number about 50,000.

They found

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
after their return a. c. 460,
to

some time

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

its

public worship to something like

the fact to be kept in view
is

original purity.

But

this

the pure and Biblical

it

Hebrew was no
Hence

longer vernacular,

was not even

intelli-

gible to the people at large, without Syriac

Targums.

the canonical books, after the Captivity, are con-

siderably mixed with Syriac and Chaldee.

ture history closes about the year a. c. 430.

The

Scrip-

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.

andria.

He

soon after built Alexto

There he placed many Jews,

whom
It

he granted
this
i.

numerous privileges and immunities.

period, the
to

was about

Jews of the Dispersion began

to

to kellenize,

e.

adopt the Greek language, and

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

distinct people,

had hitherto kept the Jews a separate and was

fast

passing away, and dissolving into the more ge-

neral purposes of the Christian dispensation.

20
It

AN APOLOGY FOR
was during
this critical period of the
it

Jewish

polity,

(a.c. 250-280) that

to

seemed good

to

Almighty Wisdom,

bring about the translation of the

Hebrew

Scriptures

into

Jewish or Hellenistic Greek.*

to

The Alexandrian Jews

besought Ptolemy

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
face
:

for the following extract

from their Pre-

"

While God would be known only

in Jacob,

and have
;

His
the

Name
dew

great in Israel, and in none other place

all

while

lay on Gideon's fleece only, and

;

the earth

besides

was dry
of

then, for one

and the same people, which

is,

spake

all

them

the language of Canaan, that

Hebrew,

one and the same original in Hebrew, was

But,

sufficient.

when

the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun

of Righteousness, the Son of God, should

come

into the

world,

whom God
all

ordained to be a reconciliation through

also of the
;

faith in

His blood, not of the Jew only but

Greek, yea of
lo, it

them

that

were scattered abroad

then

pleased the Lord to

stir

up the

spirit

of a Greek

prince (Greek for descent and language), even of Ptolemy

Philadelphus,
of the
is

King of Egypt,
of

to procure the translating

Book

God

out of

Hebrew

into Greek.

This

the translation of the Seventy interpreters,

commonly

so called,

which prepared the way

for our Saviour

among

* Appendix, No.

1.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
the Gentiles, by written preaching
tist
;

21

as St.

John the Bap-

did

among

the Jews, by vocal.

For the Grecians,

to suffer

being desirous of learning, were not wont

of worth to
lie

books

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 inhabitants in Asia,

by reason of the conquests that there the

Grecians had

made

as also

by the Colonies, which thither

also,
it

they had sent.

derstood in

For the same causes

was well un-

many

places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too.

Therefore, the

Word
all

of God, being set forth in Greek, be-

cometh hereby
giveth light to

like a candle set

upon a

candlestick,
;

which

that are in the house

or, like

a procla-

mation sounded forth in the market place, which most

men

presently take knowledge of;

fitted to

and therefore that lanfirst

guage was

contain the Scriptures, both for the

to

preachers of the Gospel

appeal unto for witness, and

for the learners also of those times to

trial

make

search and

by."
are the wise and deliberate opinions of our ex-

Such

cellent translators,
to qualify them,

and though they proceed in some degree

;

by reciting the opinions of Jerome

as

yet

they allow quite

much

as

could be expected

from

Protestant translators, avowedly professing to follow the

Hebrew
It is

text.

unnecessary to enter into any minute account of

the circumstances attending this Greek translation.

the narrative of Aristeas,
it

As

to

is

now

generally supposed

the forgery of some Hellenistic Jews,

who were

desirous

22

AN APOLOGY FOR
But,

of magnifying the reputation of this version in the eyes of their Palestine brethren.

when every deduction

it

has been

made

for

what

is

fabulous,

leaves deep con-

viction, that this translation

came abroad with some strong

providential origin, and that
for
it

marks and

attestations of

its

was received with profound veneration, by those

advantage
it

whose

was more immediately designed.*

to concede, that the history of

Whilst then we are ready

Aristeas
is

not to be received without

much

suspicion,

we

infer, that

even as a counterfeit,
it

it

betokens some portion

full

of latent truth, and that

Hellenistic

evinces the

conviction of the
this version

Jews and of the early Fathers, that

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

facts of Aristeas,

main

but on the supposition that this belief

was generally prevalent and widely disseminated.

thought
it

They

highly credible, that as the " Lord had stirred

of Cyrus" to rebuild the Temple;
translators,
so, in

up the

spirit

the

language of our

" he

had

stirred

up

the'spirit

of Ptolemy" to bring about this translation of the

Scriptures.

Hebrew
enable
in-

Believing

this,

they could not doubt that the

to the translators, to

same Divine aid was granted

them

to carry that object into effect.

This Providential

terference, they thought

was

fully justified

by the urgency

of the
to

crisis.

The Hebrew language had already ceased

It

be vernacular.

was becoming
;

less

and
it

less

undertotally

stood, even

by the Jews of Palestine

whilst

was

* Appendix No. 14.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
obsolete

23
It

amongst the Jews of the Dispersion.

its

was of

the utmost importance, that

peculiar idioms should be

embalmed

in the great literary

;

and commercial language

this lan-

of the world

especially as

it

was designed, that

as

guage should be subsequently adopted

vehicle of the

the literary

New

Testament.

The

situation of Alexandria

was

also admirably
It

adapted

for carrying out these Providential designs.

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
to

conducive

to

the advent of Christianity?

its

what more confirmatory of

evidence to the end of time, than

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 commercial 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
literature.

for

its

patron-

age of learning and elegant

Alexandria could

24

AN APOLOGY FOR
The names
of

boast of one of the largest libraries.

trius Phalereus,

Deme-

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

that,

translation

corresponded to

which

is

now understood by

the

term Hellenistic*

Whilst considerably influenced by

it

what

is

peculiar to Macedonic Greek,

has blended also

the Alexandrian terminations with those Hebraic forms,

which could not

the Scriptures

fail

largely to enter into any version of

made by Jews

entertaining the highest veneIt is

ration of the original text.f

probable that their

it

first

labours were confined to the Pentateuch, and that

was

not

till

twenty or thirty years subsequently, that the whole

of the Old Testament was completed.

state in general terms, that
it

We

may

therefore

was finished

a. c. 250.

The most remarkable and important

sion consists in
its

feature of this ver-

regular selection of the same doctrinal

those,

words and expressions, as

which were subsequently

adopted by the Evangelists and Apostles. JThe terms Repentance, Faith, Righteousness, Justification, Redemption,
Sanctification, &c. together with the titles of Lord, Christ,

Saviour,

Holy

Spirit, Sec. are the very

same

in the

Alex-

andrian version, as in the

New

Testament, a?id they are

It is this identity

used precisely

i?i

the

same meaning.

* Appendix,

No.

16.

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

THE SEPTUAGINT.
unity,

25

of doctrinal terms and expressions, which constitutes the

and which secures the continuity of

faith

and doc-

trine, in the

Old and the

New

Testament. *

Now, without
it

divine Inspiration acting on their minds,

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

It

ends and objects of the Christian Covenant.-f

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
culiar to the
is

pe-

New

Testament.

It is

not enough to reply,

they had the

Hebrew

original before them,

and therefore
Greek.

they naturally expressed themselves in Hebraic

We

are not

now

discussing the mere grammatical idioms

its

of the Greek version, but

constant, undeviating doctrinal

translators will

phraseology. J

Merely human

always more
in

or less vary their interpretation even of the

same words

the original.
others, a

They

will

sometimes give a more

forcible, at

more

lax and gentle expression to the

in
its

same thought.
doctrinal
et

But

in

this sacred version, at least

and

prophetic department,
locjuendi

we have

the

same usus
in

norma

which we

find

everywhere adopted

the

New
God
sig-

Testament, without which, no written Revelation of

to

man, could

retain the

same precise and permanent

nification,

amidst every subsequent variety of language.

of this observation,
let

To

test the force

any one take

* Appendix
:|:

No.

1.3.

f Appendix, No.
p.

15.

See Stuart on the Canon,

315.

26

AN APOLOGY FOR
the Latin version of Castellio, or the English

up

New

Tes-

tament of Harwood, and he will be at once convinced, not

only that the dignity of manner, but the accuracy and precision 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. and

But

this,

it

may be

said, is a matter of taste

sensibility.

Let us then con-

sider the far

more

serious consequences attached to the

truths

and discoveries of a Divine Revelation.

Would
same
which

the doctrines of Redemption, Faith, Repentance, Righteousness, Sanctification, or Justification continue of the

weight and import,

if

lowered

down

to expressions,
?

do not convey the same

distinct

meaning

Can

the doc-

trines peculiar to Christianity,

be preached or explained
Is not the unity

by a vocabulary merely secular ?

and per-

manence of our
manence of our

faith, associated

with the unity and per?

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

New
Testament, which
its

be
is

made, either of the Old or

not mainly indebted for

doctrinal phraseology, to this

archetype version.

The ground
fied.

of this assertion

may

be thus briefly veri-

Previous to Jerome's Latin translation from the

existed the Italic version from the

Hebrew, there

LXX,

THE SEPTUAGINT.
Church.
This version as a

27

which was generally read and received by the Western

whole
has unfortunately
it

perished, except in the Psalms

but there

remains with

only occasional corrections.

the Psalms

Now,

in this Italic version of

we

have the same doctrinal expressions, which

we

find adopted in the

New

Testament, as

we may

learn

from our

own Prayer Book

translation.
still

But

this

argument may be

further developed from

remembering, that Jerome did not venture upon any fresh

version of the

New

Testament.

He

left

the Italic, with

the Italic of the

only some occasional corrections.

Now,

New, must have corresponded

Testament
is

to the Italic of the

Old

they constituted one version. The inference plain and undeniable that Jerome, in his Latin version
This reasoning
is

of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, must have adopted

the doctrinal phraseology of this previous Italic, from the

LXX.

verified also,

by the remains

which we

find of the Italic, in the writings

and quota-

tions of the Fathers.

In

this

statement

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
there not

the following striking acknowledgment

"

Had

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
Testament, in Greek
;

New

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
I

tried them,
I

had not the

in

LXX

version
if

been made.
there

think

am

justified

saying, that,

had not been a

translation in

Greek of the Old

Testament,

made and
penmen
is

received by sufficient authority, a

I

proper time before the advent of our Saviour,

see

do not

how
;

the

of the

New

could have written in

as

Greek

which
Hebrew."

saying as

much

any of the adit,

mirers of the

LXX
p.

translation can say of

it

without the

glaring absurdity of giving

original
to give

the preference above the

or desire
all

430.

As we have no wish

any such preference, and disclaiming

such

unnatural and absurd comparisons,

tent with this

we

are heartily con-

most honourable and candid confession.

revert to the thread of our narrative.

Let us

now

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.
rians,

This

is

acknowledged, even by profane histoBut,

it

such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

is

still

more evident, from the mighty and rapid progress of

See Hody,

p.

224, &c.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
Christianity amongst the Hellenistic

29
their nu-

Jews and
was
first

merous
It is

proselytes,

when

the Gospel

published.
century,

not too

much

to assert, that,

during the

first

these Hellenistic Jews and their Gentile Proselytes, formed

the principal seedplot of the Christian Church. Scribes and Pharisees,

the
lic

Whilst

who adhered

rigidly to the use of

in their

Hebrew

ritual

and the Hebrew tongue

pub-

worship, were disputing and cavilling at the person of

Christ, and^the 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. [3Iatt..t\ri.9.

Mai'k xii.^1

.']

They

gladly

embraced

those

promises

and doctrines,
their

which they had more obscurely anticipated through

previous reading of the Septuagint.
If the

Hebrew language had always maintained

it

its

original
far

power and prerogative,

may be

questioned,

how

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
of a sepa-

strictly suited to a theocracy, to the privileges

rate

and exclusive people,

set apart

from

all

other nations

of the earth.

Without supposing the Jewish power and

more or
the
less

polity to have extended

it

over

all countries,

does

not appear,

how
faith

Hebrew

Scriptures could

have influenced the

world.

and manners of the Pagan

of the
is

The

decline and

fall

Hebrew tongue
assumed

in the

Jewish and Christian Church

tacitly

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
Abraham, could never have been
if

the lineal descendant of

broken down,
of Abraham.

he had retained the language and speech

of the Gentile could never have
to

The hope
if

been

realised,

he had been compelled

It

read

the

Old Testament
to brins:
It

in its original language.

was needful
focus.
for a

both Jews and Gentiles to one

to
is

common

was necessary
end.
It

employ a common medium

common

no degradation of the Hebrew,

to the
It
is

to

have been made subservient

through the Greek version.

purposes of the gospel,

the glory alike of the

Hebrew and
But

the Septuagint, to have found their consum-

mation in the

New

Testament.
object,

to effect this

and

for ever
it

to

place this
to

version on a parity with the original,

seemed good

Divine Wisdom, that the founder of Christianity should

be born and educated

in

a part of Palestine, where no

for

knowledge of Hebrew had existed

years,
lent,

many hundred

and where the Hellenistic Greek had been prevaIn the Synagogues

from the time of the Ptolemies.

it

of Galilee,
Scriptures,

is

incredible that they used the

at

Hebrew

when even

Jerusalem they were explained

against
all

by Syriac Targums.
either

It is

probability, that
text.

Joseph or Mary could read the Hebrew

When
as

Jesus went into the Synagogue at Nazareth, he

opened the book and read the passage almost verbatim

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

thirty-seven quotations

their ears."

Out of the

made by

Jesus himself from the Old Testament, thirty-three agree

THE SEPTUAGINT.
almost verbatim with the

31

LXX, two

agree with the Hediffers

brew, and

differ

from the

LXX,
From

one

from both,

and one agrees

actly with the
plain, that our

partially with both.

Only

six agree exit

Hebrew.

this

enumeration,

is

Lord constantly used and quoted the ver-

sion.*

Galilee, according to

of Palestine,

" Out of Galilee

common

repute,

was the Bceotia

ariseth

no prophet."

The
from

provincial dialect

was of the most

rustic kind, but

the time of the

Hellenistic
inhabitants.

Maccabees there had been a large body of

Proselytes,

Jews and

mixed with the Gentile

During the

thirty years

which our blessed

he had be-

Lord had passed

in Galilee before his ministry,

come most
and
his
this

intimately conversant with the Greek version,

in all his teaching, both in

knowledge he evinced
in Judaea.

own country and

From
to

the popular prejudice to magnify the

Hebrew and

degrade the

LXX,
I

this important fact has been passed

at

over in silence.

am

loss to

mention a single
fact,

writer,

who

dwells on the indisputable

that the

Hebrew
Ga-

Scriptures were neither read nor understood by the

lileans,

and that

if

Jesus was instructed by his parents in

in-

the

knowledge of the Scriptures, they must have

structed

him out of the Septuagint

disciples

version.

His

were

all

Galileans,

" they
13),

were
till

unthe

learned and ignorant

men"

(Acts

iv.

and

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
text.

AN APOLOGY FOR
But they were
it

well read

in the

Septuagint, and

they quote
less

on every occasion.

I think there are not

than twenty-eight distinct quotations from that verspeech before the Jewish Council.*

sion, in Stephen's

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 knowledge 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 "

refers to the

Hebrew
text,

of the Hebrews,"

he seldom

Hebrew

and he delights

to

quote the version.

forgets the

Charmed by

the example of Jesus, he

Pharisee,

and becomes the Hellenist.

is

The
quite
dis-

eloquence of Paul, as Valckenaer has remarked,

of another kind from that of the Greek orators.

He

claims

all
is

enticing words of man's wisdom.

chiefly confined to the

His vocathose

bulary

LXX, and

who

would comprehend his arguments or appreciate

cellence,

his ex-

must give

their days

and nights

to the

study of

the Septuagint.

In accounting for the rapid progress of Christianity

during the

first

century,
effect

sufficient justice

has not been

paid to the mighty

early converts,
in the very

produced on the minds of the

the Apostles discoursing

when they heard

must

words and language of this Greek version of the

It

Old Testament.

for ever justify

and explain the

wisdom of God,

" in stirring the heart of Ptolemy," and

* Appendix, No.

2.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
directingf

33

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
it

power of miracles would

itself

have passed away, had

not been sustained by the enduring and endearing form

of the Gospel, thus preached

ao'intal lanoTiao-e.
It

and recorded

in Septu-

came home

to their business

and

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 " indirect accommodations

its

" of this version,

and of
it

being

''

sufficiently

good

for their purpose."

But

was evidently made and designed

for that purpose.

We
and

are told that the Apostles did not intend to sanction

authorize

its

authority,

by thus continually preaching and

the

quoting

it.

But no man can read

Its

New

Testament

and

credit such assertions.

sound hath gone out into

all lands,

and
is

its

icords even to the ends of the world.

There
tion.

one observation which deserves especial atten-

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
Testament.

to

prove the verbal Inspiration of the

will equally

New
taken

But they

prove the Inspiration

all literally

of the Septuagint, for they are each and

F

34

AN APOLOGY FOR
I

from that version.

shall exhibit

them

seriatim, in the

words of M. Gaussen.*
" In the
first

place,

turn to Heb.
'

ii.

8,

and observe
things un-

how,

after

having quoted

Thou

hast put

all

der his
{tto^vtoc,

feet,'

the sacred writers reason on this

Ps.
viii.

word

all

LXX).

4-6."

" In the eleventh verse of the same chapter, in quoting

from the twenty-second Psalm, he dwells upon the expression,

'

my

brethren,' (tok

a,^X<po7g y.ov.

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

once more.'"
" From
ver.
(et*

Yet
how
iii.

aVa^,

ii.

7,

LXX.)
'

5 to 9 of the same chapter, remark

he enlarges on the expression,

11, 12 of Proverbs,
'

My

Son,' from chap.

7ron$iiocg

{yli

[/.n

oXiyupn

Kvpiov, x.t.A.

LXX) My son, disregard not the chastening of the Lord.'"

"In chap.
expression,
(iJ^ou rlyiu
'

X. 5-7.

quoting Psalm
'

xl,

he dwells on the
not.'

Lo

come,' as meeting

Thou wouldest

ouH TiOiA^ura?,
viii.

LXX

Ps. XXxix. 6, 7.)

to 13,

" In chap.

from ver. 8

quoting Jer. xxxi. 31,

Jer. xxxviii. 31,

he reasons upon the word

32,
^ix^n(ro[j.O!.i

?ieiv.

(LXX,

^ioc^r\KY\v y.ccn/7)ii.)

" In chap.
ver.
1

iii.

from

v.

7 to 19, and in chap,

iv,

from

to 11,

with what earnestness, quoting Ps. xcv, does

'

he

rest

on the word

to-day,' the expression,

'

have

sworn,' and especially on

'my

rest,'

introducing as a com-

Theopneustia, chap.

vi. sect. v.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
mentary the words from Genesis,
his labours.'"
'

35
did rest from
is

And God

Every one of these expressions

taken

verbatim from the

"

LXX,

Ps. xciv. 7-11. Gen.

iii,

ii.

3.

From

verse 2 to 6 of chap,

observe

how he

dwells

on the words servant and house, taken from the book of

Numbers (chap.
faithful in all
c/.

xii.

7),

his house' "

/
.

'My (LXX

servant Moses,
o

who

is
iv

^i^drruv y.ov Mwutrj)"?,

OAW

~
TO)

>/

OiXW jUOU TTJCTOJ

iCTTi).

" But especially remark in chap.

vii.

v. 6, vi. 13,
all

14,

and

21, the use he consecutively

makes of

the words
'

of the ex. Psalm,

(LXX,

cix. 4.)

'The Lord
priest,'

sware,'

He

sware by himself,'
ever,'
'

'Thou

art

'A

priest for
'

of Melchisedec, king of Zedec,' and of

Melchi-

sidec,

king of Salem.'"

Every one of these expressions,

is

(except " king of Zedec,'' which

not in the Epistle)

is

taken from the

It

LXX.

Conf. Gen. xiv. 18.

fair in

would have been only

M. Gaussen,
But

to

have

stated

them

as Septuagintal quotations.

if so,

how

could he have justified his derision of the sentiments of

the primitive

Church

See pp.

8, 9.

Should
to

the reader

desire to see multitudes of similar quotations, he

may

find

them arranged

in the Citata,

appended

my

Hellenistic

Greek Testament.
Perhaps the most important doctrinal term in the
Testament, illustrated by the
as

New

LXX,

is

Kupjo?,

when used The Greek

denoting the proper divinity of Jesus.

translators

were probably led

to the version

of Kupo?, for

mn'', from the Jewish scruples respecting the TETpocypocfx[xoiTou.

But

this solution

does not affect our position

that

we

learn this peculiar use of the

word from the LXX,

36
and
that,

AN APOLOGY FOR
without their authority,
full

we should

scarcely have

been able to ascertain the

the

force of such passages in

New Testament. Now this rendering

own
Hebrew
;

of Kvpiog, for Jehovah, not only

pervades our
rived from the

translation,

which professes
found
in the

to

be de-

but

it is

Vulgate of

Jerome, in the Syriac, and in

the

all

the ancient versions of

Old and

New

Testament.

It rests

however exclusively

on the authority of the

Testament.

LXX,
is

corroborated by the

New
It

The

inference

plain and undeniable.

may be

stated in the

words of

St.

Austin,

when

replying

to

the assertion of Jerome, that the Greek translators were

interpreters, but not
erat,

Prophets

" Sphitus^ qui

De

in Prophetis

quando

ilia iVuvcrunt ;

idern ipse erat in

LXX

viris,

quando

ilia intei'pretati sunt.'''

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
the ante-

constant use of the Septuagint version, that

all

Nicene Fathers arrived

hibited

at the

sublime truth so amply exis

by Bp. Bull, that the Son of God

consub-

stantial with the Father, that all the manifestations of the

Divinity in the

Old Testament, were the manifestations of

state.

Jesus Christ, in a pre-existent

This doctrine they

o

chiefly derived from inferring, that the Kupjo?

Qeoi of the

LXX,
much

was the

Kupto? xx\ Xpjo-ro? of the Evangelists

is

and

Apostles.

This sublime and Evangelical doctrine

now

obscured.

There are many, w^ho consider the

Appendix, No.

5.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
Jehovah of
tlie

37

Old Testament,

as quite distinct from

the Kupiof of the

spiration

New.

We

are willing, that the

In-

and Scriptural authority of the

standard
of sound
doctrine.*
said,

LXX
The

be tested
early

by

this

Fa-

thers believed, that

when Jesus

" Before Abraham

mystery

was,

AM,"

he appealed

to this divine

that

when he
saw
it,

affirmed

"Abraham

rejoiced to see

my

day, he

and was glad," he intimated the same

lost,

truth.

We

have now

by our neglect of the

LXX

version, the

plain and Scriptural

clusion.

method of arriving

at the

same con-

We
found

need not then be surprised, that the primitive

this translation as canonical,

Church received
it

when they

thus acknowledged

and recognized by Jesus

of direct quotations from

and the Apostles.

The number

the Old Testament in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles

may be

estimated, I think, at about 350, of which, not

differ

more than 50 materially

indirect verbal allusions

from the

LXX.f

But the
to a far

would swell the number

greater amount.

Though

there be not a single professed

it

quotation in the Apocalypse,

teems with verbal

refer-

ences in every chapter.

the

The memories

of the writers of

New

Testament, or rather the suo-o^estions of that Di-

vine Spirit

who superintended them

seem
till

to

have brooded

over

all their

words and expressions,

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.


3S
inent
:

? ; !

AN APOLOGY FOR
but for the force of the
g:eiieral

arsrument. I
A^ e

may

appeal to anr man's honest cnnvictions.

SaTioar of the world, resting his claims

behold the

to the !Messiaship,

00 the expres words and declaration of

latioQ.

this

Greek

trans-

We hear his
from
tibe

Evangelists reiterating the same asandiofitT.

seitioa

same

We listen

to his Apostles

prplamfiw and
ChristianitT
this i^askML,

ilfaistrating

the doctrine and evidence of

literally extracted
its

by DumenMis passages
and yet we

from

lie^tate to admit
it

inspiration
it

By
by

some,

we are

told they only took

as they found
is

otbers, tint cmly so

mnch
tibis

as they cited

inspired,

bat nollui^ mcne.

Willi

Is not

"jnggling and paheiing

shonld

ns in a double sense f"

What
tihe

we

think of

sjij c-2'Tnant to

an

cylatp, wlio relied

on one part of an
ralne of the rest

an: fz:
If JesGi
1

and wlio denied

:

dbim
:
.

to Divinity

on the term

*!.:.:-:.

d^ar to the
IS

L.W.

as equivalent to

canoniziii^
<c '^

and consecratins'
Kfm,"* a^LS Bp.

:X
T.i*,#^i--

QmU Tw

ZXdo. acci^iemdrnm pmUarrty misi ita

Kc^s*fc est

hcMii smmlj jfw&vf

:

'^0

;""

Vrasi.

Pa-

Sec ~ EspoasiaB oHhaB Creedf Artie 2, vol. 2.

T
cc

ATe^des sncoeeded t&e pmnitiTe Fadiexs, and

-:

_
_

di^
1 -

are styled

tiie

Apostolic Fathers.

7
;

dmngkls are of tlie same SepCnafintal

Ejiisdeof demae P :-iL

z^

_tl

rat
:

of the cail^

Cln

^nKjtst

tatioB^ addooei
i

LXXi

Hd
:'.i

of

Ae

53d
::

of
i^.

.-

zi

L, ;: i^r

33d 1 22, an

THE SEPTUAGIXT.

39

-:

I'txiral

references

:'t-

:.

irethanthrtr
Indeed,
-

~i

;^

LXX. ;>.uoder of confooodiDg Cy

enaiij diner Ircii :ir
eTident, that

K-J^ms ^Seei- 1.2. j,

a is
of

he

c::':: z::

-::! a word
-

T^r

v;

7-1^
T.

:.l

also apply lo J

Marnrr, finum

his c:os:

z_;^:_;

of Israel, Aomc
isra c7:r

^ '-^f,sigm~
il
5

ficat

homo vincens rirtutem:

See Hody, p. 2SI.

auiem
:?tm

rirtus!

T
_
:

t
r

::
7

form the cmly exceptioa ar :

considerable dexiation from
I think,

J
t

. :

^
.

:i:

e
::

LXX

T
-

may be

accounted

:,

zi

his

oiioii^T

Samaritan.
to his

He

appears also to have trusted very

occasionally, to

much
::-

memory, and
Tersio:: :f

have

in.liiii^i

wards the

A:

M:!a.

In his Dialogue with Trr-

pho, he charges
their Scriptures.

me Je^s with haTins" wilfuIlT ec Hody is of opinion, that this

was

solely

iHooght against the

t:

LXX:
:.i
:

but his cip.c^

text.

sions seem rather to relate

:ie

Hebrew
i

By as-

secr

_
:

::
:
^
J.

oaiyac:
::

Aristi^is, respectit is
:

-he

:.r

G
"^
:

versioD.

plain, that

:i5?r :r

its

joint inspl:

(Ntiginal.
its

He

sharply reprehends some

:ned
t

authority.

xcrra -mfsm^xim^i wmfm. UrtXsftautu

-ra

Alyvwuv

^mtiket

Grabii ProtOff. lom.

ii. csi?-

i.

<i

ii.

40
temporis
tiotat,

AN APOLOGY FOR
qui putarunt earn versionem in aliqidbus

veritatem non attigisse,

Grabii Prolog,

torn. 2,

cap. 1,

20.
Irenaeus

may be

adduced, as the next of

tlie

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
" Etet reli-

chiefly confided

on the authority of
Joannes,
et

this version.

enim Petrus,
qui deinceps,

et
et

AlatthcEus, et Paulas,

horum

sectatores, prophetica

omnia

ita

annuntiaverunt,
continet.

quemadmoclum Seniorum
est

Interpretatio

Unas

idem Spiritus Dei, qui in Prophetis

et qualis esset

quidem prcBconavit, quis

in Senioribus

adventus Domini,
bene,''

autem interpretatus

est

S^c.

Adv.

Heeres. cap. 25. Edit. Lutet. 1639.

Clement of Alexandria
in the

in his

Stromata,

lib. 1,

speaks

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,

version

commemorates
it,

this

and the circumstances attending

in

a way,
its

which can leave no question of

divine authority.
Judseos.

his opinion concerning

1,

See

also Chrysost. Orat.

cap. 6, cont.

Hippolytus usually expounds the Scriptures according

to the text

and sentiments of the

in his

LXX.
Psal. cxviii. 13, ex-

Ambrose

Commentary on

pressly asserts,

LXX vi7vrum

sententias magis sequitur

ix. sect.

Ecclesia.

Cf. Walton, Prolog,

^Q.

Hilary expressly asserts that the

LXX

were enabled

THE SEPTUAGINT.
to transfer into their version all

41

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
est, ct

LXX Editio obtiuuit in Ecclesiis,

ante Christ i advent um facta
;

vel,

quia prima

vel,

quia ab Apostolis (in

quibus tamen ab Hebra'ico non discrepat) usurpata. Epist.

57. 11, ad

Pammach.

p.

314. Edit. Vallars.

is

The

limitation,

which he here mentions,

known
in

to

be

altogether erroneous.

There are several passages

which

Christ and the Apostles adhere to the

it

LXX,

even

when

distinctly varies

from the original.!

From
infer,

these and similar testimonies,

we may
till

clearly

that the Fathers of this Church,

the days of

Jerome, were unanimous in their belief of the Scriptural

authority and
Inspiration of the

Greek

version.

They

considered
ing:

it,

in conjunction with the original, as form-

the united canon of the

Old Testament.
in his elaborate

It

must be allowed, that Hody

and ex-

cellent work, argues very ably against this conclusion,

and labours
Oh

to

show

that there had always been a decided

ydf) evpe(Ti\oyla, kuI KaraerKev}) (TO^io-yLxarw)'

eic

a^OpwTrtVwj'

)r

to

yiyofiEvoy, dAX'

Ylrivi^iaroc 'Ayiov

rw 'Ayt'w Ylyevfiari \a\i]0ia<Ly

ix.

deiuv ypafbiy epfiTfysia eri/vtreXetro. Catech.

cap. 34.

t Appendix, No. 5.

42

AN APOLOGY FOR
Hebrew
original.

preference of the

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
It

arguing against the opposite

extreme of Morinus.

was the natural tendency of Proagainst Romanists.

testants to dispute every point

But
I

Hody was
have
little

a moderate, learned, and sound divine, and

doubt, that he would have admitted of a com-

promise between the contending parties.

probably have been indisposed
of the primitive Church,

He would
Hebrew

not

to return to the sentiments

viz.

that the

original

and the Greek version are

conjointly, the

to

be received as constituting
Indeed,

canon of the Old Testament.

nearly

all

the early authorities which he has collected,

to this

would have naturally led

sion.

comprehensive conclu-

The work
pressly

of Hody,

it

should be remembered, was ex-

composed

to qualify the assertions of

some

distin-

guished Romanists,

who

in opposition to

the Protestant
to the dis-

Reformers, had the audacity to exalt the

LXX,

paragement of the Hebrew

text.

He

went

forth as a pro-

fessed antagonist to their extreme opinions,

fully confuted their errors.

and success-

He

proved his point, that the

orioinal.

Hebrew
But
in

text

must ever challeng'e the rioht of an

proving this proposition, like most other advocates,

truth,

he went somewhat beyond the

and rashly threw out

insinuations against the co-ordinate value and authority of

the

LXX.

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.
tvveen extreme Romanists
to

43
neitlier
is

and extreme Protestants,

debase the

LXX,

nor to exalt the Hebrew, this

to

maintain the canon of the primitive Church, apart from

all

the controversies of succeedins; ao'es.

Before

we

proceed,

it

may be

proper to advert to two

Pliilo

important writers,

who

stand in a class of their own.

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 Scriptures.

It

has been matter of controversy, whether Josephus

appeals chiefly to the

Hebrew

text, or to that

of the

LXX.

As
to

far as I

can judge, he seems to rely equally on both, and

attribute to both a divine authority.

He

relates the

history of the
cells.*
is

LXX,

without mentioning the fable of the

In this omission, he was preceded by Philo,

all authorities

who
(sav-

unquestionably the most important of

ing that of the N. T.), in attesting the value and authenticity of the

LXX.

Surprising as

it

may

sound, his quota-

tions, inclusive

of repetitions, are about 2300, of which

as separate

about 1500
passages.

may be reckoned

and independent

of the

He very LXX, and I

seldom deviates from the exact words

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.

ment, considering
ever as almost
its

The New

Testa-

relative size,
in the

may be

esteemed how-

its

rival,

number of Septuagintal

* See Stuart

On

the Canon,

p.

209. London, 1849.


44
citations

AN APOLOGY FOR
and
allusions.

They amount,
but

as

we have

before

stated to about 350, of which, about

tially

300 belong substan-

to

the

LXX
my

its

incidental coincidences of
indefinite.

thought and language are almost

publication of

Since the

Scholia (1848),

have collected several

hundred additional examples.

We
400),

have now arrived

at that

important epoch (390

when Jerome published

his Latin version, translated

immediately from the Hebrew.

isted

Previously there had ex-

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
strict

age, or very soon afterwards,

translation of the

and was a

and
is

literal

LXX.

This ancient version

now un-

fortunately lost, except fragments cited

by the early Fathers,

in his Latin version

which are incorporated by Nobilius

of the Septuagint.

The Book

of Psalms forms a singular exception.

laity
for

Such
to set

was the veneration of the

manual of devotion, that
forth
it

their

own

favourite

was not deemed advisable

any new

translation.

Our own Prayer-Book

version

represents the Septuagintal Italic, with

corrections, in a

some occasional

few striking deviations from the Hebrew.

the Bible version with that in the

Whoever compares

Prayer-book, will at once perceive the difference.

great majority of instances, the

In the
literally

New

Testament

adopts the

LXX

in its citation of the Psalms,

differ

and occa-

sionally even

when they

from the Hebrew.*

See Brett

On

the Versions, p. 135.

Appendix, No.

ix.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
There
able to
is

45
is

one example of

this kind,

which

too remarkJ

be overlooked.

It

occurs Ps. Awii.

if

7,

They

pierced

my hands and my feet. Now,

Jerome
text,

or our

own

translators

had here followed the Hebrew

they would

not only have obscured a plain prophecy, and darkened

two important passages

xix. 3, A^oc.
i.

in

the

New

Testament {John

7); but they

would have introduced words,

which are altogether devoid of meaning.

It

may be
it

safely

affirmed indeed of Jerome's Latin

version, that

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
terms of the

LXX,

illustrated

by the corresponding
this illustrious

New Testament,
Vulgate

which enabled

man

to exhibit the

in its present form.

This

is

evident from the existing- remains of the Italic.

It

may be

reasonably questioned, whether Jerome's dieither of

rect

knowledge

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,

taking this laborious and indispensable work.
gate, with all
its

for

under-

The Vulmonument

imperfections, forms a noble

of his learning and piety.

Had he been

content to have prosecuted this object,

* Praefat. Parsenetic.

Appendix

viii.

46

AN APOLOGY FOR
it is

without any derogation of that version, which had hitherto

been the sole guide of the church,

ther Augustine nor Ruffinus

probable that neirisen

would have

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.

is far less

But what
Some;

defensible, he often

changes

his

ground.

times he professes the highest regard for the

others,

LXX

at

he speaks of them with contempt

now, he proit

fesses only to

amend

their version,

and now, he decries

as utterly corrupt

and depraved.
labours, not so
it

He

endeavours

to re-

commend
utility,

his

own

much on account

of their

as because

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

I

and good man, nor should

to them, if his character

have thought of alluding

had not been recently depicted

in a strain of eloquent panegyric,

justify his depreciation of the

which might seem

version. f
It

to

Greek

would
less

have been

far

more happy

for the church,

and not
his

creditable to himself, if
object,
if

Jerome had prosecuted

own

without any disparagement of the Septuagint

its

he had uniformly acknowledged

imperishable claims

* Appendix No.
of the Septuagint.

v.

Du

Pin's Life of Jerome,

and Gregory's History

Lond. 1664.
pp. 82-85,

f See Dr. C. Wordsworth's Lectures on the Canon,

THE SEPTUAGINT.
to canonical authority,

47
to

and had endeavoured

harmonize

the version

v^^ith

the original,

instead of deliofhting- to

place them at variance.

Such was the wish and

desire of Augustine, in his respirit of

monstrances with the bold innovating

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.

Hebrdica
ing,
Veritas,

He

thought that the term,

which Jerome was perpetually repeatinsult

was a gratuitous

on that version, which had

sa-

been incorporated by Christ and the Apostles in their

cred writings, and which had been so long prized and

venerated by the Christian Church.

j

Should

it

be admitted, that one single Father could

all

overturn the authority of

that the sanction

who had preceded

him, and

and usage of the Christian Church dur-

iing the
sole
I

first

three centuries, could be annihilated

it

by the
plead

power of Jerome, then

would be

in vain to

that authority, on any other occasion.

We

then set at
to,

nought a standard, which has been so often appealed

I

not only in matters of church-government, but in the most

important facts and doctrines of Christianity.

case, the noble

In that

Defence of the Nicene Creed by Bp. Bull

all
its

would be shorn of
I

influence,

and the labours of

Or, to

Horsley against Priestley would cease to be valid.

allude to a more recent work, which has obtained

much

and deserved

celebrity,

even the exquisite learning of

its

Theophilus AiigUcanus would lose half

value, if the

authority of the early Fathers could be thus wantonly

impeached.

48
It

AN APOLOGY FOR
would appear, that
for

some

time,

the Italic and

Jerome's version were both in public use.

Great,

Gregory the

who

lived in the following century, says that he

occasionally used both translations.

By

degrees howevei-,

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.

is

With

the solitary exception of Origen, there

no evidence,

that any of the

Greek or Latin Fathers could consult the

original text of the

Old Testament.
fact,

This

is

an important

and

it

demands the

atten-

tion of every Christian student.

Had

the knowledge of
of that suto

Hebrew

in the primitive

Church been deemed

preme and exclusive

it,

value,

which has since been ascribed

surely

many

of the Greek and Latin Fathers might have

prosecuted that study.

The He.vapla

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,
easily

as

Ambrose, Synesius and

all its

Cyprian would
difficulties.

have mastered

grammatical

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 canonical standard of the Ancient Scriptures.

Hence, they must have

version,

relied entirely
still

on Jerome's Latin
its

had not the Septuagint

maintained

rank

THE SEPTUAGINT.
Church.

49

amongst the more studious and learned members of the

The adoption

of Jerome's version

in

public

worship, could never supersede, with such men, the love

and study of the

in the

LXX.

Accordingly we
it

find, that

even
the

Western Church,

was read and studied,

till

northern barbarians sacked

Rome and

literature.

Amono;st
is

the NovellcE of Justinian* (circ. a. d. 550), there

one,

sanctioning and recognizing the use of the

LXX

amongst

the Hellenistic Jews in their worship, in oppo,ition to

those

who were

exclusively attached to the

its

Hebrew

text.

In the Greek Church,

use and authority have always

their veneration of the

been upheld, as co-ordinate with

Hebrew

archetype.
the authority of this version ever called in

Nor was

question, even

amongst the unconverted Jews,

its

till

they

were so pressed by

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

I

Son of God.

Such were the

versions of Aquila,

Sym-

machus, and Theodotion, composed under the reigns of

Adrian,

Commodus and
is

Severus.

But the influence of

translators,

the Septuagint, as
still

remarked by our own

to that of all others,

remained superior

and was used

to the latest

by many of the Jews

period of the
It

in their

Synagogues, even

Roman Empire.f
if

should also be remembered, that

we deny

the

* Novell. 146.

Walton. Proleg.
Prolegora. torn.
ii.

ix. sect.

15.

f See Grabe's
cap.
I.

prop, v, vi.

Hody,

lib.

iii.

part.

i.

pp. 232-237.
II

50

AN APOLOGY FOR
tlie

Scriptural authority of

LXX, we

invalidate the austill

thority of all the versions,

which are

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,

for

and Coptic versions are of no Scriptural authority,

were unquestionably made from the
to these tlie large

they

LXX.

If

we

conjoin
to the

body of Christians, which adhere

shall

Greek Church, we

be shocked

to find, that

we have

dismantled well niMi

one half of ancient and modern

Christendom.
Durinof the lono- nio^ht of the middle
ao-es,

the Latin

Vulgate remained

the

sole

directory

of the

Western

Church, and as Latin was

clergy,

little

understood even by the

the laity possessed

few means of reading the

place,

Scriptures.

But when the Reformation took

it

and

learninp" besfan to revive,

was not

long- ere

some of the

early Reformers betook themselves to the study of the

Hebrew. This they accomplished

like
!

Jerome and Origen,

by the

aid of Jews.

Then, alas

arose afresh the un-

happy and unnatural controversy, respecting the comparative 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.

Protestants

The

opposition amongst

was heightened by an imprudent intermixture

of Apocryphal with Canonical books in Jerome's translation,

though he placed certain

obelistic

marks

to intimate

their inferiority.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
It is probable, that

51

Jerome made

this unfortunate arItdl'ic.

rangement

to

meet the prior arrangement of the

But he would have acted more wisely and

if

consistently,

he had inserted no Apocryplial books,

in the

Hebrew
tiiat

Canon.

Had

this

been the

case,

it

is

possible

we

might have escaped our disputes with the Romanists,

concerning the Apocrypha.

The circumstance
tlie

of

its

being

intermingled with the Canonical books in

Septuagint,
to

Was altogether
plead in
its

accidental,

and had no good authority

favour.

Neither Philo, Josephus, nor Melito

mention any such spurious additions.

The same
lists

assertion

may

be

made of

the other previous

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).

distinction
nical,

The

between Canonical books and deutero- canoit

was unfortunate, but

It

cannot be charged on the

not invented by Jerome,
the Septuagint, as

LXX.

was recognised,

if

yet the blame has fallen as

much on

on the Vulo^ate.

But when the dispute had once commenced, the

mosities of both parties were inflamed.
all

ani-

In this contest,
authority

moderation was sacrificed.

The usage and

forgotten,

of the primitive of the

Church were

and that version

in

Old Testament, which had been read

Jewish

Synagogues 250 years before the

years after,

birth of Christ,

and 400

which had been the means the

of preparing the
to

world

for his advent,

which was appealed

by Christ

and his Apostles

text of the primitive Fathers, the

glory of confessors, the consolation of Martyrs, was

now

52
banished from

AN APOLOGY FOR
its

alliance with the

Hebrew

archetype,

and reproached
authority.
It is in this

as a version, based

entirely on

human

unnatural state of repudiation and divorcethat

I

ment from the primitive canon,

and respectfully plead

would most earnestly

rank and dignity

for the ancient

of the Septuagint, as the affianced bride and associate of

the Ancient Scriptures.
are of value,
I

If age, if services,

if

authorities

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 sanctions.

The

early

Church could not have received

had received
it

this

Greek

version, as inspired, unless she

on
as

Apostolic authority.
Scripture, unless she

She could not have admitted

had found
it

it,

incorporated with the

New

Testament.

The grounds
She found
it

of her faith were simple

and sublime.

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.

says our Lord.

Search the Scriptures,

Could they possibly exclude the ScripGreek

version,

tures, as set forth in the

when

that version

was

in far

more general

use, than the original

Hebrew

when
version,

they knew, that Christ and the Apostles had

chiefly quoted from the

LXX?

Could they exclude

that

which the Ethiopian eunuch was unquestionably

readino- in his chariot,

when he accosted Peter?

When

THE SEPTUAGINT.
at Nazareth,

53

our Lord took up the Prophet Isaiah, in the Synagogue

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.

Lvi. 1, 2.

LXX.
Again
mothy,
tion
;

St.

Paul asserts

in his

Second Epistle

to Ti-

iii.

16, that all Script in^e is given by the Inspira-

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

to

in those

Scriptures, which were able

make him

wise unto salvation, were Hellenistic conthe son of a certain

;

verts.

Timothy was

woman, which

was a Jewess, and

Act.xvi.
or
1.

believed

but his father

was a Greek,
Derbe

They

resided in Asia Minor, either at

Lystra,

where the Greek

language was generally

spoken.
read the
origin,

It is utterly

improbable, that such females could

Hebrew

text.

Both

their

names are of Grecian

to a

and as his mother was married

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

LXX.
It is

Tim.

v.

18. 2 Tim.

ii.

19.

Conf. Scholia Hel-

lenistica, p.

929.

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
had received

AN APOLOGY FOR
it,

as such, from Christ

and the Apostles.

believers, arose be-

The

earliest dispute

amongst the

first

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.

Hellenistic

The

Jews had already been accustomed

to read that

version, for nearly

300

years.

The

Gentile converts were

its

naturally led to

its

adoption, from

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
dern
critics to

to their prejudices.

It

remained, for mois

devise an hypothesis, which

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
trust

version, with their

own

inspired writings;

where

could be our confidence on their integrity, and where our

on the authority of the

New
It

Testament

The

belief

of Divine Inspiration precludes

crisy,

all

notion of craft, hyposuit

or

double dealing.

may

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.

devices would be utterly

But

all

such
in a

subversive of our faith

sacred and Divine record.

fess,

For

my part,

am

free to con-

that

never could give credit to the Inspiration of

THE SEPTUAGINT.
the

55

New
its

Testament,

if I believed, that the greater

num-

ber of

appeals to the Old Testament were expressed in

uninspired and uncanonical language.*

The advantages

of declaring ourselves united to the

judgment of the primitive Church, are numerous and important.

By

declaring that

we

accept the Septuagint, in

union with the Hebrew, as the basis of our interpretation of the

solid
It
is

Old Testament, we should

lay a sure

and

ground of reconciliation with the Eastern Church.

painful to reflect that the Church, which was the
is

cradle of our religion,

Scriptural that
to

now holding

as Canonical

and

same Old Testament, which we

hesitate

acknowledge of sacred authority.

it

But

it

is

still
it

more
were,

distressing to reflect, that

is

morally, nay as

physically impossible, that this primitive and Apostolic

Church could adopt the Old Testament

form, than
theit

in

any other

of the Septuagint.

The Greek Church

it

adheres to this version, because she has received

uninterrupted succession from the Apostles.
rity of

in

The

autho-

Jerome could not

aftect

her language and eccleis

siastical traditions.

We

submit, that this fact

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

to the

condemn the
use of false
is

most ancient portion of his Church,

and uncanonical Scriptures, were

credible, nay,

to

suppose what

in-

what

is

well nigh impious.

arise

Another important benefit would

from the

far

Appendix No.

11.

56

AN APOLOGY FOR
New
Testament amongst ourselves.
is

deeper study of the

So long as the Greek version of the Ancient Scriptures

regarded as devoid of canonical authority,
it

never can

be viewed, as the

elect

companion and

interpreter of

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

It is scarcely

the same

medium

of thought and expression.

possible to estimate the advantage,

to the study of theology, if the

which would accrue

Greek

New Testament

were

habitually read and compared with the Septuagint.

light they

The

would thus mutually

reflect

on each other, can

those,

be duly

felt

and appreciated only by

who have
Testament,
is

habitually brought

them

into this sacred union.

To
rious

connect the study of the Old and

New

without the intervention of the Septuagint,

a labo-

and somewhat hazardous undertaking.

Unless the
it

Hebrew be

previously turned into Hellenistic Greek,

can scarcely be brought into union or contact.

son
is

The

rea-

obvious.

The Hebrew idiom

classic Greek, that,

is

so different from

that of pure
violence,
it

and

without considerable

cannot be transferred into Greek phraseology.

texture of classic

The grammatical

Greek has

so

little

congeniality with the

Hebrew

or Hellenistic idiom, that

Bentley was of opinion, Demosthenes himself would have

been puzzled in an attempt

or the
edit.

to construe either the

LXX

New

Testament.

Dissert, on Phalaris, p. 412,

1699.
this obstacle
is

Now,

entirely removed,

by collating the

phraseology of the

New

Testament with the Old, through


THE SEPTUAGJNT.
the
it

57

medium

of the

LXX.

To

use the language of logic,

supplies the middle

term.

We
who

then possess an auexplains the peculiar

thorised

and Sacred
of both.

interpreter,

difficulties

This

is

accomplished, not only by

is

that Hellenistic idiom,

which

common

to the

LXX

and

the
is

New
in

Testament, but by showing whence that idiom

Its

derived.

great and essential value, however, conScriptural authority,

sists

ascertaining on

the exact

meaning of the most important

Testament.*

doctrinal terms of the

New

Nor would
text.
,

the advantage be less, as regards the

Hebrew

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

that a language,

the original, apart from the version;

which had ceased

Christian era,
tion,

to

be vernacular so long before the

aid of a transla-

demanded the concurrent

for

which has now existed

more than two thousand

later

years.

But the daring and adventurous genius of

them
to think very lightly of

scholars has taught

such

subsidiary aids.

Whoever has looked

into the writings

of Paulus, Ewald, Eichhorn or Gessenius, will be at no

loss to

comprehend
of the

this difference.

Now, we have

the

Hebrew

Old Testament buried under endless apmodern

oriental
dialects.

peals to comparatively
j
!

That

small portion of Hebrevv which

we

really possess,

is stifled

under loads of Arabic and Coptic, which few can read,

.
.

i>

I;

Appendix No.
I

15.

i'

58
and
still

AN APOLOGY FOR
fewer understand.
But,

we can

all

understand
erudition.

the practical result of such obscure and

mazy

Several of these continental Hebraists, with Mr. Norton

amongst the Transatlantics, have openly avowed

disbelief of Divine inspiration.
result of
It
is

their

only the natural

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

its
is

Hebrew form one

what

of

chief recommendations to men,

to

whose favourite delight

to explore
is

grapple with

difficulties,

and

dark,

dubious and uncertain.

limits,
is

But
and

though

this taste,
it

within certain

useful

praiseworthy,

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,
paradox.

the less likely are

we

to fall into

human

The Septuagint comes

quenches the

before us, as the most ancient

authorised interpretation of the Hebrew.

rity
spirit

Such an autho-

of theory, and rebukes the love of

sit

invention.

We

then remain pupils and scholars, and

patiently at the feet of the original,

is

and the

version.
it

This
is

painful

and humbling

to

human

genius, but

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.
the

When

poor mortals

sit

down

to

study
is

Word

of God, their

first

and most painful lesson

It is their

to

abjure the love of originality.

business to trans-

THE SEPTUAGINT.
late,

59
to copy, not to

not to invent

to follow, not to lead

orio'inate.

The Greek

version of the
is

Old Testament, when

to

united to the original,

admirably adapted
It

cherish

and nurture

this intellectual docility.

should be used,

as the teacher of the Christian student, in his approach

to the
it

awful mysteries of the Cross.

He
from

will acquire
all

from

far

more valuable

discipline, than

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

that despised village, of

arise,
it

and he resided

in

which

was wonderingly
Nazareth
?

ex-

claimed,

Can any good come

out of

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
of Gamaliel.

at Jerusalem,

and been educated

to

at the feet

But he came

confound the wisdom of

the Scribe, and to

it

humble the pride of the Pharisee, and

was

fit

that he should do honour to a version, so exIt is

pressly designed, for the conversion of the Gentiles.

no dishonour
scorn of

to the Septuagint, that

it

has partaken of the

human
is

learning.

Such

the present neglect of the

LXX,

that Professor

Stuart, in his " Critical History

and Defence of the Old

to its existence.

Testament Canon," seldom adverts even

After a long of the
list

of citations, which he terms "Appeals

to the

New

Testament
:

Old,"* he thus sums up

his conclusion

* Critical History of the Canon of the Old Testament. Sect, xviil.

60

AN APOLOGY FOR
" Large as this
list is

of passages from the

to in the

Old Testait

ment, which are cited or alluded

New,

is

far

from comprehending

all

of this nature, which the

truth
is,

New
not a

Testament contains.

The

that there

is

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

so-called idiom of the

What else is the Hebrew-Greek of the New Testait.

?

ment, but an impression of this kind

that

It is

indeed true,

some few

peculiarities in the forms

and grammatical
part to

structure of the

Hebrew-Greek, led

in

the be-

stowment of

this appellation

upon

it.

But

after all, the

grammatical departures from

common

Greek, are
;

now

known and acknowledged,

lejcical

to

be but few

while the

ones arise mostly from the necessity of the case,

(new things demanding either new names, or new meanings 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
It

a thing to be

felt,

and not

to

be adequately described.

occurs so often, every where,

thing, that one
to

and

in

respect to

every

would not know, where

to begin, or

where

end such a description.

list

No

one must imagine, that

the

of quotations, or cases of allusion above, convevs

THE SEPTUAGINT.
to
i

61

him any
that

really

adequate view of the subject.

The

truth

is,

it is

no more than the mere beginning of such a

it

view.

But

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 comparisons, is

founded exclusively on the Hehreiv Scriptures,

to the version of the

without any reference

ring to John
says, "

LXX.

Refer-

d\ 35, "

The

Scriptures cannot be broken," he

Here Scripture stands for

the whole Hebreiv Bible,"

as if

it

did not also comprehend the Greek.

Yet shortly
.vlv.

before,

he had quoted several passages, John

.vii.

24,

Marc.

10, &c,

which exactly accord with the

remarkable quotation, Luke
is

LXX.
21, in

Nay, he

cites that

iv.

which the agreement

with the
still

LXX,

and against the

Hebrew

text (p.
if it

200)

yet he

speaks of the Old Tes-

tament as
all

eadusively related to the Hebrew.

With
divine,
in

possible deference to this learned

and laborious

would submit, that such an oblivion of the

is

LXX,

matters of citation,
in

altogether unfair.

In

all

passages,

which the words of the

it

New

Testament and the

LXX
is

are identical,

savours of something more than pedantry to

go back

to the

Hebrew.

It is to "

be wise above what

written."

It is to cast a slur

on that version, v/hich has

been consecrated by Divine authority.

This exclusive predilection

for the

Hebrew

text

is,

apprehend,^ to be reckoned amongst the most unfortunate

62

AN APOLOGY FOR
partialities of Biblical critics.*
It creates

and indefensible

a schism in the study of the Bible, for which, no learning,

no

talents,

no industry can compensate.

is

The Judaic

ele-

ment of the Old Testament

thus brought into constant

features of the
is

and immediate opposition, with the milder

Christian economy, and
its

austere severity

imposed,
It

even on our interpretation of the Gospel covenant.

has well nigh transformed Witsius into a Jewish lawyer.

Look

into the writings of Ainsworth, of Lightfoot, of Gill,

to

and of many of the early Puritans, and you lament

perceive,
text,

that their exclusive addiction to the

little

Hebrew

had imparted no

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

our Old

New
By

Testament, with
diminishing the

Testament lucubrations.
it

distance of language,

harmonizes the difference of tone

between the old and new dispensations.

* There a remarkable instance of this
it is

is

Hebrew

predilection in Ps.
is

cxlv- 13, in which,

in the

almost incredible that there

not an omission
letter

Hebrew
This
to the

text.
is

The Psalm

is

alphabetic,

and the

Nun

is

omitted.

supplied in the
fOi^J.
I

LXX,

by the word Uiarog

k.t.X.

which

answers
fusion

Hebrew

Conf. Ps. ex. 7.

It is

What

a curious con-

amongst the versions

omitted by Jerome, and in our Bible

it is

and Prayer Book

translations, but

admitted by the Vulgate.

This

confusion has probably arisen from the repetition of the same sentiment
in V. 17.

But the Hebrew

Dr.

letter y

is

there necessary to keep up the

acrostic.

Hammond,

in his larger

Paraphrase on the Psalms, has a

long note, in which, he attempts to justify both the

Hebrew and
it

the

LXX.

But

think Grotius was right in his opinion, that

is

plainly defective

in the present

Hebrew
I

text.

It is

found

in the Syriac,

Arabic and Ethi-

opic versions.
prejudice.

have alluded

to

it,

merely as an example of the force of

THE SEPTUAGINT.
To
represent the

63

Hebrew

as a

more

holy,

more sacred
is

language than
corded,
is

that, in

which the

New

Testament

re-

to introduce a superior

reverence of the temIt is to

poral to the Spiritual covenant.

perpetuate that

Jewish

feeling,

which

it

is

the natural tendency of the the peculiar phraseo-

Septuagint to obliterate.
logy of the
of the

As regards

New

Testament, this neglect or disparagement

a
still

LXX

inflicts

deeper wound.

The

Hellenistic

phraseology cannot claim the beauties of classic Greek.

It

comes before us
If

in a strange, grotesque,

and foreign

aspect.

we

despise the diction of the Septuagint,

we

can never heartily admire or approve that of the Evangelists

is

and Apostles.

The Hebrew

of the Old Testament

is

correct

and

original

the

Greek Testament

barba-

rous,

because

it is

Hebraic.

But, " without form or come-

liness,"

we

are

bound

to prize

and love

this version, if

we
to

love and prize the

New

Testament.
it

We

are

bound

study

it,

if

our Redeemer read

in his childhood,

and

quoted
tian,

it

in his

manhood.

Who

does not pity the Chris-

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

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.

Scriptures held by

In what estimation

ivere the

Hebrew

64
the Jews,
at,

AN APOLOGY FOR
and
before,
?

and soon after the commencement

is

of the Christian era

(p. 279).

the

title

of his fifteenth section

He
all

then quotes a large number of passages

of which, are
in

from Philo,

the express words of the

LXX

He

next proceeds to Josephus, of

whom, he had
he adds, "two

previously allowed (p. 209), " that he usually appeals to

the Septuagint version."

"And
;

for this,"

good reasons may be assigned

the one, that he fully beis

lieved in the miraculous rise of the Septuagint, as

shown

by
for

his account of this matter

the other, that the

Romans,
but

whom

he wrote the history, could read the

Scriptures."

LXX,

not the

Hebrew

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.

contrast to this perverse and unnatural
its

It is in direct

tendency, of excluding the Greek version, even from

more immediate connection with the Greek Testament,

I

that

have devoted many years to the prosecution of studies,

authority.

which are exclusively based on Septuagintal

In the Hellenistic Edition of the
are collected not less than
tions, allusions,
fifty

New

Testament, there
cita-

thousand examples of

and

parallels of

thought and expression,

drawn from the

LXX

version,

and from the Apocrypha,

To

these have been added, in the " Scholia Helleiiistica,''

at least thirty

thousand fresh examples, accompanied with

to Philo,

numerous references
Fathers.

Josephus, and the Apostolic

My

chief aim has been to illustrate the

New
to

Testament from the pages of the

LXX, and

to

show, that

what Professor Stuart here

the

asserts to

belong exclusively

Hebrew

text,

must be attributed

in a far stricter sense,

THE SEPTUAGINT.
to the

65

Greek

version.

It

is

to

show, that Jewish, rather

than classic writers should be consulted in our theological

studies.

Had
in this

then

felt

the conviction, which

have

avowed
child,

Apology, that our blessed Saviour, as a

in this

was instructed

version by his parents,

it

would have gladdened, perhaps, improved

endeavours.

my humble

Yet

it

brings unspeakable satisfaction and

I

evidence to
quiry.

my
star

mind, that

was on the right track of enand

it

The

was

rising in the east,

has

now

conit

ducted

to the stable at

Bethlehem.

And how

should
is

be

otherwise,

when

the

first

promise and prediction

couched

in the Septuagintal Isaiah?

r^STiyA, xcci TS^BTOci vlou, Kcci

'iJ'oO

rrxp^ivog kv ycca-Tp) Arf-

ycxXidnq to

ovo^xcc

avTOu
Stuart,

'EjCc^ai/arjA.
it

But

to return to the

argument.

Mr.

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.

point.

He

has fully proved his

from

He shows that Philo, though he invariably quotes the LXX, has not cited a single passage from the
It is

Apocrypha, and that Joseph us agrees numerically with

our present Canon.
writings

doubtful

when

these Apocryphal
in the

became mixed with the Canonical books

;

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

nor, as far as
I

New

Testament

can
it

recollect,
is

by any of the early Fathers.

Had

it

been

so,

probable

we should have found

the

it

noticed by Justin,

who charges

Jews with having

oc-

casionally corrupted passages, in their Canonical Scriptures.

GG

AN APOLOGY FOR
These Apocryphal books were composed,
it is

generally

believed,

by Alexandrian Jews, and the

era.

earliest not

more
evi-

than 150 years before the Christian

There

is

no

dence

to

show, as Bp. Marsh observes, they were ever

in the

esteemed by the Egyptian Jews, as ranking

class as the

same

Canonical books, though they were regarded

with

much

respect.

The arguments, by which Grabe

this

attempts to prove, that

in the original

Apocryphal arrangement existed

MSS.
It

sent from Jerusalem to Alexandria, are of no weight.

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 Josephus.

It
is

plain, therefore, they

were inserted

at a sub-

sequent era.
to the

This remark,

think,

may
The

also be extended
to

Apocryphal additions, which are now attached

the books of Esther and Daniel.

references in the

New
I

Testament

to the latter (^Matt. dwiv. 15, J\Iarc. xv.

14), accord literally

with the

LXX

version.

See also

Mace.
There

i.

54, Jos. Ant. di.

8, 4.

is

some

difficulty in

accounting for the substitu-

tion of Theodotion's version of Daniel,

by the Fathers of
(Epist.
I
i.

the second century.

cites the

Clemens Romanus

34)

LXX

version almost literally.

do not enter

into the controversies respecting the authenticity of the

book

itself,

because they equally

affect the

Hebrew

text.

Mr. Stuart has

part of the

sufficiently vindicated Daniel, as

forming

ancient

Jewish Canon,
that
it

sect.

xv.

and Dr.

Wordsworth shows,
lists

is

included in

all

the ancient

of the Canonical books of the Old Testament.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
The Apocryphal
merely

67

objection, therefore, can never be fairly

urged against the original version of the

plies
lists

LXX

it

apthe

to

subsequent interpolations.

Though
bear an

of the Canonical books of the Old Testament, in the

early Fathers,

must generally be supposed

to

iin-

mediate reference to the Greek version, yet their

Canon

of Scripture M^as the same as our own, in respect of the

names and number of the books.

able inference

Hence a

plain, undeni-

may be drawn,
as the Hebraic.

that the Hellenistic

Canon

was the same

Indeed, Origen gives their

names both

in

Hebrew and

in Greek.
this point,
it

But

if

any doubt could remain on

would

be removed by the public and

avowed sentiments of the

to

Greek Church, which, though adhering

Canonical, yet
standard.
land.
rejects the

the

LXX

as

Apocryphal books from that

just like the

It receives

them

Church of Eng-

It rejects

them from the Canon, because " they do

See the Catechism of the Eastern
Appe/idi.v, pp.

not exist in Hebrew.'''

Church, reprinted by Doctor Wordsworth.

52-55.

On

this subject

it is

necessary to be exact, because

It

it is

of great importance.

proves that the admission of the

authority,

Septuagint

to

Scriptural

implies no change

w^hatever of our Protestant sentiments respecting the

Apofirst

cryphal books.

The

primitive Church, for the three

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


68

AN APOLOGY FOR
that, in

zealously to exclude the Apocryphal writings from any

higher rank, than

which our own Reformers hold

I'lfe^

them
ners.

forth

-foi''

e.vample of

and

instructio7i

of man-

The members
Hebrew

of the Church of England consequently

are not precluded from uniting the

text,

Greek version

to the

in their

Canon

of the

Old Testament, by
Several of

any of our public or symbolical formularies.

our most learned Bishops and divines, amongst

whom

may be mentioned Bishops Walton,

Our own
text

Burnet,
its

Pearson,

Warburton, &c. have clearly believed in

rity.

divine autho-

excellent translators professedly followed

the

Hebrew

but they " diligently compared and

the use
is

re-

vised" their

own

labours, " with the former translations."

They by no means neglected

and authority of the

nearly

LXX.

Throughout the Old Testament, Jehovah

In this case,
;

always translated Loj'd.

it

may
it

be said,

they followed Jerome and the Vulgate

but

should be

remembered, that Jerome and the Vulgate followed the

Greek

version.

If

you compare

their translation with the

LXX,

you

will find, that they occasionally prefer the

LXX

readings to those in the

Hebrew

text.

Whoever

desires

a literal Hebraic version must betake himself to the versions of

Pagninus or Montanus.
fact, that

The
Psalms
that

we

retain the Septuagint version of the

to

in

our Prayer-book, would suffice

at
liberty,

intimate,

we

are
to

as

members of the Anglican

Church,
version,

admit the Scriptural authority of the Greek

to incorporate
it

and

with the

Hebrew Canon

of

the

Old Testament.

Nay,

if this

argument be pressed,

THE SEPTUAGINT.
it

69
it

might appear, that we are bound

"
it

to receive

as such,

for,

is

the only version of the Psalms " as Dr. Brett

remarks, " to which

I
i

we

of the clergy, have given our

solemn assent and consent."*

To say the
who does

least of

it,

It is

an

opeti quest 1072.

There

is,

believe,

no scholar or divine, whilst studytext,

ing the present Masoretic

at liberty to

not feel himself

occasionally

compare
readings.

it

with the

LXX, and

to prefer

its

All commentators and critics have

endeavoured
collating
it

to elucidate
is

what

is

obscure in the one, by

with what
its

plain in the other.

But

this is

virtually admitting
It

scriptural

and equivalent authority.

would be

utterly inadmissible, to correct

is

what

is

in-

spired,

by that which
is

merely of human authority.

justify
this

There

one point, indeed, which will

all

freedom, beyond

reasonable doubt.

On

the question

of the comparative merit of the

Hebrew and Septuagint

chronology, there are few in the present age,

take part with the
latter.

who do

not

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 Proleg. torn.

ii.

On

the Ancient Versions, p. 97, and Grabe's

26-39.

70

AN APOLOGY FOR
letter

a perpetual miracle, every point and

of that text luul

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

prepared to affirm, that

if

such miraculous superinreal,

tendence could have been shown to be

we could
which has
since
it

have any right been

to associate

with

it

another,

liable to all the errors of copyists.

But

is

plainly ascertained,

that the

Hebrew and Greek MSS.

time and transcrip-

have suffered alike from the

tion,
it

effects of

is

unreasonable to insist upon claims, which can-

not be supported by corresponding evidence.

And

yet,

the echo of this supposed supernatural interference in behalf 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
that the

each other's disasters.

The knowledge,

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

affect either
It is

which do not substantially

our faith or our duty.

ascertained,

now

beyond
the

all

controversy, that both

fre-

the

Hebrew Bible and

Greek Testament have

quently suffered through the errors of transcribers.

labours of Kennicott and

The

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

transcription.

readings, occasioned

by the mistakes of

But

THE SEPTUAGINT.
they evince the far more important
fact,

71
the worst

that

MS.

in existence,
to

whether Hebrew or Greek, would be

all

adequate

convey to us

that

is

really important, either

for doctrine or practice.*

It

must be admitted, however, that there do

exist

some
text

important discrepancies between the present

Hebrew

and the version of the

by the

errors of
for,

LXX, which cannot be explained transcription. Many of these are readily

accounted

by supposing, that the

LXX
it

translated

from unpointed

MSS.

The

Masorites,

should always
interpretations,

be recollected, have stereotyped their

own

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

Hebrew, we read
it

his word,"

whilst, according to the

in

our Bible

version,

"They

rebelled not against his word."

;

Here

is
it

plainly a difference of interpretation

to

the one, referring

Moses, the other,

are left to our

to the

Egyptians.

In such
I

instances,
free to

we

own judgments, though

am

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

Hebrw,'\ this acknowledgment should not be considered,

as implying

any degradation of the Septuagint.

its

In

all

such passages,

inspiration

is

fully

warranted by the

paramount authority of the

New

Testament.

Nay,

it

is

Appendix, No.

7.

f Appendix, No. 6.


72

AX APOLOGY FOR
in its

then put before us

most striking aspect

It

is

the

force of contrast.

To
31.

illustrate this observation, let

us turn to Proverbs ai.

In our Bible,

it

is

translated, Be/idkl, the righteous

shall be recompensed in the earth,

much more

the wicked

and
text.

the sinner.

This

is

in
it

accordance
stands thus

%vith the
:

Hebrew

But, in the

LXX,

If the righteous

scarcely be saved, ivhere shall the ungodly

and

the sinner
is

appear^
ranted and
his

X'ow, this interpretation of the

ratified

LXX

warit

by

St.

Peter

iv.

18,

who

adopts

as
for

own.

Would anv one

venture to blame the

LXX

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.

literal

Had

the

Greek been an exact and

for the

version of the

Hebrew, every motive

study
Jesus

of the original

would have been removed.

never quoted the Hebrew,
its
it

Had

and

his Apostles

would have

almost superseded
tian

value, in the estimation of the Chris-

Church.

Had

he never quoted the

LXX,

that ver-

sion could not have deserved our reverence and esteem.

Or,
it

if

the

LXX

had been an exact copy of the Hebrew,

to

would have been impracticable

both. " / make

have distinguished

these quotations, for they

would have invariably agreed

with

use of both the

Hebrew and

the

Septuagint,'' says Augustine, " because

I find

them both

THE SEPTUAGIXT.
quoted in the Xeic Testament."
[ ,

73

Can

any

man adduce
was
it

plainer, or

more

scriptural

argument?*
it

This eminent Father was also of opinion,

to
is
is,

mark
not a there

the Divine sanction given to this version, that

mere

servile

copy of the Hebrew

text.

Certain

it

are passages in the

New

Testament, cited from

it,

which
6,

are not to be found in

all the angels

Hebrew.

Thus Heb.

i,

Let

of

God

worship him. rests entirely on SepIt

tuagintal authority.

was

to

wean

us,

perhaps, from an

exclusive reverence, or

undue

partiality to either, that our

to both.

Saviour and the Apostles have referred

If so,

may

not the versi07i have been more frequently cited, because

it

needed and required the stronger sanction

to

uphold

it

There
to

is

a remarkable omission, which seems indirectly

intimate the supreme veneration, in which the

Greek

version was held, by the writers of the

It

New
6,

Testament.
reference

consists,

in

the absence

of

all

citation or
i.v.

to that

wonderful prediction, Isaiah

born,
Szc.

Unto us a

child

is

Such omission,
if

apprehend, would

be almost unaccountable,
passage
is

we

did not know, that this

not to be found in any of the

text, it
is

MSS.

of the

LXX.
but
its

In the Hebrew

undoubtedly genuine
its

absence from the Septuagint, precluded

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. Xo.

5.

74
If

AN
we may hazard

APOi.O(;v vnn
a conjecture,
this

omission

in

tlic

Greek version may be

dential considerations.

alike exphiined,

on sacred and pruonly

The Macedonian dynasty was

recently established at Alexandria, and the Jews, on account

of their religion, were viewed with

much

suspicion.
it

Had
might

the translators inserted such a strong- passage,

have led
it

to the total destruction of their labours.

Might

not then be ordered by Providence, that they shoidd

tlie

pass over a prediction,

real meaniiiii' of

which miuht
ilrfcat tin'
1

be totally misapprehended, and whiih

object of their
Uiission
?

iiiiL;ht

I'lii-

same conjecture
r

think

may

be extended to several otht

jiassages in their verir. '.Hi.

sion of the Prophetical books.

[Compare Marc.

John.ivi. 12.
It is

Cor.

lii.

'l.'\

an old and true n-niark, that Isaiah, the most disof the

tinguished
translated

Prophets, seems the most imperfectly

I.
is

of any ])ortion of the

XX.

Large portions

are omitted,
his

and much obscuritv

\\

thrown over several of

most striking predictions.

may account

for this, 1

think, on the princij)le above stated.

This version was

lUit
it

designed
that light

to

"be
to

a light to ligliten the (ientiles."

was

be gradual and progressive

*'

or, as

is

expressed elsewhere,
No^v,

a light shining

in

a dark [)lace."

many

of tliese predictions of Isaiah are so strong, in

their relation to the advent

and glory of the Messias,

his

to his
;

regal authority, and the

that,

power and extent of

fully

kingdom

had they been

all

and clearly translated

into

the vernacular tongue, they might have led to

fusion and insurrection,

much

con-

amongst the Jews of the Dispersion.

their hopes,

Enough was

left to

awaken

and

to

animate

THE SEPTUAGINT.
their desires.
is, it is

75

Defective as this Greek version of Isaiah

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

all
it

tend to advocate the Inspiration of this version, amidst

its

apparent discrepances and imperfections.

lesser liorht'" to rule

Perhaps

was the "

world

the nig-ht of the Gentile

Israel.

whilst the "greater light" was the glory of

it

Vet, however inferior in lustre,

press into the

enabled the Gentiles to

privi-

kingdom of God, before the more

leged descendants of Abraham.

This reflection should ever endear

regards.
It is

this version

to

our
It

our

own

peculiar portion and heritage.

belongs to us, as " the voice, which cried in the

It
is

desert.''

like " the beautiful feet of those,

who proclaimed
not, that
it

glad tidings on the mountains."

Wonder

was had

owned and

cited

by Evangelists and Apostles.

It

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.

that
It
it

Wonder

not,

was owned and quoted, by the Saviour of the world.

told of his nativity, of his sufferings, of

had already

his death, of his resurrection

and ascension of his Divine

origin,
it

and of his incarnate humility.

Wonder

not, that

was appropriated by the Divine

Spirit to the service

of the Gospel, in the pages of the

New
if

Testament.

Its

language was the same

its

phraseology was identical.

written in Greek,

How

could the records of the gospel,

in

have been recorded

Scptuagint?

any other

style,

than that of the

76
It

AN APOLOGY FOR
should

never be

forgotten,

that Jesus

conversed

with his disciples, not only in Greek, but in the current

language of Judsea, which was Syro-Chaldaic,

is

or,

as

it

now denominated Aramaic. Even

mentioned in the
denoted.

his last

solemn words

from the Cross were uttered in that

dialect.

Wherever the

word Hebrew
spoken dialect

is is

New

Testament, this
of Greek was

The knowledge

confined chiefly to the upper orders, and to the

oflicers.

Roman

This

is

plain from the question of the chief

captain to Paul, Act. awi. 37, Canst thou speak Gi^eekl

But, the

New

Testament being designed

for

an abiding
it

record of the origin and history of Christianity,

was

wisely ordered, that this transient and provincial dialect

should be transmuted into that permanent and enduringform, in which

lenistic

we now

receive

it.

That form

is

the Helas

language of the

LXX.

It

was transmuted,

we

firmly believe, under the immediate superintendence of the

Holy
into

Spirit.

This change of the vernacular of Judaea

Hebraic or Hellenistic Greek, stamps an importance

to Inspiration.

on that idiom, as consecrated and peculiar

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
it is

doubt and controversy.

trine of the
It is

Cross " the power and the wisdom of God."

To

the believer,

like the doc-

his power,

because
It

it

implies something extraordinary

his

and supernatural.

is

wisdom,

because,

if

that

change had not been accomplished, the phraseology of

the

New

Testament would have now been scarcely

intelli-

gible.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
During the stay of our Lord on
history
earth,
i.

77
e.

during the
it

and events recorded by the Evangelists,

is

pro-

bable, that the provincial language of Judaea

ally,
tles.

was usu-

though not always, used by Christ and the AposTheir teaching and intercourse were generally con-

fined to those,

who may be supposed

tliis

to

have been chiefly

conversant with
it

dialect.

Even

after the Ascension,

still

would appear, that

for

some

time, they

limited

their preaching
It

chiefly to Judtea,

Samaria and Galilee.

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.
years

Still,

such were their prepossessions, that even two

afterwards,

when they

" were

scattered

abroad,

upon

the persecution that arose about Stephen, and

as far

had

travelled

as Phenice,
to none,

Cyprus and Antioch, they

but unto Jews only.

preached the word

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 xi. 18-20,

It 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

to

Antioch (of Pisidia), there can be no question, that he

in

addressed them

Greek.

The Jews mentioned were

Old TestaAsia Minor, he
he was
in

doubtless Hellenists, well versed in the Greek

ment.

In

all

his subsequent travels in

lano-uaofe, for

must have used the same

midst of Grecian colonies.

the

But,

when he passed over

78

AN APOLOGY FOR
still

into Greece, this fact is

more evident.

''The

man
lis,

of Macedonia,"

who

cried.

Come

over and help

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 Judeea, to the use of the

Hellenistic or Hebraic Greek, because
trates the history of the Gospels,
it

at

once

illus-

and developes the con-

current argument of this Apology.*

Whatever of Divine power

this

or

wisdom was displayed

in

change of Syro-Chaldaic
to the

into Greek,

must primarily
It

redound
is

honour and dignity of the Septuagint.

a prerogative and distinction, such as was never asto

signed

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

pression,

characteristic style of thought

et

and ex-

some usus

norma loquemU,

as the

permanent
addresses

medium

of a written Revelation.

When God

man, whether through Patriarchs, Prophets, Evangelists,

or Apostles, above
all,

through his only-begotten Son,

in

it

seems befitting that he should address him,

some sacred
is

and peculiar form of speech.

essentially Hebraic.
it

This type and form

It

was

so in the days of Moses,

till

and

will

continue unchanged,

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.
great conductor has been the Greek Septuagint.
the trunk which has conveyed
versions of the
servoir in the
as
it it

79
This
is

to all nations,

through
reit,

Old Testament.

But

it

has found a

New

Testament, which has transformed

life,

were, into " that river of the water of

which prodiction of

ceeds from the throne of the Lamb."

the

The

New

Testament, being essentially the same as that of

the Septuagint, has invested that version with a lustre

and dignity, which

ginal.

raises

it

to

the

full level

of

its

ori-

The

tidings

of the gospel are always preached

and pronounced
cottager,
it,

in Septuagintal

language, and the poorest

is

who can

read his Bible,

as

much

indebted to

as the

most learned academic.

Should you ever doubt

the Inspiration of the Septuagint, as a version of the

Old

Testament

you
it,

will find

all

your doubts removed, by

considering

as

an essential component of the New.

A still further
may be
dibility,

plea for the Inspiration of the Septuagint,

found, in the vast and striking accession of cre-

which

it

brings both to the external and internal

evidence of Divine Revelation.

Had
to

the text of the

it

Old

Testament been confined solely

Hebrew,

would, as

Warburton remarks, have looked

to
all

too

much

like a cipher,

the rest of the world, except the Jews.*

And

though

this learned prelate carries the assertion too far,

when he
telligible,

declares, that

it

would have " been

utterly unin-

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.

so
difficult
felt

AN APOLOGY FOR
to estimate the recoil,

which would have been

on the

New

Testament, from the sole absence of the

Hellenistic version.

The Old Testament would then

Revelation, entirely confined
to

also

have looked

like a

a particular people.

The
as

God
the

of the

Jews would scarcely have been recognised,

;

God

of the Gentiles

and

all

the objections of
force

infi-

delity

would have been urged with a

and

plausibility,

which we can now scarcely

realize.

The union
it

of the

Greek tongue with the Jewish

partial

religion, took

out of this
scaflTolding

and national aspect.

Such a majestic

betokens an Almighty hand.

Such a wondrous combinaIt

tion denotes the finger of Inspiration.

all

has expanded

our conceptions of the Mosaic economy, and scouted

the

cramp and niggard notions of

thus the version of the
first

artificial
is

theology.

And
of the

LXX,

not to be regarded
all

merely as the

and most important of

or

versions
;

Old Testament, whether ancient

modern

but

as constituting a great historical

fact or epoch,
It

in the
diffi-

plan of the Christian Dispensation.

cult to mention

would be

any

fact,

which has produced larger or

It

more important consequences.*

ration for
rate,
till

has continued in opeit

more than 2000

the last

years, nor will

cease to opeto

Jew

shall

be converted

the Cross.

When
that
It

Malachi, the

last

of the prophets, had closed the

Hebrew Canon,

the Septuagint was ordained to keep alive

canon, the

Hebrew being no

longer understood.

remained the living lustre of Moses and the Prophets,

* See Graves

On

the Pentateuch. Vol.

ii.

Lect. 5. Part. 3.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
til]

81

tliat

lustre

was eclipsed by the

rising of the
its

Sun

of

Righteousness.
JSfeve?^

Then

it

arrived at

meridian glory.

man

spake like that man, and never book was

honoured

like that,

which

is

so often

quoted in the
or

New

Testament.
scholars,
this

Repelled by canonists,
version

renounced by

may

indignantly exclaim, in the

it
''
:

words of Him, who has so often owned

lieve not

If ye

be-

me, believe
its

me for my works'

sake."

Great was
it is

fame and glory

in the primitive

Church, yet
text,

not correct to impute the neglect of the

prevalence and popularity of the

Hebrew
It

to the

LXX.

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 Paraphrases, 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 en^rafting^ the Gentiles, on the stock of Israel.

To

carry out this purpose,

it

would seem indispensable,

82

AN APOLOGY FOR
and

that their native language should suffer an eclipse,

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
in

we may presume

to trace the intention of

Providence,
text

this

long sleep and

oblivion

of

the

Hebrew

amongst the followers of Christ, perhaps we may discern

it.

First, in fixing

deep the foundations of Christianity,

;

apart from Jewish rites and ceremonies

in

and Secondly,
chiefly to the

confining the

attention of Christians

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

It

was wisely ordered

therefore, that

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,
chiefly,

and that the Old Testament should be considered

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.

great and signal benefit also was conferred on the priall

mitive Church, by preventing

controversy and dispute,

concerning the comparative value of the Hebrew and the

Greek

text of the

Old Testament.

Hence none of

the

THE SEPTUAGINT.
early adversaries of Christianity could distract the

83
minds

of the believers of the three

first

centuries,

by proposing

contradictory sources of Biblical interpretation.

It is

with

the deepest humility

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 interesting themes.

But,

when

four

hundred years had passed away, and

the "middle wall of partition"

was completely broken

down between
tian

the

Jew and
cast
its

the Gentile,
roots far

when

the Chris-

Church had

and wide, and the

all

standard of the Cross was raised, as an ensign amongst

nations
;

then,

we may

discern the same Providential care

and wisdom,
the
love

in raising

up Jerome,

for the translation of

Hebrew

Scriptures into Latin, and for inviting the

to the original

and respect of the Christian Church,

text of

Moses and the Prophets.

It

Still, this

revival

was

kept within very narrow limits.

scure

was confined

to the obcall

medium

of that Latin version, which

we now
died

the Vulgate.

The study

of
It

Hebrew again

away

with Jerome and Origen.

was remembered amongst

tell

Christians, like the pyramids of Egypt, to

of departed
it

grandeur and renown

whilst amongst Jews,

was

so
it

buried under Rabbinical and Talmudic fables, that

seemed scarcely

to retain

even the vestige of

its

original

fame and character.

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

reigns

84

AN APOLOGY FOR
to a great extent,

amongst them

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

Biblical

little

help in the study of

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.
slept,

The know-

ledge of the
tians, for

Hebrew tongue had

amongst Chris-

nearly 1000 years since the days of Jerome.

solitary taper,

His Latin version was the

which had dimly

shone in the surrounding gloom, and even that light was

scarcely

comprehended

in the general chaos.

The com-

mon
The

people repeated their prayers in an unknown tongue.

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

tures
;

Hebrew

Scrip-

but

it

was unfortunate that Protestants,

should consider
it

in their zeal

for this invaluable study,

as part of their

duty, to decry and undervalue that Greek version,

which

had

so long supplied

its

absence in the primitive Church.

to pur-

The
sue,

wise,

and moderate, and Scriptural course

to cherish the

had been

combined love and study

alas
!

and veneration of both.

prone
to extremes.

But

human

nature

is

ever

No

sooner was the knowledge of the

the Lutheran

Hebrew language imported amongst

and

THE SEPTUAGINT.
Reformed
divines,

85

than the ancient dispute concerning

the comparative value of the Original and the Version

was
It

revived.*

may be

curious, perhaps useful, to take a brief sketch

of the different phases, under which the study of

Hebrew
amongst

has been prosecuted, since the date of

Christians.

its
it

revival

By

its

earliest students,

was

necessarily

received from the Jews, and

was naturally accompanied

with every Jewish prejudice.

it

By

Galatinus and Reuchin,

was conceived
its

to possess the deepest mysteries of the

Kabbalah, in

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.

pellus

Ca-

came

forth to the contest,

and his Arcanum Punctufate.

atmiis was generally esteemed decisive of their

The
it

Hebrew was

thus freed from Masoretic shackles, but

to

became exposed

dangers of another kind.

It

was ima-

gined by Cocceius, that the sublimest mysteries of Christianity

might be detected

in its elements.

The Lexicon
its

of Gussetius will at once amuse and amaze, by

erudition.
this

absurd
in

The study

of

Hebrew continued popular

country during the dynasty of the Stewarts, and was

pursued with equal assiduity by Churchmen and Nonconformists.

There was

this difference,

however, between

them, as

may be

seen by the dispute of Bishop Walton

and Dr. John Owen,

in

that the former held the

LXX
this

much higher
* Appendix, No. 7.

esteem,

than

the

latter.f

And

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

sect,

xv,

and

86
difference

AN APOLOGY FOR
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,

it

in the Version,

again sank into comparative disrepute.

in vain, to

Hare and Lowth attempted

with classic
literature.

connect
it

its

study

Since their days,

has become

popular to read the

structive of

Hebrew without

points,

which

is

delast

any deep, or accurate knowledge.

is

Its

and present phasis

that of the
its

German

Neologists,

who
it

boast of having renovated

entire study.

By

blending

with Arabic, like Schultens, they have nearly buried

mains, whilst by mingling
tion,
it

its re-

with metaphysical specula-

they have rendered

it

a vehicle of infidel doubt and

daring,
ism.

Let

thin Biblical cover for

Nortonism or Hegelliterature of

any one compare the

Gesenius
esti-

with that of Walton or Pocock, and he will learn to

mate the value of Biblical Hebrew, as studied with, or

without, the version of the

LXX.
generally useis

The study
ful

of

Hebrew can never become

till it is

amongst

us,

reunited to that language, which

the charm and solace of

present,
its

men

of taste and literature.

At

knowledge

is

confined comparatively to a few

it

hardy and recluse students, and of those who attempt

in early life,

few, even

amongst the clergy, continue

to

prosecute

its

study, in later years.

The
is

truth

is,

that the

Hebrew,

collated with the

LXX,

at once

an intelligible

and agreeable occupation, because

rationale of the

it

then opens to us the

dialect.

Greek Testament

But,

when

THE SEPTUAGINT.
divided from the

87
it

LXX,

it is

dark and dubious, and

be-

comes so

difficult

and obscure, when connected with Oriits

ental dialects,

as to render

knowledge unattainable

by any considerable
clergy.

portion, even of the

more studious

We

advert to these particulars, to show,

how

many and
Hebrew

urgent are the motives, for again contemplating

the Hellenistic version, as the partner and expositor of the

archetype.

It is thus,

accordingly, that an an-

cient Father of the

Church

sets forth its

et

advantages

Hi

itaqiie Seniores I'lhros

hos transferentes,

Spiritalem secun-

dum
e.v

Moys'i trad'it'ionem occultarum cognitionem scientiam

adepti, ambigiia lingucE HebrdiccE dicta et varia

se nuntiantia,

qucedam
propriis

secundum

vii^tutes

rerum

cert'is et

verborum

significationibus transtulerunt^ Sic. Hilar. Pict.

ii.

Tract, in Psal.
It is

num.

2, Edit.

Veron, 1730, tom.

i.

p. 31.

vain however to expect, that the Septuagint can

ever be considered the friend and companion of the He-

brew, unless
dard.
It is

it

be raised

to its

primary and original stanit,

not by extolling
it it

as venerable

and

useful,

but receiving

as sacred, and of Divine authority, that

we

shall brino-

once more into contact with the Divine

original.

The

Syriac version of the Old and

its

New

Testa-

ment

is

venerable for

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

to

New

Testament was made subsequently

the era of
It

Christianity

probably

in the

second century.

could

not aspire to the honour of being, like the Greek version,

88

AN APOLOGY FOR
It

the forerunner of Christ and the Apostles.

receive

could not

the

seal

of

Inspiration,

by being incorporated
is
it,

with the

New

Testament.
all

Nor

like the

LXX,

the

stock and parent of

It is the
it

other versions.

peculiar prerogative of the Septuagint, that

constitutes the Viaduct

it

between the Old and

New

Tes-

tament, that

forms an essential element in the history

that, unlike all

of the Jewish and Christian Church, and

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,
cons
;

like

grammars or
it

lexi-

but this

is

indispensable,

because

forms part
as well

and parcel of the

New

Testament.

You might

expect the clay and the iron to amalgamate, as bring what

is

merely
is

human and

uninspired,

to associate with that

which
It

supernatural and Divine.

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 Dispersion 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
first

have been composed by Hellenistic converts, during the

century, and prior to the
fall

of Jerusalem.

No

such Greek

phraseology long survived that event.

citations

The numberless

from the

LXX,

in the Fathers of the three first

centuries, also corroborate the fact, that no other version

THE SEPTUAGINT.
was then received
in the Christian

89
these,

Church. But

and many other incidental

facts, illustrative

of the truth

of Christianity, are more or less connected with the Septuagint.

They

tend to show

how

extensively
its

it

was em-

ployed by Divine Wisdom, to carry out

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

is it

possesses in the Christian world.

its

Not only

read exclusively in the Greek Church, but

all

influence pervades

the Oriental versions.

Its psaltery

forms the instrument of praise and thanksgiving

tions,

to all naIt

where the name of Christ

its

is

heard or sung.

has

transferred

influence even to versions, which profess to

text.

be taken from the Hebrew

Above

all,

by

its

diction

and

citation,

it

enters so

largely into the

New

Testa-

ment, that whilst

tles,

we

are reading the Gospels

and Epis-

we

are continually reading the words

and language

of the

LXX.

How

little

do we consider, that the most

argumentative, awful, and aflecting portions of the

New

Testament, are recorded in the very words and phrases of

the Septuagint
look
!

Prejudice or ingratitude

may

affect to
;

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

the best
Canonical
sole

are held in reverence

so long should the Septuagint be re-

garded, as the vestibule of the Christian Church

interpreter of the

Old Testament, and the

expositor of the

New.
to review with calmness

It is full time,

and delibera-


90
tion,

AN APOLOGY FOR
our popular Canon of the Old Testament, both in

relation to the primitive

Church, and the attacks of modern

unbelievers.
for the first

If

we

relinquish the faith of the

Church

400

years, as respects the Scriptural authority

it

of the Septuagint,
sanction,

will

be very

difficult to establish its

on any other topic of appeal.

But, should
I

we

totally repudiate its claims to

Inspiration,

do not com-

prehend,

how we can
There
is

establish the Inspiration of the

New

Testament.
in

a body of quotation from the

LXX
I

the

New

Testament, amounting, as nearly as

can

estimate, to the bulk of St. Mark's Gospel.

Are

these

tnmierous 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

thority,

LXX,

did not avouch their Divine au;"

but merely "took them as they found them

will

then,

you

make such

a breach in the sacred records,

If,

as no learning, no ingenuity can ever repair.

on the

other hand, you assert, that the mass of citation from the

LXX

becomes inspired pro

;

tanto, solely
to the

on account of

its

citation

then,

you suggest

mind such a

miracle, as
It

can scarce be accredited, by any amount of

faith.

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 alteration,

when the passage

which
it

as

it

then stood, was sufficient to prove the

main
the

point,

was adduced to prove."

Bp. Home's Preface

to

Psalms.

See Appendix, No. 3.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
more, of that version
is

91
is

inspired.

Yet, this

what

all

believers in the plenary Inspiration of the

New

Testa-

ment are forced

spiration of the

to admit,

when

they deny the general In-

LXX.*
who deny
deny
professedly the plenary Inspirait

As

to those,

tion of the

New

Testament,
all

will

be generally found,

that they likewise

to this

Scriptural rank and importance,

or Socinian dislikes the

Greek

version.
for the

The Arian

Septuagint,
disliked
it,

same reason, that the ancient Jew

that the early Christians were

when he found,

constantly drawing their strongest arguments, from the

Alexandrian

text.

No man

can

Ions: read the

Greek

New

Testament, in company with the Greek Old Testament,

and not come

all

to the clear in the

and

heartfelt conviction, that

Divine

titles

LXX

may
in

be ascribed to Jesus

Christ,

and that every doctrine of Christianity, may

Septuagintal phrase-

be pourtrayed and expressed,

ology.

Hence the Arian and Socinian Commentators

pelled to retreat into

are

com

Hebrew

obscurity.

The

darkness
If

of

Hebrew words may seem

would soon be

to favour

any opinion.

they admitted the Greek version to be of equal authority,

that darkness
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

regard of the Septuagint,
phrase,
is

dis-

to

be found in Taylor's Para" lliat thou mightest be

Romans, cap.

iii.

v. 4,

* Appendix, No.

7.

92

AN APOLOGY FOR

justified in thy sayirigs,

art judged.''

"This,"

and mightest overcome when thou

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

confesses,

Hebrew

oi his own, which he

" 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
Testa-

to the

words of the

LXX,
is

as quoted in the

New
I

mejit.

The Hebrew
it

my

standard, because
I

am

per-

suaded,
that
all

was

so, to the

Apostle."

need scarce observe,

lost

arguments

for the

LXX

would be

on such a
if

partisan.

Yet

it is

only a fair and logical deduction,

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,
risk

would

rest their

arguments on a translation^ or

their reputation,

by making themselves answerable

for all the faults that

might be

in

it.

They quoted
had they wrote

it,

in-

deed, but,

suppose, no otherwise, than as they would

translation,

have quoted an English

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.

differ, I

When

the

Hebrew

and Greek

cannot find the Apostles once argue

is

from the Greek."

ticism,

This

fair

specimen of Socinian
effect of

cri-

and

it

shows the theological

indulging

contempt
braist,

for the Septuagint.

Taylor was a profound He-

but his knowledge of Hebrew did not conduct him

THE SEPTUAGINT.
to the

93

knowledge of

Christ.

He

speaks of the Apostles,

jnst as if they

were Greek

sophists, disputing for

fame

and worldly applause.

notice "
to the

He

does not condescend even to

appeals
it

The

Galilean,"
version.

who always argues and

is

Greek

His assertion

generally false, as

relates to the Apostles,

who commonly ground

their argu6.

ments on the words of the

It is

LXX.
Greek

See Appendiv, No.

invariably false, as regards our blessed Lord,

text.

who

constantly reasons from the

See Appendiv,

No.

17.
citations of the

The

New

Testament,

it

should be

re-

membered, are not

for

like rhetorical
;

illustrations,

adduced

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.
their citations

Had

they drawn

from an uncanonical version, or such as

it

did not carry with

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
cited,

Testament, or in any of the ancient Apologies.

supposition,
it

The

that

though the Greek version was

secret

was always done, with a

reservation of

appeal to the

Hebrew

text, is so incredible,

and involves

such mental duplicity, as

notice.

to render

it

unworthy of serious

This, indeed, would have been to " deal deceitthe

fully with

Word

of God," to have said, " Yea, yea,

94
and Nay, nay."
tural,
it

AN APOLOGY FOR
is

But the supposition unnatural and absurd.

unintelligible to
all,

is

not only unscripis

It

to

suppose the
all

Apostles could appeal, from a version, which

might
cen-

read and understand, to an original, which for

turies

many

had been

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
It is

we

heartily admit

the parity between them.

no

trivial

blunder, to comis

pare what

is

acknowledged as divine, with that which

Infidels

supposed to be merely human.

look on,

and

sneer at this strange anomaly, and think,

we can

hardly

be

in earnest, whilst

confounding such contradictory and

If

heterogeneous materials.

we

believe the Septuagint

version to be inspired and of Scriptural authority,

we have

a clear right to collate

the

its 7io

interpretations, with those of

Hebrew

text.

But

man can
we bring

serve two masters.

it

We

degrade the Hebrew,

if

down

to the level

of an uninspired version, and

sion, if

we unduly

exalt that ver-

we

collate

it

with the Hebrew.

there
is

As

relates to the

New Testament,

nothing more
of citations,
text,

contradictory or offensive, than to behold

lists

formally arranged according to the Greek or

Hebrew

and then to

find, the vast

majority set

down
!

to the

account

of a version, devoid of Divine Inspiration

that

It is full time,

we should

arrive at

some

clear

and

definite decision,

on

this

momentous

question.

If

we

consider the Sepit,

tuagint of divine authority,

the

we may

collate

either with

Hebrew

of the Old, or with the Greek, of the

New


THE SEPTUAGINT.
Testament
;

95
and unca-

but, if

we regard

it,

as uninspired

nonical, then

we should

collate

it,

with neither.

Yet, after every effort of talent

ing,
it is

and every aid of

learn-

vain to expect, that

left

all

obstacles will be cleared

away, and nothing

our
faith.

to try

our candour, or exercise

There are

difficulties

belonging to the evi-

dence, as well as the doctrine of Revelation, which no

human

sagacity or

industry

can altogether overcome.

in part.

Whilst we

see in part,

we can only know

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

difficulties,

trial.

Amongst

these

some belong

to the history of the

Canon, and

others to the discrepances between the

texts of the

Hebrew and Greek

Old Testament.

No

ingenuity, no extent of

erudition will ever dispel

much

of that darkness, which

hangs over the Hebrew archetype.

est

Houbigant, the bold-

of

Hebrew

critics,

essayed in vain, by conjectural

difficulties.

alterations, to

throw light on these

Nor have

the efforts to restore the

LXX

been attended with more

favourable results.

Something, no doubt, has been acprogress

is

complished

but the

not sufficient to encou-

rage the hope, that the time will ever arrive,

obscurity will be removed.
lation,

when every
col-

The
is

patient

method of

though the slowest,

the safest and the best

at

All short, off-hand

Scriptures, are rash
voluit.

attempts,

illustrating

the Sacred

and

fruitless.

Haadfacilem esse viani

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
Testament.

New

Yet

this

can never be accomplished

conviction of their divine
version,

with success, but in the

parity.
it

full

To

treat

it

as a

human
is

and then

to collate

with inspired materials,

to build

upon the sand

to the

it is

to expose ourselves

and our labours,

merited scorn

of unbelievers.

Having devoted many

years, to

the continuous

and

ardent endeavour, to unite the study of the Greek

New
make

Testament with that of the Septuagint version of the

Old

may

be allowed, before quitting the world,

to

this earnest appeal, to justify

my

labours,

and

to manifest

the solidity of that foundation on

which they are

built

It

were not only labour

lost,

but mischievous, "to daub with

If
I

untempered mortar " the walls of Zion.

have passed

my

days, in vain, irrational, and hazardous efforts to con-

join the

Word
it

of

God

to

the

word of man,

if I

have

laboured to identify divine truth with

indeed,

human

error, then,

were a sad retrospect, and

still

sadder prospect.
I

But,
of
its

am

not yet convicted of mistake.

cannot forego

the desire, to combine the

sion of the

LXX,

nor to

New Testament with the veravow my full and firm conviction

The grounds
and laborious
of

Scriptural and canonical authority.

my

conviction are here presented to the Public.

They
in-

are the result of the most calm, patient

vestigation,

and

their truth

and importance are indelibly

impressed
Vos exemplaria Grseca,
Nocturna versate manu, versate diurna.

Yet, in the pursuit of this favourite object,

have never

sought to undervalue the study of the Hebrew original,

nor even to question
its

general superiority.

My

senti-

THE SEPTUAGINT.
ments are those of Capellus,*
that,

21

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

this version,

LXX
New

but, that

viewed in relation
if

to the

Testament,

becomes of equal,

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
of the

to explain it; yet the relative value

LXX

to the

exposition of the

New
It

Testament,

would remain

entire

and undiminished.

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

its

from

its

pages.

No

doubt or dispute, concerning

value,

in reference to the

Hebrew

text,

could affect

its

supreme

value and importance, in reference to the Hellenistic style

of the

New
still

Testament.

The
to

disciple of Christianity

would

be compelled
the

study the title-deeds of his

still

own
to

faith, in

LXX version. He would

be obliged

contemplate the language of Christ and his Apostles,

on the mirror of the Septuagint.

Dispute and

differ, as

we may, concerning
there can be

its

comparative value to the Hebrew,

its

no dispute, respecting

positive value, in

reoard to the records of our

own

relioion.

But, without depreciating in any degree, the value of

* Clitic. Sacr.

lib. iv.

cap. 16, p. 304. Edit. Par. 1650.

98
the

AN APOLOGY FOR
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 eslet

sential to a critical

knowledge of the

New

Testament,

no
of

man
it

be persuaded, by an affected scorn and contempt

its

as a version, to question

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
it

Testament.

On

examination,

it

will

be found, that
inferiority, in

possesses this

appearance of comparative

common
It is

with the

writings of the Evangelists and Apostles.

impossible

not to perceive, that there

is

a majesty and sublimity,

is

pervading the Old Testament, which

occasionally, in the

displayed, only

New.

This
still
is

arises, partly

from the

difference of language, but

more from that of thought

other,

and imagery.

The

one,

awful, the

amiable.

The
"

one,

is

sublime, the other, beautiful.

the thunders of Sinai
;

In the Old
in the

Testament,

we hear

New,

the still small voice " of love

and compassion.

Now,

if

the version of the

LXX

had retained
it

all

the

majesty and sublimity of the original,

could not have

approached
the

to

the more gentle and persuasive tone of

It
is,

New

Testament.

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.
translated out of

99

remark of the son of Sirach, that the same expressions,

Hebrew

into another language,

is

do not

retain their original

force,

often

exemplified in the

version of the
it.

LXX, and

has often been charged against

it

But,

if it

be an imperfection,

is

one which no

Christian can regret, because, without such modification,

we

could not apply

is

it,

to its

most important purpose.

It

chiefly in reference to the

is

New

Testament, that

the Christian divine

called on to read

and study the

its

Septuagint.

Its

peculiar value consists, in

being a
to the

vei^sion of the

Old Testament, expressly adapted

into the

New.
Greek.

It

is

Hebrew converted
its

same idiomatic
inferiority,

Whatever be

comparative
is

as

history of the
its

Old Testament,

amply compensated by

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
from
St.

to these learned writers, I think

we may
gifts in

infer,

Paul's account of the miraculous

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.
in

The

ancient Jews believed, that

Moses was favoured,

this respect,

above

all their

subsequent Prophets.

They

probably founded this opinion, on those passages of Scrip-


100
ture,
in

AN APOLOGY FOR
which
&c.
it

is

said,

that

God
to

spake unto Moses

face

to face J

See E.vod. awxiii. 11. Dent. a\rxiv. 10.

One, there was, and only one,

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

it

of prophetic predictions.
to the

In the other,

was confined,

power of recording

their predictions, in such ap-

propriate expressions, as should afterward accord with the

precise terms

and phraseology of the

New

Testament.
gift,

Perhaps

it

bore some resemblance to that miraculous

bestowed on some of the early believers, which consisted

"in the
to

interpretation of tongues"

We

have no desire

magnify these interpreters

into prophets.

The wisdom
work.- 'H?
al

imparted to them was

'^ixipoci

sufficient for their

(Tov,

l(TX'^i;

(Tov.

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

has been made,

to the

Alexandrian
;

translators,

we

arrive at this conclusion

that

it

was

sufficient to enable

them, to make such a version, as was

to

worthy of Jesus and the Apostles continually

quote

nay, such as was ordained, to provide for the whole doctrinal

phraseology of the

New

Testament.

Their inspi-

ration

was

verbal,

because they were interpreters, and

that verbal inspiration
far

not prophets.
to accord

But

was designed,

with the
writers,

higher inspiration of the

chiefly

New
their

Testament

who were

confined

to

THE SEPTUAGINT.
words, thoughts and expressions.
It
is

101

on

this theory-

only, I submit, that the verbal Inspiration of the

gelists

Evanintel-

and Apostles can be rendered consistent or

ligible.*

There

is

something wonderfully harmonious, when we

review the different stages of Divine Inspiration, as consecutively exhibited in the

Hebrew

text, in the

Version

of the

LXX, and

in

the

New

Testament.

The Hebrew

was a sacred language, and

spiration, of

it is

probable, that the Inprincipally i^eal

Moses and the Prophets was

and suggestive.
the

"They

spake, as they were

Inspiration of the

moved by
trans-

Holy
was

Spirit."

The
It

Greek

lators

verbal.

enabled them to adopt such words

and

expressions, as

might subsequently form the vocabuInspiration of the

it

lary of the

New Testament.The

New

Testament was of the highest order,

verbal.
It related

was both real and

alike to thoughts

and words, but the

these mysterious

words were taken from the

subjects, I

LXX. On

would speak with the deepest reverence and

This theory
is

humility.

submitted to the candid con-

sideration of the Christian

Church
it

but

it

is

submitted,

with a deep conviction, that

will

be found alike ac-

cordant with the spirit and letter of Sacred Scripture.^

" To the

Jeics,""

says St. Paul to the

Romans, "
is,

wei^e

committed the Oracles of God."

The

question

whether

the Apostle did not here include the

persion,
as well as those of Palestine

Jews of the Dis-

the

many, who

read the Greek Septuagint, as well as the few,

who

read

See Appendix, No.

1.5.

t Ibid.


102

AN APOLOGY FOR
Hebrew
which
is

exclusively the
Koyix, Oracida,
to denote the

Scriptures.

He

uses the term

frequently adopted by the

LXX,

Sacred Scriptures.

He was

addressing the

Christian converts in Italy, where none could read the

Scriptures of the

Old Testament, but

its

in the

Greek of the
Italic.

LXX,
tians

or in the Latin of
all

most ancient version, the

Nearly

his other Epistles are addressed to Chris-

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

LXX, or in some Latin version, " What saith the Scripture ?" translated from the LXX. " What says says St. Paul to the Romans, cap. iv. 5.
read them, either in the
the Scriptures^'" says St. Paul to the Galatians
in both passages, quoting the very
Is
it
?

iii.

6,

words of the

LXX.

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

i.

tribes,

scattered abroad in the Dispersion,

verts,

e. to all

Jewish con-

but those residing in Palestine.

These were notoSynagogues.

is

riously using

the Greek version in their

There

is

not a single quotation in this Epistle, which

not taken from the

the

LXX.

Could they
of,

believe, that,

when

Holy Scriptu7xs were spoken

so long adopted,

that very Version,

which they had

and which had brought

this title?

them
St.

to Christianity,

was not included under

first

Peter addresses his

Epistle, to the strangers

THE SEPTUAGINT.
(Minor) and Bithynia.

103

scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cajjpadocia, Asia

These were the Hellenistic conChurch.

verts to Christianity, the first-fruits of the

The

Greek language was very widely diffused amongst them,

though doubtless, every nation had some vernacular dialect 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
or

Epistle to the

Hebrews (whether
is

written
full

by Paul,

some other Apostle),

perhaps more

of quotation

and reference
of the

to the Septuagint,
It is

than any other portion

New

Testament.

a kind of mosaic, composed

of bits and fragments of the

in
this

LXX.

It is

only equalled,

respect,

by the speech of Stephen, before the

Jewish Council, which forms a compendium of the Old

Testament, drawn up in Septuagintal extracts.

Now,

would ask any impartial judge, whether, such numerous

citations,

from the Greek version of the Old Testament,

in

do not warrant us

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
its

still

re-

mainins' to be mentioned

On account of
ii.

obscure and

* Introduction, vol.

p. G4.

104

AN APOLOGY FOR
last

mysterious subject, the Apocalypse was the

into the

admitted

Canon, and was long supposed

other books of the

to

be extremely
its

unlike

all

New

Testament, even in

phraseology.
racter.

But
is

this is totally to misrepresent its cha-

There

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
it

notices, like those,

it

The Scripture

saith,

Thus

is

written, Sec. yet

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,

solicit the attention

to

which
i?i

would

of the reader.

I ivas

the Spirit,

says St. John, on the Lord's day, in the island of Pat-

mos.

This was a small island in the iEgean, one of

It

the Cyclades, of which, Delos was the most eminent.

is

not probable there was ever a word of

Hebrew

read, or

spoken, in that island.

As a proof

of this assertion,
is

we

may

notice, that the

Hebrew word Abaddon

for
it

interpreted

by the Greek Apollyon,

wise unintelligible.

would have been otherJohn, being in the Spirit,

Now,
and

St.

acting under the immediate influence of Divine Inspiration, selects the first
final letter

of the Greek alphabet,

as

a substitute for the word Jehovah.

He

also

ad-

dresses distinct Letters to the

in which, nothing but the

Churches of Asia Minor,

could have been under-

LXX
A

stood, in reading the Scriptures.

We
11,

ask, whether, the

adoption of the Greek

letters

for the

sacred and

unutterable nr^xy^diA^ixrov of the ancient Jews, would

not suggest to every convert, Jewish or Gentile, that
tlie

THE SEPTUAGINT.
Greek language was now raised
*
to

105
level

with

the

Hebrew, even on the most sacred and mysterious subjects

?

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.
i

It is

a question of infinite importance, in the

It
is

history
j

and records of Christianity.

a discussion,
If Christians
infidels

which cannot be long slighted or evaded.

I

will
j

not

satisfactorily

adjust

these

difl:erences,

will step forward to proclaim

and aggravate the anomaly.

Hoc Ithacus
The
tament,
safety

velit.

and

stability of the
its

Canon

of the

Old Testo
us,

depends on

having come down

to

in

unbroken succession, from the Jewish

Church,
in the

the Christian
in

same documents, read and explained

public worship.
reject this

Now, during
version, the
It

the

first

400

years, if

we

Greek

whole Christian Church held

a false Canon.

did not, indeed, deny the

;

Hebrew

to

be the original and authentic record

the

but

it

held also to
so to do,

Greek version, and

felt

that

it

was authorised

by the sanction of Christ and

his Apostles.

Should we

cast off this version, from entering into our

j

Canon, we

declare the primitive Church, to have been in error, and

we must abide
claration.
It is

the perilous consequences of such a de-

on

this

ground, that

rest

my Apology

Appendix, No. 13.

106
for the

AN APOLOGY FOR
Canonical claims of the

LXX. I
*

appeal to the

sanction of the primitive

Church

With

respect to the far

more important, though essenclaims

to

tially united, question, its

Scriptural authority,
its cita-

they should be tried solely, by an examination of

tion in the

New
on

Testament.

We

are quite

content to
If
it

rest the issue,

this Scriptural foundation.

can

be shown that these citations from the

spired, or

LXX

are not in-

do not imply the Inspiration of that version,

;

from which they are taken

rest, as far as believers are

then the question will be at

concerned.

Still, it will

never

satisfy the unbeliever.

to the authenticity of the

It will

remain a lasting objection

Testament.
It will

New

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

that they

in the latter,

must stand
most

or fall together.
part,

But those quota-

tions are, for the

made

directly from the

LXX,

and in their own words and expressions.

They pledge

the Evangelists and Apostles, to their exact force and

meaning.
spired,

If

you receive them,

as authoritative

and

in-

you secure the

stability of the
if

Old Testament,

as

well as of the

New

but

you accept them, as taken from

a merely

human
it

version,

you shake the authority of both.

it

Hence
best

has been the general opinion, that

is

the

and

shortest

method of proving the authenticity of the

* i\ppendix, N.ll.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
Old Testament,
to
rest
it

107
to
it,

on the attestations given

by Christ and the Apostles.

spiration

We

then assunie the In-

and authenticity of the

New

Testament, and on

that assumption,

we

infer the authenticity of the Old.

full

But
In-

no such assumption can hold good, unless the

spiration of the citations

and appeals

to the

Old Testarepeat, are

ment, be definitively granted.

Now

these,

we

principally in the words and language of the

less,

LXX.
And

Un-

therefore,

you assume the Divine authority of the

thus

LXX, you

cannot make good this argument.

the shortest and readiest the Old Testament,

is

mode of proving
lost.

the authority of

necessarily

But

if,

quitting party and

prejudice,

we endeavour
Greek

heartily to associate the

version,

Hebrew

original with the

if,

foregoing the disputes of Jerome and Austin,

of Walton and Hody, of Morinus and Vossius

to establish the

we seek
we should

Canon

of the Jewish, the Hellenistic, and

the primitive Church, on one standard

then,

compose and harmonize

all

differences,

and we might boldly

challenge the infidel to find any assailable breach in our

bulwarks.
prerogative

The Hebrew would

still

retain

its

essential

it

would be venerated

as the parent-stock,

not only of the

Its

LXX,

but also of the Greek Testament.

its

study would be indissolubly associated with

sa-

cred offspring.

We

should then no longer behold that

study, the covert and hiding-place of mysticism and neology.

as the

The Septuagint would resume

medium The

its

proper station,

of intercourse between the Old and

New

Testament
Gentile.

the

bond of union between the Jew and

and Apostles,

citations in the Evangelists

108

AN APOLOGY FOR
at

whether from the Hebrew or Greek, would

ceived, as of equivalent authority.

once be

re-

The Canon

of the pridis-

mitive

Church would be

justified,

and our apparent

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
as this

of the Greek version of the Old Testament.

But
were

was the channel, by which

to the

their forefathers

brought

knowledge of Christianity,

so

it is,

by no

means improbable,
of Israel

that, in the fulness of time, the residue

may

be taught to value and understand the

New

Testament, through their study of that Version, which was

so

much esteemed
would
find

by. the early Rabbins.

The idiom

of the

LXX

a ready interpreter in their minds and

that the

feelings,

and when they discovered,

New

Tes-

tament was formed of corresponding phraseology, they

would more readily embrace

of their ancient Scriptures.*

its

doctrinal interpretation

The attempts which have been made, both

later times, since the

in early

and

Reformation,

to

circulate

modern

Hebrew

versions of the

New

Testament amongst the

Jews, have never been attended with any considerable

success.

The cause
for.

of this failure

may be

easily ac-

counted

First, the natural prejudice of

reading such
is

a record, translated into

Hebrew by

Christians,

far too

strong to be often overcome.

Secondly, the modern He-

brew must always appear

worthy of a divine record.
*

faulty

and imperfect, and un-

Thirdly, the citations, being

See AlHx

On

the Ancient Jewish Church.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
chiefly taken from

109
to a
in-

the

LXX,

will

always appear

modern unconverted Jew,

veigle him.

translated on

purpose to

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

their

is

so highly

commended
pre-

by some of

most learned ancestors.

It is this

judice against the

LXX, which
is

forms the great obstacle

till

to their reading the

Greek Testament; and

little

this ob-

stacle be

surmounted, there

hope of

their conis

version to Christianity.

When

that difficulty

over-

come, the Christian Church will behold "the

veil

taken
"

away, " " the middle wall of partition broken down,

every prejudice against the

and

Gospel removed from the

Jewish mind.
This blessed Milennium,
land of promise,
firm belief,
I I

cannot hope to witness, this

cannot hope to enter.

But

it

is

my

the time will come,

will

when

the Jewish and

Christian

Canon

be arranged,

in perfect

harmony, with
there will

that of the primitive Christian

Church

when

no longer remain any controversy concerning the Hebrew

and the Septuagint, and when both

perfect union with the

will

be brought into

New

Testament.

When Ephraim
Ephraim,
shall set up an

shall not vex Judah,

this

and Jiidah

shall not ve.v

union will be accomplished.

to the

He

ensign
Israel,

nations,

and

shall assemble the outcasts of

the dispersed

and gather together

of Judah, from

the four corners of the earth.

The

ensign

may

probably
at the

be the same as

that,

which sounded the trumpet,

approach of Christianity.

Jesus

will

be owned to be


110

AN APOLOGY FOR
when he
is

the Jehovah of the Hebrews,

perceived to have

been the Lord

testimonies,

God

of the Hellenists

when, with united

they shall proclaim

Him
Omega

The First and

of St. John.
it is

Last of
But,

Isaiah,
it is

The Alpha and

the

important to remember, that

not indis-

pensable to the general conclusion, to pledge ourselves individually to any specific opinions, on several disputable and

uncertain points, which have been incidentally touched

on, in the course of this enquiry.
lieve, that

Whether, e.g. you be-

our Lord conversed with his disciples chiefly,

or in

in

Aramean,

Greek

whether you think the knowless,

ledge of Greek was more, or

prevalent in Judea
St.

whether you admit an Aramean, or Greek original of

Matthew

these

are, doubtless, interesting

and important

questions.
essential

But, however determined, they can have no

influence on the argument.
It will only add,

or subtract, a link in the chain of inquiry.

If

you

believe, with Diodati

and many
it

others, that Jesus

invariably used the

Greek language,

will not surely dimi-

nish your respect for the phraseology of the

LXX,
to

nor

in-

dispose you to acknowledge

its

claims to Divine authority.

If,

on the other hand, you believe, according

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.

that peculiar phraseology, as the vehicle

The

selection of

which distinguishes the

LXX,

of Divine Inspiration, will communicate

to

that

Inspiration
is

the text,
to

from which
all

it

emanates.
of differ-

It

impossible

hint at

the

shades

THE SEPTUAGINT.
ence, in the opinions of

Ill

men

of learning and research, on

;

these obscure and speculative topics

to

but

it is

satisfactory

know, such

is
it

the strength and comprehension of this

argument, that

cannot be materially affected by any

of these subordinate variations of opinion.

Nor

is it

indispensable, to credit the account of Aristeas.

to

Suppose, with Hody, that account

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 ChristiI

anity

its

identity with the idiom of the

citations

New

Testament

its

numerous

its

universal reception by the

early Fathers, &c.

Though
also, in

the entire argument be cu-

mulative, yet

it

is

some degree, a chain of conits

nected
other,

links.
its

In the one, you estimate

weight, in the

strength and beauty.

Make
But

your choice.

Much

will

depend on previous enquiries, much on the nayour mind.

to a calm, honest,

tural complection of

and deliberate enquirer, the

result will be

much

the same.

He
he
the

will

be

led,

by the same current,

to the

same haven,

will

acknowledge the united and associate authority of

the Septuagint, as the texture of the

Hebrew and

Old

Testament Canon.

As
it

regards the general state of the text of the

late researches of

LXX,

would appear, from the

Holmes and

Parsons, to be

much on

a parity, with that of the

Hebrew
After

of the Old Testament, or the Greek of the

New.*

Appendix No.

7.


112

AN APOLOGY FOR
many thousand
all.

the collation of
ral

manuscripts, the gene-

result

is

the same in

There are numerous deof transcribers, but

viations,

occasioned by the errors

they seldom affect the sense.

city of the

As

to the general authentito

LXX, though
is it,

it

was suspected by Justin

have been corrupted by the Jews, the charge was never

proved, nor
in

any degree, credible. The Jews could

era,

have no wish, before the Christian

version
;

to corrupt this

and they could have no power, afterwards.

Archbishop Usher had a strange hypothesis, that the Original version

that a second

was destroyed by the

fire

of the Pharos, and

was made about the time of Cleopatra. But

his hypothesis

was never received with any

ii.

favour.

See

Grabe's Proleg. tom.

of the

Prop.

1.

That our
which
is

present text

LXX

is

the

same

as that,

so repeatedly
that,

quoted in the

New

Testament, and the same as

which

Philo has inlaid with his numerous treatises on the Old

Testament,
fore us.
It

is

as plain as

any

fact,

which can be

set be-

forms no part of this Apology, to account for the

many and
Hebrew

important discrepances, which exist between the

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
certain,

LXX

translated from unpointed

MSS.

is

almost

and many of these discrepances may be explained,

Still,

on that supposition.
tions,

a large number of transposiwill

omissions, and
for.

some additions

remain unac-

counted

That many of these were coeval with the era

is

of Christianity,

plain,

from the citations in the

New

Tes-

THE SEPTUAGINT.
tament, which occasionally verify them.
fairly

113

They cannot be
LXX,
many

urged against the Scriptural authority of the

wherever they are thus supported by Divine authority.

But even where

this

cannot be adduced, there are

passages, in w^hich,

it is

granted, that the reading of the

LXX

is

better, than that of

still

our present Masoretic

text,

whilst a

larger

number of Septuagintal
Hebrew.*

difficulties

may be

obviated, by following the

The

result

to every impartial

mind

is

this

that they mutually re;

quire the friendly aid and assistance of each other

that,

and
form-

by

this friendly co-operation, they

combine

in

ing the only com.plete 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
it

on many other

points of Divine Revelation.

sible, that the

Suppose

had been posliteral,

version should have been so plain and

;

as

not

to

admit of any disputes

the

Hebrew would
There

then, probably, have

sunk

into

entire neglect.
its

could have been no motive to enter on

supposition
is

study.

But the
literal

unnatural.

However

plain

and

the
are

version might have been, so long as

differently constituted, there
for difference of opinion.

human minds

must have been ample scope

Without a miracle, the Heto us, as intelligible as to

brew could never have been made

the Greek.
all

Suppose the miracle

have made them,

;

in

respects, alike,

and of equal authority

one of them

Grabii Proleg. torn.

ii.

26-33.

114
in
all

AN APOLOGY FOR
probability

would have perished.

Witness the

Hebrew Our

original of

Matthew, or the Hebrew archetype

of Josephus's " Jewish Wars."

writers on the

Canon,

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

it

established their precise number.

to

But,

is

as

much

essential

the

Canon,

to

show
early

the quality, as the quantity of the record.

The

Christian Church, by using the

LXX

for the first

400

years in their public worship, established that version,

de facto, as canonical.
secular and uninspired,

If

we

set aside that version, as

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

afiirm, that

ourselves and others,

if

we

we

hold the same Canon, unless

we

also sup-

port their sentiments, by including the Greek version, in

our own.*

Though
the

it

be not

essential,

to

read

the version of are

LXX

in

our public worship, yet

we
its

bound

to

agree with them, in acknowledgment of

canonical authority.
astical unity, to
It is

Scriptural and

a breach, a schism, in ecclesi-

denounce as uncanonical in the modern

in the

Church, that which was proclaimed as canonical,

primitive.

In the controversy on this subject, which was carried

on between Cappellus and the younger Buxtorf,t the

* See Stuart on the Definition of the Canon. Sect. 2. Appendix
xi.

Buxtorfii Anti-Critic, p. 154. Basil, 1653.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
text, w^ith

115

former had charged the exclusive advocate of the Hebrew-

holding the primitive Church in contempt, and

as neglected

treating

it,

and cast

off

by God, from being

confined to the Septuagintal text of the

Old Testament.
v\^ent

To

this

Buxtorf

replies,

that he,

by no means,
it

to this

extreme

but that he w^as of opinion,

was a

special blessing to the later

Church, that

it

was indulged

with a knowledge of the

Hebrew

text

and language.

Now, thus
further.
spiritual
w^ith
I

far

am most

anxious to join him, but no

cannot admit, that the

LXX

ceases to be of

and canonical authority, because we are blessed

the additional light of the

Hebrew.
it

Even

as

question of

mere human

criticism,

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,
is

by

its

adoption in the
I

New

Testament, every doubt

removed.
ith

It

then arises before us, stamped and countersigned w

the same authority, as that which superintended the writings of

Moses and

the Prophets, of the Evangelists and

Apostles.

For these and similar reasons,

cannot agree with the

learned Professor Lee, in the low estimate which he has

formed of the present

state of the Septuagintal text.

strict

It

never was designed, as Walton observes, for a

literal
it

and

version of the

Hebrew
in

Bible,

In some respects,

was a paraphrase,
the

others an abridgment, adapted

to

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
Testament.
is,

New

Nulliis dub'ito, says the learned Profes-

sor,* qiiin

qui hanc versionejn ad pristinum

eat,

suum

nito-

rem restitutum
esse debuerit.
state of the

viribus

plusquam humanis prceditus

This supposed perfection of the original

Alexandrian version, as a perfect copy of the

Hebrew

text, I believe, to
it

be altogether imaginary.
it

That

we have
age,
is

much

in the state, as

was

in the Apostolic

evident alike
It is also

from Philo, and the

New

Testa-

ment.

proved, from the collations of the

MSS.
appro-

which

exliibit little
is

more, than the errors of transcribers.!

The Septuagint
priate objects,

the

Hebrew
are, in

Bible, modified to

its

which

many

respects, characteristic

and peculiar.

Its variations are, therefore,

I

not always to

be designated, as mistakes and blunders.

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
It affects at

that,

concerning the

Apocryphal writings.

once the interpretation

of the Old, and the inspiration of the

If the

New

Testament.

LXX
to

be not of Scriptural authority, then we have

apply that version, either to the correction of

no right

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.

need not

reiterate the

Proleg. Polyglott. Bagst. p. 56. 19.

f Appendix, No.
1.5.

7.

X Appendix, No.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
various arguments already adduced.

117
to this

They tend

general inference, that

if

the authority of the

it

LXX

be not
to

assumed

as sacred

and

divine,

will

be very hazardous
Testament.

assert the plenary Inspiration of the

New

short

and easy method may be adopted

Let an English

to test this

conclusion.

New

Testament be printed,

in which, all the citations

in Italics.
It will

from the

LXX

shall

be given

then be in the power of every reader,

matter, contained

to estimate the

quantum of Septuagintal
;

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
the

New

Testament exactly or substantially agree with

they

LXX, (however

may

agree with the Hebrew),

should be put down, to the Greek version.

There has

been much unfairness,

am

sorry to observe, in

comto

puting the comparative number of citations, as relative

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
is

Greek

version.

The Hebrew,

in

such

in-

stances,

clearly

more remote from the Greek Testament,

than the Alexandrian version, which contains the ipsissima

verba*
* Appendix, No. 2.

118

AN APOLOGY FOR
collate

When we

Greek with Greek, we can detect the

and enter
into the minutest

nicest variations of expression,

shades of meaning

but

when we

collate

Greek with
then collate
It is

Hebrew,

it

becomes a very

different task.

We

two languages, which have no cognate connexion.

seldom we can so
far identify the exact
it

import of any

Hebrew word,

as to assert, that
in

exactly tallies with the

arises the difficulty

corresponding word
of determining,

Greek.

Hence

how

far

any quotation agrees, or disagrees,

it

with the Hebrew.

Whereas,
it

is

a plain matter of fact

and
It

vision,

whether

agrees, or not, with the

to

LXX.
if

would be needless

make such remarks,

the ex-

isting prejudice against the Septuagint,

under the per-

verse notion of exalting the Hebrew, did not compel

to undertake its defence

me

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
I

are thousands of

expressions and thoughts, in the

after the

New Testament,
it

modelled
re-

Old Testament,
I

to

whicli

have made no
be
fair

ference."'^Now,

again submit, whether

or

candid, in such observations, to

make an
to pass

exclusive refer-

ence

to

the

Hebrew

text,

and

by that Greek
and expressions,
the exact
if

version, in which, the identical words,

are found

How

could

we have determined
Hebrew

meaning and import of such thoughts and expressions,

they had not been translated out of
into

Greek,

On

the Canon, p. 315.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
and then verbally appropriated and
rity of the
ratified,

119

by the autho-

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 Northare calcu-

American Neologists.

Such

interpretations

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

studies.

and temperate improvement of theological

But,

when

infidelity

and scepticism are the consequences of

;

pursuing Biblical researches

it

is

full

time to pause,

and consider the origin of

it,

this strange result.

How

is

that the

most sacred studies have recently so often

led to the most unholy, unscriptural,

clusions ?f

and

infidel

con-

But, even

when

these pursuits are not pushed to such

it

disastrous extremes,

may be
The
its

reasonably doubted, whe-

ther they can practically promote the real

knowledge of

the Sacred Scriptures.

value of Biblical learning

must consist

chiefly, in

certainty

and precision

but

* See extracts from Bp. Pearson, Appendix, No.

8.

f Appendix, No. 16.

120

AN APOLOGY FOR
when
the study of
is

there can be no certainty or precision,

language

confounded with metaphysical speculation.

Ingenious theories, based on merely subjective principles,

have no connexion with studies, which relate to

It is

sound and sober theological investigation.

ters

on mat-

of fact, not on mental theories, that our Biblical reIf

searches should depend.

you contrast the learning and

dis-

acquirements of our elder Divines, with those which

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 of their descendants

is

that

sentimental and poetical, and con-

sequently, often fanciful and fictitious.

Now,
I

this difference

may,

in a great

measure, be traced,

apprehend, to our neglect of that Greek version, which

forms the chief bond of union between the study of the

Old and
to

New

Testament, and which imparts a solidity

it

that

study, that

otherwise cannot possess.

is

The
its

Bible being one whole,

so constituted, as to form
text
is

own

best interpreter.

The Hebrew

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

suffers, all the

members

suff'er ivith

it*

The

position of the

LXX,

as a version

made by men,

* See Grabe's Prolegomena,

torn,

ii

prop. \ii.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
inferior to the

121

rank of prophets,

is

naturally the most ex-

posed

to attack.

Though

it

may
it

seem, at

first

sight, the

weakest and most vulnerable,

forms the centre of the

camp.
it

It is

a version, but the strength and honour which

has derived, from being incorporated with the

it

New
as

Testament, raise

to its full

and legitimate standard,

its

an Archetype. Whatever be

apparent imperfections or
its

blemishes, they are lost in the glory of

being owned
If even

and adopted by Jesus and the Apostles.

version of Isaiah,

the

which

is

deemed the most unworthy of

tlie

the

LXX,

be worthy of repeated citation in

it

New

Testament,

cannot surely be despised or rejected by any

Christian commentator.

But,

if

the suggestion

which

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
its

against

it,

and subdue every

All

discontented emotion to

power and authority.

other arguments look poor, feeble, and unaffecting, com-

pared

to the

example of Him, who deigned

it,

to sanction

and commend
ers.

to the especial attention

of his followaffecting,
it

Whilst

this suggestion is

incomparably

strengthens and corroborates every other in

its train.

It

explains the citations of the Evangelists and Apostles, as

taken chiefly from this version.

of the primitive Church.
It

It

accounts for the canon

difficulty,

harmonises every

nay, converts every difficulty, into another evidence.

As

a mere hypothesis,
attention.

it

is

deserving of the most serious

that
it

It is so credible,

commends

itself,

with-

122

AN APOLOGY FOR
when once
it

out any laborious research, and so natural, that

conceived,

can scarcely be forgotten.*

To

estimate the value of the

LXX

version fairly and

impartially, w^e should consider the

express objects and

It

purposes, for which

it

was designed.

was not designed

to

to display the glories of the

Jewish theocracy, nor

perpetuate the distinction between the

It
Its

Jew and

Gentile.

was intended,

as the herald of

*'

the better covenant."

relation

predominant value consisted,

in its ulterior

to the Christian faith,

and

in

drawing that relationship

ori-

more

closely,

than could have been effected by the

a vei^sion,
it

ginal text.
state,

As

it

was adapted

to that transition-

in
it

which

was composed.

Like the ministry of

better tidings.

John,
It

was the herald and harbinger of

was

not that light, but

was

sent to bear witness of that

literary

light.

Had
perhaps

it it

been more perfect, as a

composi-

tion,

would not have accomplished the object

of

its

mission.
text will ever retain
its

The Hebrew

own

essential

and

indestructible value.

Imagine

it

to

have perished, and

neither the Septuagint, nor the

Greek Testament, could

command

our consent.

As
is

the original

Magna

Charta

of Revelation, that record

the Mosaic economy, with
pass

sublimely unique.

But

as
to

all its glories,

was destined

away

so

the knowledge of the Hebrew language

was ordained

to suffer

an

eclipse,

when

the

beams of the
the darkened

Sun

of Righteousness began to

dawn upon

Gentile.

The morning-star was

the Hellenistic version.

Appendix No.

17.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
It

123

created twilight amidst the surrounding gloom.

it

DeIt is

spise

not, for

its

apparent verbal imperfections.

it

those imperfections, which connect

with the style and

phraseology of the Evangelists and Apostles.

despise
it

Above
is

all,

not,
it

because

it

is

a version.

It

only as a
of the

version, that

could reflect light, on the

Hebrew

Old, or on the Greek of the New, Testament.*

The importance
revelation,
it

of plainness and precision in a written

is

should be remembered,

of a very different

order and magnitude, than that, which can attach to a

merely

human

composition.

Whether we
is

correctly under-

stand any passage of Plato or Aristotle,

comparatively of

no value, when estimated by such a standard.

example,
rifies

Thus,

for

when

it is

asserted

by the

latter,

that

Tragedy pu-

the

mind by

the emotion of pity

its

we may acquiesce
all

in

academic doubt respecting

exact import, and be

content to flutter round the meaning, without arriving

at

any clear and

distinct opinion.

So

the disputes of
ivnxixiiocf

commentators, respecting the exact meaning of

may be viewed

as of little consequence, in the present state

of philosophic speculation.

But

it is

not

so,

with the words

to

and doctrines of a Revelation, professing

diately from
record, then

come immein

Heaven.

Every doctrinal word,

such a

becomes of the highest and most imperish-

able value.

We

require a key,

which may unlock

to

its

hidden
force,

meaning, which
transfer
it

may convey

us

its

original

and
is

whole and unimpaired.

The "Holy

Spirit"

doubtless the highest teacher, but that Divine

See Dean Graves on the Pentateuch. Ltct.

v.

Part. in. Sect. 2.

124
Spirit operates
fore
it is

AN APOLOGY FOR
through the Holy Scriptures, and thereof inestimable importance, that

we

should attain

to the

pure and unadulterated import of the written word.

the inspired authority of the Septuagint, and you

Admit

possess exactly the

sistance.

medium

required for this Divine as-

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,
literal
is

which do

not exactly agree with the literal meaning of the

text.

Hebrew
le-

In the Greek version, the

import of the

gal or sacrificial ceremonial terms

lated.

seldom exactly trans-

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

exclusive advocates of the

Jews, and also by

many

He-

brew

text.

But the Septuagint was designed, not merely Old Testament, but
It

as a version of the

as a doctrinal into chano^e the

troduction to the

New.

was desio^ned

Hebrew

into tlie

Hellenist,

by gradually enlarging
letter,

his

conceptions.

When

the Apostle speaks of the

as

opposed

to the spirit,

when he speaks
marked

of " the beggarly

it is

elements," or of "Sinai, which gendereth to bondage,"

probable, that he alludes to this
that Version
distinction

between

which he quoted, and that Original, which

he passed by.
literal

Certain

at least

it

is,

that if the strictly

and ceremonial language of the Hebrew text had

it

been always depicted in the Greek version,

would not
Testa-

have formed that doctrinal vocabulary

ment, which

to the

New

now

constitutes

its

hio^hest value.

THE SEPTUAGINT.
This sentiment was
fathers,
felt

125
fore-

and acknowledged by our

by such men,

as

Walton, Pearson, Grabe, and

Pocock, nay, even by Archbishop Usher, who, though

in

some degree, unfriendly

its

to the

LXX,
:

yet has candidly

admitted
test^
illo

high claims to authority

et

Negari non

'po-

turn

ex Hellenistarum
e.v

primitivorum Christianorwn

consensu, turn

Apostolicd hac a-vynocTx^dia-H,

ad GrcB-

cam istam editionem, 7nagnum

Syntagm. cap.
esteemed, that
rity.

auctoritatis pondus accesslsse.

little is this

3, p.
it is

29.

Yet, so
its

version

now

never considered of canonical authoinspiration, is to

To

hint at

its

awaken a smile of

scorn and contempt.

Nay,

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,

a breach has been effected in the
Scriptures
?

when such

Canon

of the sacred
its

To

divest the Septuagint of

is

Scriptural

rank and dignity,

to inflict the deepest injury

on the
It
is

study both of the Old, and the New, Testament.

to deprive
it

our Canon of

its

syllogistic force.

In the Old,

leaves us without rudder or compass, to track our de-

vious course to a language, which ceased to be vernacular

more than 700 years before the Christian

it

era.

In the

New,
heard

resigns us to a style of Greek,

which was never

of,

but in connexion with the Hebrew idiom.

Neg-

lect or

undervalue the

LXX, and you have thrown away

Should you
at-

the key, to unlock this sacred treasury.

tempt, without that aid and guide, to bring a

Hebrew

word

to illustrate a doctrinal

term

in the

New

Testament,

126

AN APOLOGY FOR
affix to
it

you may

almost any meaning.

The terms rightor

eousness, faith, repentance, atonement, J ustijication, sancti-

Jication, Redeemer,

Holy

Spirit,

may be heightened
sacred
titles

lowered, almost indefinitely.

The most

may

become
all

secular.
studies.

Thus doubt and

obscurity will perplex

your

Hence we

infer, that,

much

of the wild disorder and

confusion, which
ists,

now

reigns amongst continental Hebra-

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

Pharos.

light of the Alexandrian

fro

This light conducted the mariner to and

to

from Egypt
to

Jerusalem, and

it

securely enabled

him

hazard

all

the perils of the iiEgaean

and Adriatic*
consti-

To drop
the

the figure

it

was the Septuagint, which

tuted the beacon, by which, our elder divines traversed

history of

Moses and the Patriarchs.

still

It

is

the

same beacon, which must

haven.
If

conduct us

to that distant

we attempt

to substitute

ingenious specula-

tions, or learned etymologies,

we

shall only

be deceived by
inventions,"

our

own

mirage, and " follow after our

effect of relying chiefly

own

The moral

on a version, made
to

by Divine authority, or of attempting

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. Load. 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
and ready
to

puffeth up.

In the other,
mean
is

we

are humble,

yield to that superior teaching,

which cometh from above.

We do not
ties,

to

imply any prostration of

human

facul-

but theie

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
and

cannot urge

this, as

a direct argument, because

it

assumes

the point at issue,

version.
reflecting

viz.

the Divine authority of the Greek

But,

it

will find its

It

echo

in every serious

mind.

tends to intimate the existence of some

It

inspired instrument.
left

tends to prove, that

to

we

are not
to

without a sacred interpreter,

guide and aid us

understand the

Word

of God.

The Holy

Scriptures revolve on their

own

axis.

They

do not disdain indirect assistance, from secular investigations

;

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
this aid,

and be our scholarship

what

it

may, without
is

we have

lost that sacred

amalgam which

essential to their unity.

The study

of the

Word

of

God can
in itself.

never be safely or
the

successfully prosecuted,
It
it

by the study of

word of man.

must begin, and terminate, must be

its

In other words,
this

own

interpreter.

Now,
is

interpreter,

both of the Old and

New

Testament,

personified in the

128

AN APOLOGY FOR
it it

Septuagint, because
Its citations

relates equally to both records.

connect

with Evangelists and Apostles

in-

whilst

it

belongs to Moses and the Prophets, as their

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. that their whole vocabulary
is
it

Hence

it

is,

composed of Septuagintal
was destined
to

words and phrases

because

bring the

Jew and
Israelites

the Christian into the

same

fold.*

Whilst the
dis-

were treated, as a separate and distinct people,

their peculiar

the

Hebrew language was

It

badge and

tinction.

was an admirable language

But,

for

keeping them

apart from other nations.

when

that purpose
into

was
the

accomplished, the

Hebrew was melted down

retaining
its

Greek of the

LXX still

own

characteristics,

under Greek symbols.

These symbolic

characteristics are

countersigned, recognised, and ratified on every page of

the Greek Testament.

Throughout
finger of
It

this entire process,

we may

discern the

God, and

the

impress of Divine inspiration.

brings

down

to us the

most ancient of languages in

is

a living form, but that form

peculiar to the Bible.

to

It is the

Hebrew, softened
is

into Hellenistic Greek.

The

interpreter

the Septuagint.

If we

desert

and forego

that interpreter,

we

are left to the traditions of Jews, or

the study of hieroglyphics.

* Appendix, No. 15.

129

THE SEPTUAGINT.
It is

seldom considered by the exclusive advocates of

text, that
it

the
ing-

Hebrew

depends entirely on our remain-

knowledge of that language, whether we are compeit,

tent to study
to

apart from the

LXX.

It is

of

little

use

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

is

understand Greek, by

its

own

transparent light,

a fact

which no one can deny.

the
its

The number
and

of the authors,
all

amount of

its

glossaries

lexicons,

vouch
it

for

accurate tradition and development.

But

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.

true, that

It is

nothing can please an ambitious, or inventive

dialects, or excogi-

mind, more than groping into cognate

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 scep-

and patient
ticism,

investigation, to a state of doubt

is

which

altogether unfavourable to the student of

Divine revelation.

Hence

it is,

that

we hear of

the myths and allegories,

dire," of the

"the Gorgons, Hydras, and Chimeras

Ger-

man and American

commentators,

who

scarcely condeIts study,

scend, even to mention the Alexandrian version.

in connection with the
their excesses, their

Hebrew

text,

would serve

to restrain

and

to act as a barrier

and bulwark against

overwhelming speculations.
Such Learning, hoodwinked
first,

and then

beguil'd,

Looks dark as Ignorance, as Fancy, wild.

130

AN APOLOGY FOR
is it

Nor

probable, that

we

shall return to the sober

till

and

solid erudition of our forefathers,

we

return to their

reverence and esteem of this sacred record.

the Preces

Look

into

P rival ce

of the learned and excellent Bishop

will soon discover,

Andrews, and you

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

admirer.

its

student and

Nay,

am bound

to

acknowledge, that Mr.

Scott in his

Commentary, has proved himself a worthy

In the course of
all his

pupil of the same Alexandrian masters.

my
nal

Septuagintal labours,
references to the

have examined

margi-

Old Testament, and found them

text of the

chiefly illustrated

by the

LXX.

The

University of Oxford has done itself great honour,

in exemplifying this
to the primitive

comprehensive and catholic regard

of the

Canon

Old Testament, by

setting
reit

forth

the

Hebrew Bible

of Kennicott,

and more

cently, the Septuagint of

still

Holmes and Parsons.

But

remains a desideratum, to behold the Greek Version

its

raised to

proper rank, as a prominent object of acaSurely

it is

demical study.

not too

much

to expect, that

public prelections should be statedly given on this subject,

it

from the chair of some of the Professors

and that

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 Universities

;

still

less, in

the Episcopal examinations for Holy

to the

Orders.

It is

much

honour of the learned Bishop

Maltby, that he has raised the study of the

LXX,

in the

THE SEPTUAGINT.
I

131

University of Durham, to a distinct topic of examination.

have reason

to know^, that

it

occupies a considerable por-

tion of attention,

in

many

of the theological dissenting

for

academies.

It

would be no disgrace

Oxford or Cam-

bridge, to pursue the

same course,

in their theological ar-

rangements.

The
of the

late

eminent Doctor Arnold introduced the reading

LXX

amongst the seniors

at

Rugby, and

it is

ear-

nestly to be desired, that his

in all our public schools.
for

example should be

follow^ed

That youths, intended expressly

w^ith

Holy Orders, should be conversant

every variety

of Greek, but that, in w^hich the

LXX

and the

New

Tes-

tament are composed,

is

indeed a monstrous anomaly.

off

Yet are there numbers, who can read

Lycophron and

Pindar, construe the most difficult passages of Thucydides,

unthread the maze of Greek Choruses, and compose

gant Greek and Latin verse,
into that Version of the

ele-

who have never once looked

grammar

Ancient Scriptures, which forms

the only correct and canonical introduction to the

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

It

differ-

ence between classic and Hellenistic Greek.*

would

temper their love and admiration of the poets, orators,

* Appendix, No. 8.

132

AN APOLOGY FOR
historians of
is

and

pagan
due

antiquity, with the far higher

esteem, which

to the

language of the " prophets

as tliey

and holy men, who spake,

were moved, by the

it

Holy Ghost." Without impairing

classical taste,

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

Patriarchs, Evangelists,

artless

and simple

style of

and Apostles.

To
may
let

know how
blend with

gracefully the highest classic attainments

the admiration and study of Hellenistic lore;

them follow

the example, and meditate the Prelections of Valckenaer.

His

critical taste

and

classic

attainments are acknowliterature.

ledged by every lover of Greek

the morning of his
life,

He

devoted
:

to the

study of the

LXX
me
;

" In

Grac'is

istis Bibliis,

diim juventa vigebam, a

diligenter

tractatis^ sercenta possent s'nnUia demoiistrari

sed qiiam

paiici hoc

tempore talia

sibi

monstrarl

desiderarent.'"'

Theoc. Eidyll. pp. 229, 230.

Alas

that
I

we must

still

mourn over

the

same

indifference

but

should be undid not confess

worthy even of mentioning his name,

if I

how much

am

indebted to his Hellenistic labours.*

Let us not despair.

The

time has arrived for a far

more intimate study of

in this country,

patristic

theology than existed

during the

last century.

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,

tations of Scripture are based.

all their

interpre-

Much
No.
10.

as

we may lament

* Appendix,


THE SEPTUAGINT.
to see

133
I re-

this

study occasionally perverted and abused,

it

joice to think,

must be overruled,

to the great

and paraproper
sin-

mount end of bringing back the Septuagint,

to its

and primitive standard of Scriptural authority.

gle consideration, that
this Version, departs

The

whoever neglects or undervalues

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
Latin Fathers,

is
till

founded on the

LXX

nor did the

in less esti-

a degenerate age, hold

it

mation.

The

passions and prejudices of Jerome should

not be allowed to counterbalance their combined authority

;

nor the subsequent value of the Vulgate, to depre-

ciate the anterior value of the

LXX.

How should a Latin

before

version,

made 400 years

Greek

after the Christian era, superversion,

sede the value of the

it?

made 300 years

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 rememmoderation and sobriety.

objects,
to

bered only,
other,

to teach us

We

have

and

far

more important
of the

engage our

attention.

"

The Books

New

Testament," as Dr.

Davidson remarks,

in the Preface to his learned " Intro-

duction," " are destined ere long to pass through a severe

134
ordeal.

AN APOLOGY FOR
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 "harbour of refuge" consists, in boldly

acknowledging the Canon of the early Church,

amplitude.
fidels

in all

its

We

must provide against the attacks of

in-

and

neologists,

by avowing our hearty belief in the

entire Inspiration of the

Old and

New

Testament, not by
it

abandoning the Septuagint, but combining

with the

Hebrew Canon.

We

must defend the Inspiration of the

New

Testament, by fearlessly defending the Inspiration of

that Record, from

citations,

which

it

derives the great

body of

its

and

all its

doctrinal phraseology.

This cannot be

effected, without considering the

Greek
identi-

version, as an essential element of the

Canon, by

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

itself will

nay, the Hebrew

But,
let

become the ambush

in the

for

our enemies.

them " walk together

them aid each other

House of God,

as friends," let

in their diflSculties,
all their

enjoy their mutual

triumphs, and bring

of the Gospel
false learning
;

trophies to the illumination

effort

and we may securely defy every and vain philosophy.

of

The concentrated
which may be

light of Inspiration will irradiate our Biblical researches.

Even

the difficulties and discrepances,

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.
In the study of the

135
is

Old Testament, there

confessedly

much

obscurity,

and such ample scope

that,

for the

indulgence

of imagination and conjecture,

apart

from some
track our

authorised and Scriptural guide,

we can hardly

path

through that labyrinth, to the land of Promise.

it is,

True

that

we have

the

and by

steadily

comparing

New Testament in our hands, the New with the Old Disout of darkness, and emerge

pensation,

we may bring light

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

all

LXX,

we

are again thrown back, on

text.
It
is

the obscurities of the

is

Hebrew

then, that imagination

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. by supposed

discoveries,

The mind becomes

elated

or depressed

by surrounding

difficulties, or unsettled
It
is

by unceasing contradictions.
and dubious twilight, that the

in this perilous

Greek Version
too

offers its friendly aid to all,

who

are not
It

proud and independent

to

welcome

its

succours.

offers to unveil

the darkness of a language, which was

It

spoken more than 4000 years ago.

brings that lan-

guage
It

into union with the writings of the

New Testament.

cuts in twain the distance,

by presenting us with a

version
it

2000

years old. Thus, like the centre of an army,

its

sustains both the flanks, and

loss or safety,

is,

defeat or

victory.

136

AN APOLOGY FOR
is

Such
tuagint."
I

the argument of this

"Apology

for the

Sep-

Whilst

fearlessly declaring
to give offence to

my own

sentiments,
to pro-

have endeavoured

no one, and

voke no angry feelings.

Let the question be discussed

I

with calmness and impartiality, and

version of the

doubt not the Greek

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.
confession,

Nor am
It

unwilling to make that

m}'^ life

my

own.

has been the labour of

to

furnish the details, on which, this

I

Apology
to

is

based, and
vindicate

am

thankful, that
It

have survived,

avow and

its

principles.
this

gives

me

heartfelt pleasure to reflect,

that, in

my
it

last effort to illustrate

the evidence of
object, to esta-

Christianity,
blish the

has been
of the

my

sole

aim and

Canon
text,

Old Testament, by the union of the

Hebrew

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 priits

its

mitive Church, but the recognition of

sanction.

No-

thing will degrade the Septuagint from

if

Canonical rank,

we

believe, that Jesus himself

was taught and educated


THE SEPTUAGINT.
in
its

137
its

study.

On

the other hand, the Original, from

this co-operative aid.

acknowledged obscurity, demands

Surely, then, this treaty of union and concord

may be
which
it

reis

ceived in that spirit of peace and charity,

in

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
is

desire only that unity

and integrity of

alliance,

which

alike essential to the peace of the

Church, and

to the safety of tlie

Canon.

paribus

se legibus

amb(s

Invictce gentes ceterna infosdera mittant.

DE
veyidico

hisce,

prout potuitniis, disputammus.

lingucc

Accurutius hariim

rerum examcn perilioribus

a/icuhi de se agtioscit

Hebraica dereluiquo.

Quod euim
:

Erasmus, id de viemet uigenue

In Uteris Hebraicis pnrum mihi

fateor ego atque etiam projiteor.

utpote quas adhuc degustarim polius (si

didicei'itn.

modo degusnoii

tarimj, quiim
lihet cvjuslibet

Jure poscii hoc argumentum,

quam-

operam, non tyrunculorum, aut etiam mediocriter

doctorum, sed
Ilorliiis

summam eorum

qui primas in his Uteris tenent.

I.

De

Vers. Grsec. Pars.

cap. 2. 82.

x^1

APPENDIX.
No.
1.

[OR

general information on the subject of the

LXX,
I

after the classical

work of Hody, consult Bp. WalIn this Apology,

ton's

Ninth Prolegomeno7i.

wish to be considered, as maintaining the same opinions, as are therein laid

down and

established, with

some
It

slight
is

modification of his sentiments concerning Aristeas.

noble collection of every thing which

esting subject.
at issue
this

is

valuable,

on

this inter-

Whoever

desires to

become master of the points

will

between Augustine and Jerome,

thoroughly digest

admirable Dissertation.
his favourable sentiments

For

towards the

LXX,

Bp. Walton

by the celebrated Dr. John Owen, whom he thus answers, in his " Considerator Considered," c. ix. 15.

was
"

violently attacked

Of

this translation,

we have

written at large, Proleg. ix. which,

for its antiquity

and hoary

hairs, is

most opposed by
it

all

NoveHsts,

though

it

be proved, in the same Proleg. that

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
it

than the Hebrew text, and thereby consecrated

that

to posterity;
left

by

this translation chiefly,

(which was by the Apostles

to the
tiles,

Church of
first

Christ), the

Church, especially among the Genit

was

gathered, and by
;

nourished and built up, and

the world subdued to Christ

translation, but this,

that, for

many

centuries no other

ing the Syriac),

in the

and such as were made out of it (exceptwas used in the Church, nor is any other used
to this day;
that, this

Greek Church

was

that,

which

the Greek and Latin

Fathers expounded, illustrated, out of

which they instructed the people, confuted heresies, and main-

]40
tained the truth
;

APPENDIX.
that this, which

we now have,

is

the

same

for substance, with that universally

used (though some things

vitiated),"
else

by the injury of
&c.

time,

and frequent transcriptions

be found

The whole

is

well worthy of perusal,

in

and with much

relating to the

LXX, may
2.
:

Todd's Memoirs of

Bp. Walton,

vol.

See particularly

p. 325,

from which,

make the following extract " That there was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, made in the time that the for we still Ptolemies reigned in Egypt, is not to be doubted
;

have the Book, and

Saviour's time
;

it

is

the same, which was in use in our

for

most of these passages which the holy pen-

men

Testament do, in the Greek original of it, quote out of the Old Testament are now found verbatim, in this version."
of the

New

See Prideaux's Connection, P.

25,
Scriptural
Vet. Test,

ii.

B.

1,

and Dr. Mill on Heb.

xiii.

non secundum Hebraicam Veritatem,

{in

quam
tato
:

vacant, sed
et

LXX Interpp.

kdc Epistold) perpetud

ci-

quidem

iis

in locis, in quibus, si reponerentur

Hebraa, non

modo

periret vis argument ationis Apostoliccc, sed ne quidem ullus

foret argumentationi locus.

the learned Prolegomena to

The reader will do well to consult the 2d vol. of Grabe's Septuagint,

Oxon. 1719,

in which,

under twenty-four propositions, everything

is

relating to the

LXX,

learnedly and dispassionately discussed.

To those, who seek for further and more minute information, would recommend the following sources Gregory's History
:

of the

LXX.

London, 1664.

Father Simon's " Critical History

ii.

of the Old Testament,

Antiquity,
translation
lators."

Book

chapter 2," beginning, "All

till Jerome's time, beheved the Greek Septuagint was made by Prophets, and not by common trans-

From Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History of the Fifth Century, much valuable information may be gained. He gives a
fair

Austin.

and impartial account of the dispute between Jerome and In the Work of Isaac Vossius, -De LA"A^ Interpp.

Appendix, 1663), you will find, everything, which a violent and imprudent partizan can urge, in favour of the
(Hagse-com. 1661.

Greek version; whilst

in Hidsii Vindic. Text. Ilebr. (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.
History of the Septuagint, (London, 1736),
is

141
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.

S.

H.

Cruys," (London, 1784), and

"A Letter

showing why our

Enghsh
is

Bibles differ from the Septuagint," (London, 1743).

Dr. Brett's " Dissertation on the Ancient Versions of the Bible,"

a treatise of
all,
still

greater value, (London, 1759), and should

desire

be read by
In "

who

much

information in a small compass.

An Enquiry

into the present state of the Septuagint ver-

sion,"

good sense and research are shown by Dr. Henry Owen.

Dr. John Blair's "Lectures on the Canon,"

(London, 1769.)

contain a Dissertation on the

merit (London, 1785).

LXX

Version, of considerable

But the most learned and comprehensive

this specific subject, is the

work, since the days of Hody, on

Ajiologia Sententice

Patrum De LXX

Versione,

appended

to the
It

splendid edition of Daniel seciuidum

consists of Five

LXX. Roma,
find,

1772.

Dissertations, which completely exhaust the

close,

argument.
aliorumque
It is

At the

you

will

Testimonia

Patrum

Christianorum

De

Scripturarum Gracd Versione.

its

published anonymously, but

It qualifies

scholarship would do honour

to

any name.

and corrects many of Hody's reasonings

and objections against the Canonical authority of the

I

LXX.
the

cannot conclude

this note,

without again adverting to the

Two

Sermons, preached before the University of

Durham by

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

article

the attention of the Scholar and Divine.

Consult the

" Septuagint," in Kitto's Biblical "Cyclopaedia, and the Fifth

Lecture of

Dean Graves on

the Pentateuch.
in

Part

3,
;

Sect. 2.

Montfaucon's Praliminaria

Hexap. Grig.

cap. 3, 4

Dr. Lee's

Prolegomena

to Bagster's Polyglott Bible, Proleg. iv,

and the

Eruditoriim Testimonia prefixed to

my

Scholia

Hellenistica.

London, 1848.

142

APPENDIX.
No.
2.

AS
ment,
first

one of the main arguments of

this

"Apology" depends on
in the

the numerous citations from the

proper, that

LXX

New

Testa-

it is

we should

indicate the chief sources of in-

formation, on that important and

much

litigated subject.

The
of two

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.

Tables, the
first,

It consists

those which are

in sense.

literal,

and the other, those

which agree only

His references are to the

LXX.
later
folio

They have been

editions,

by Tonson, Bowyer, &c. in without any acknowledgment. They fill eighteen

often reprinted,
consist of about

columns, and

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 judifills

cious notes. It

124 pages, and well deserves to be reprinted.

best, distinct collection

The

earliest,

and perhaps the

was made
is

by the celebrated
London, 1588.
with the Acts.
is

Biblical translator, Francis Junius, entitled, Salibri tres.

first

crorum Parallelorum

The second

edition

dated

The

book contains 98

parallels,

and ends

The second 58, ends with Timothy.

employed
in analizing the Epistle to the

The

third

exclusively

Hebrews,

which contains more Septuagintal matter, than any other portion

of the

New Testament.
is

It closes

with a short appendix, contain-

ing the parallels in the subsequent Epistles.

The method which

the

Junius pursues,
it is

less strict

than that of any other writer; but

well adapted, to

show the intimate connexion between

His quotations are only
text.
I

Old and

New

Testament.

in Latin,

and

do not exhibit either the Hebrew, or Greek

Bishop Wettenhall was the
first

English divine,

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.
the

143

LXX; a conclusion now univerknown to be erroneous. But he was arguing against Papists, who unjustly exalted the Greek version over the Original,
Hebrew, rather than the
sally

and may be excused

cording to Spearman,
jority of quotations

for
(p.

magnifying his argument.

353) "
if

Yet, ac-

we pursue

his

method, the mais

from the

LXX will be 50, which

account."

a greater
is

majority, by 8, than by

my

But
book

his reasoning

so

obscure, that I cannot

student.

recommend

his

to the notice of the

Spearman's " Letters concerning the Septuagint Translation,

and the Heathen Mythology," (Edinburgh, 1759) were professedly 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,
fol-

and gives the majority of 63,

in favour of the

LXX.

In the

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
he

all its eccentricities, this

book
the

is

well deserving of an

attentive perusal.
asserts,
*'

He makes a sorry calculation, however, when

what we have,
together,
in

that,

New

Testament, by

way

of quotation, from the Old, whether agreeing, or varying, from

the

LXX,
p.

when put
395.

is

little

more than the 119th

it
is,

Psalm."
as

According to

my

calculation,

at least,

much
fairly

again.

There are about 350 quotations, many of them

consisting of several verses, and of these, not

more than 50 can

bulk
in extent, to

be

put down, against the

LXX.

I repeat, that the

of the citations in the

S.

New

Testament, are equal

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

original,

New

Testament, compared with the

Hebrew

and with the Septuagint version." He has, ac-

cordingly, printed the Hebrew,

LXX and New Testament, in three

columns, and has added some useful notes. The quotations com-

144

APPENDIX.
It is

pared, however, are, only 179.

a valuable and useful work.

According
from the
the

to his computation, there are

72 verbatim quotations
Differing from

LXX

47

vs^ill

agree, with only some variation 30

:

agreeing in sense, but not in words

total 149,

LXX,

but agreeing exactly or nearly, with Heb. 13; whilst

there are 19 which agree, with neither.

fair

account

is

given

of the citations, in Blair

On

the Canon, pp. 86-170.

In 1827, Professor Stuart republished Dr. Randolph's Quotations, with

many

additions, but without

any notes. (Andover,

Massachusetts, republished them in his " Sacred Hermeneutics."

4to., 1827).

Dr. Davidson has more recently

Mr. Hartwell Home, in his excellent " Introduction to the Critical knowledge and Study of the Holy Scriptures," has furnished
the Biblical student with a most valuable and elaborate account

of the Quotations in the

4.

New Testament.

See

vol.

ii.

part

i.

chap.

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
and
all

and

that, in his

second Table

of "Quotations nearly agreeing with the Hebrew, "

many

exactly

agree with the

list,

LXX,

very nearly; whilst, in his third

in sense,

" Quotations agreeing with the Hebrew

but not in
rest very
is

words,"
nearly.

many

exactly agree with the

list,

LXX,

and the

In

his seventh

of

''

Quotations, in which there

reason to suppose a different reading," &c. some agree exactly,

and
lars,

all

very nearly, with the

LXX.
of

mention these particulearned friend has de-

because this admirable

Work

my

servedly obtained great influence amongst theological students,

and,

if

not thus noticed, might lead to very erroneous conclusions,

respecting the comparative

LXX,

or the

Hebrew.

from the

LXX,

number of citations, as relative to the Even in the list, "Quotations differing but agreeing exactly, or nearly, with the He5,

brew," out of the 11 specified, there are

nearly with the

which agree very

LXX.

In

list

5,

" Quotations, which differ

19, there are 12,

from both the

LXX

and the Hebrew," out of

which nearly agree with the

It
is

LXX.
I

necessary to

be thus painfully minute, that

may

APPENDIX.
justify the general

145

argument of

this

Apology, by showing, that

our Protestant prepossessions in favour of the Hebrew text,

have often led us involuntarily

the Greek version.

to deal
is

somewhat harshly with

It

The reason

obvious.

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
Testament,
far to
I

nothing more, than a merely

is

human version, and

in the

the consequence

not only implied, but necessary; whereas by showing, that

the

number of Septuagintal quotations

New

much exceed
more
differ

those derived from any other source,

we go

establish the point at issue.

declare, that, not

Out

of 350 quotations,
fairly

once

more than 50 can be

reckoned, to

from the
Dr.

LXX.

In

reader will find

Owen's Modes of Quotation, (Lond. 1789), the 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."

is

This

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
Heto

writer shows, that our Blessed

Lord almost invariably adheres

to the Version, whilst his disciples occasionally refer to the

brew

text.

The suggestion, that Jesus tvas taught, as a child,

is

read the

LXX,

an immediate corollary from

this important

distinction.

See Appendix, No. 17.

No.

3.

AS
the

several allusions are

made

in this

Apology,

to the opi-

nions of a Hebraic school of divines,

name

o? Ilutchinsonians, and which, though

who went under now extinct as a

146

APPENDIX.
may still
be supposed to exercise some
it

school, professing to hold Philosophical opinions at variance with

the Newtonian Principia,

indirect influence

on subjects of Bibhcal philology;

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, contained under the corresponding words in

Hebrew

and that

it

was out of mere condescension

tament was written
in

to the Gentiles, the

New

Tes-

Greek.

Viewing, therefore, the Greek

version, " as a targimi, rather than a literal translation," (Spear-

man,

p.

366), they would not admit, strictly speaking, there

were any quotations from the

ceive very

LXX.

This led them to con-

meanly of the doctrinal phraseology of the

New

Testament, as borrowed entirely from the Septuagint, and containing none of the mysteries, concealed under the

Hebrew

terms,

Jehovah, Elohim, Berith, &c. &c.

writers of the

" Neither doth the use the

New Testament"

says Spearman,

"make
it

of the
to im-

LXX,

stamp any authority on that

See also

version, or entitle

pose the sense of the Greek words and phrases, on the Hebrew."
(p. 377).

Duncan Forbes's Thoughts concerning

and extreme
principles

Religion.

Edinb. 1750.

Such were
tice,

their abstract

but, in prac-

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 information, and are mainly indebted to the collation of the
for their utility.

LXX,

The

extracts,

which

have furnished from

Spearman,

will evince, that, in his

more deliberate sentiments,

perhaps

he attached an indisputable importance, to the Greek Version.

Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, as edited by Mr. Rose,
the most useful
It
is

is

manual

for the student of the

Greek Testament.
this

probable, the peculiar sentiments of

forgotten

School,

may

still

exercise an indirect

influence

on the pre-

vailing opinions, respecting the Septuagint.

Their piety and

devotion justly enabled them to take a firm hold on the re-

APPENDIX.
spect of

147

many, who never adhered,

either to their philological, or

philosophical sentiments.
still

The works of

Home

and Jones are

of learnSerle find a

held in high and deserved estimation,

whilst the devotional treatises of

among men

ing

Romaine and

large

body of admirers, in the Christian closet. Far be it from me, or mine, to wish to lessen their religious influence, or to
I

detract from their well-earned reputation.

am

merely record-

ing literary facts, with reference to the subject of this "

logy."

Apo-

It is impossible, I think, to doubt, that the

subordinate

estimation, in which, the

still

generally held

among

Greek Version of the Old Testament is us, and the paramount and exclusive
is

authority attributed to the Hebrew,

not, in

some measure,
It is

owing

to the indirect influence of such respectable names.

for ladies to

now not uncommon, even

study the Hebrew, and

affect to look

generally, without the points.

They often
it,

down

on the Septuagint, and speak of

authority.

as devoid of all Scriptural

These
I

sentiments have become so prevalent and

stand excused, for endeavouring to plead

popular, that

may

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 Hutchinsonian

School, they were in total contrast, to those of the present rationalists

of

Germany and North-America.

Scriptures, in high

The former

held

They and 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.
the

Hebrew

mysterious reverence.

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

of the

Scriptures, both

of

the Old and

authority.
I

New
:

Testament, are of merely

this

human

have endeavoured to trace

unnatural result,

to the neglect of the

LXX

now

leave the decision to those,

who

are best entitled to pronounce the verdict.

one of the strange conjectures of the modern German divines, that the Alexandrian Version was made, not from the
It is

Hebrew

text,

but from the ancient Jewish targums.

If so, the

148

APPENDIX.
Testament
is

New
tract

interwoven with these targums

See
2,

the

on

the language of Palestine, in the age of Christ,

vo\. 1,

by

De

Rossi and Pfannkuche, Biblical Cabinet,

No.

Edin-

burgh, 1833.
refer to

For a general refutation of such chimeras, we the masterly work of Professor Stuart On the Canon,
Lond. 1849.

edited

by Dr. Davidson.

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 Sententiec Patrum, appended to the

Daniel.

LXX
to

edition of

Rome, 1772.

He

will discover

much

amuse and
1664.

instruct, in Gregory's History

of

the

LXX.

l^ond.

In

Dr. Hody's classical work, he

futation of the leading

will find

a well-digested con-

arguments

in its favor;

but drawn up

too

much

in the spirit of a partizan, to satisfy those,

lies

who may

think the best path

It

between extremes.

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
as
is

many

of the ancient Rabbins and Talmudists,

the
I

shown by Gregory in his learned History of Without giving assent to the story of the Cells,
had some substantial reason,
for believing there

LXX.
cannot

divest myself of the conviction, that the early Christian

Church

was some-

thing extraordinary, in the origin of the Greek version.

is

But

it

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

essential

LXX.

The

question, as relative to Aristeas, should be viewed as entirely

open,

and not blended with the

principles of this

Apology.
fiction,

Whoever

desires to

see the fact, apart

from the

should consult the learned Diatribe of Valckenaer,

De

Aristobulo Judceo, Lug. Bat. 1806, 17-21.

He

justifies the

APPENDIX.
historical origin of the

149

LXX,
his

without vouching- for the mira-

culous accounts

of Aristeas.
in

The same view

is

also

taken

by Dr. Davidson,
cism."
siaiiis,

" Third

Lecture on Biblical Criti-

See also Dissertatio Philologica

De

Var. Lectt. Holme-

autore Jacob. Amersfoort, Lug. Bat. 1815,

De

Vita et

Script. Aristea, corif.

sect. 8.

Lumper. Hist. Theolog.

Critic. Pars. vii.

There

is

one point of great and permanent importance,

viz.
its

that, in all the ancient accounts of the Version of the

LXX,

history

is

confined to the Books, contained in our present Canon.

therefore,

The Apocryphal books,

subsequent period.

must have been adduced,

at a

No.

5.

A
this

BRIEF

notice of the dispute between Augustine

and Je-

rome, respecting the

It led to

LXX, may

be reasonably expected, in

Apology.

some sharp

altercations between Origen

and Augustine, and Jerome and Ruffinus.

whole,
1664.

A good account of the

LXX.
Lond.
cir-

may be found

in Gregory's History of the

There were divers Latin translations from the LXX,

was the highest
in repute
;

culated in the early Church, several of which were very faulty.

The

Italic

but even that had become

It

corrupt, from frequent transcription.

tention, to set forth an authentic

was Jerome's

first in-

and correct copy of the

Augustine, and
it

Italic.

He communicated
But Jerome,

this intention to

met with

his cordial approbation.

August. Epist. 28, Edit. Par. 1844.

altering his intentions, informed Augustine, that

he now designed to make a fresh translation, from the original

Hebrew, and supported

various errors in the

this

change of opinion, by pointing out

project,

LXX. The Bishop of Hippo became alarmed,

and strongly dissuaded Jerome, from venturing on a by unsettling the minds of behevers,
tures.

which, in his opinion, might disturb the peace of the Church,

in reading the

Holy

Scrip-

Hieron. Epist. 56, 71, 104.

to his purpose,

Edit. Par. 1845.

Jerome and

was steady
ingly of the

and spoke more and more disparagAugustine remonstrated

in vain,

Greek

version.

150

APPENDIX.
Ruffinus

forbade the use of Jerome's translation in his diocese.

assaulted

him with much

all

virulence,

and these eminent Fathers of

this

the Church displayed

the usual violence of angry polemics.

The general canon

wherever there
is

laid

down by Jerome was

it

that,
exclu-

any

difficulty,

must be solved by an

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.
Pin's account of the whole matter, cent. v. in his

See

Du

Lives of

Jerome and Augustine.

Cyril of Jerusalem was also of the

xxii. quos

same sentiments

Divinas lege Scripturas V. T. libros

LXXIT.
On

Interpp. transtulerunt.

Hos

solos meditare,
4.

quos

et in

Ecclesia secure tutoque recitamus.

the Canon, (a. d. 360.)
extracts, from the

Catech.

See Bp. Cosin

The following
rome,
is

works of Augustine and Je-

will

enable the reader to judge,

how

far this representation

correct.

Propterea me, nolle tuam ex Hebrao interpretation em in Ecclesia lege, ne contra

LXX auctoritatem,
est.

tanquam novum aliquid

plebes Christi, qiiarum

jjroferentcs,

magno scandalo perturbemus

aures

et

corda illam interpretationem, audire consueverunt, qua

ctiam ab Apostolis approbata

ii.

August. Epist. 82,

sect. 35,

tom.

p.

203, Edit. Benedict.

lib.
i.

Par. 1679, p. 291.

Edit. Par. 1843.

In Retract,
44, 22,

tom.

i.

p. 9,

he corrects a passage in the Psalms

(Rom.

viii.

36) on the authority of the

libri indicant, ex

LXX,

Hoc

esse terius

Grace

qua lingua
(Versio

in

and adds, Latinam

est

secund.

LXX

interpp. vett.

divinarum Scriptiirarum
habet
ilia

facta
sic

iranslatio.

Non parvum pondus

et

LXX)

qua

meruit defamari,

qua usos Apostolos, non tantum

38.

res ipsa in-

dicat, sed etiam te attestatum esse memini.

Epist. ad Hieron.

Conf. Walton, Proleg.

ix.

Nee

LXX Interpp. quos

dendi sunt,Sfc.
ioritate.

Non ergo dicemus unum horum falsum

;

non

legere consuevit Ecclesia, errasse cre-

interpretationis servitute, sed prophetite aucesse, et

pro

aliis

interpp. adversus alios litigemus

cum

illi

qui ex

Hebrao

inter-

preta))tur,probent nobis hoc scriptum esse quod interpretantur, et


APPENDIX.
LXX Interpp. auctoritas, qua
culo

151

tanto etiam divinitus facto mira-

commendatur, tanta
lib.
ii.

in Ecclesiis vetustate Jirmatur.

Quasst.

167, in Exod.

Et Latinis

quibuslibet emendandis, Grceci

Vet. Test, attinet,

adhibeantur, in quibus,
excellit auctoritas
;

LXX Interpp. quod ad

jam
est

qui

per omnes peritiores Ecclesias tanta

presejitia S. Spiritus interpretari dicuntur, ut os

unum

tot

homi-

ninumfuerit
Codd. non

Sfc.

Quidquid vero
istos ea

apud

LXX in Hebr.
illos,

autem

est,

per

maluit,

qudm per

dicere, sic ostendens utrosque fuisse prophetas.

Quidquid porrd

idem Spiritus

apud utrosque
idem Spiritus
;

invenitur^ per utrosque dicere voluit unus atque

sed itd, ut
illos

illi

pracederent prophetando,
:

isti

sequerentur prophetice

interpretando

quia

sicut in ilJis
;

vera, et concordantia dicentibus, unus

in istis

pads

Spiritus Juit

sic et

non secum confer entibus,

et

tamen uno ore cuncta interpre-

tantibus, idem Spiritus unus apparuit.

xviii.

De

Civitat.

Dei,

lib.

cap. 43.

Of this

section, this is the title

De

auctoritate
sit

LXX

Literpp. qua, salvo honore

Hebrai

styli,

omnibus

In-

terpp. praferenda.

Conf.

De

Doct. Christ,

lib. ii.

cap. 15.

De
:

Consens Evang.

lib. ii.

66, after acknowledging that the

LXX
it

frequently differ from the Hebrew, he thus accounts for

Nihil probabilius occw^rere existimo,

interpretatos, quo, et ilia
that, therefore

qudm

illos

LXX eo Spiritu
,

qua interpretabantur, dicta fuer ant and

sentiment:

both interpretations were to be considered, as in-

spired.

He

repeatedly enforces the same

Mulld

magis credendi sunt

LXX Divino Spiritu

qua
in

interpretati,

quo Spi-

ritu et ilia dicta sunt,

Hebrais

litteris sunt.

Eodem namest.

que operanti Spiritu, etiam hoc did nportuit, quod dictum

Hieronymus
TU)v o, ut in

bis sacros codices transtulit.

1.

Ex Gracd
2.

Versione

Originis Hexaplis extabat, pura et incorrupta, ut

ipse testatur, Epist.

ad Suniam

et Fretellam.

Ex

Hebrcso.

Novi vero Testamenti Latinam Fersionem Evangeliorum, juxta

Gracum textum

correxit, hortatu

Damasi Papa; non de novo

liquet.

confecit, ut ex prafat.

ad Evang.

Hac
;

verb postrema

Vet. Test. Hieron. Versio non statim recepta est

et in

sed ut nova,

opprobrium Graca Sept. facta, multos habuit magni noill

minis

Ecclesid contradicentes.

S. Augustinus non permisit in

152
sua
diiccesi publice

APPENDIX.
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
est.

constat

donee tandem ex utraque, Vulgata hodierna confiata

v. 5.

Walton. Proleg.

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
the

LXX,

the Hebrew, and

New

Testament.

But

tiously places the issue,

35 cont. Ruffin. he incauon producing any passages in the New

in lib.
ii.

Testament, which are not in accordance with the Hebrew text.

Sicut ergo

ego ostendo multa in N.

hahentur, et hac

T. posita de vett.

Ubb.
;

qua

in

LXX non

scripta in

Hehr. doceo

sic

accusator ostendat, aliquid scriptmn esse in N. T. de

terpp.

LXX.
LXX.

hi-

quod in Hehr. non habeatnr

et Jinita

est contentio.

Epist. ad Domnionem,

in Lib. Paralip.

JXec hoc.

Iii-

terpp. qui, Spirit u Sancto pleni, ea, quce vera fuerunt, transtule-

runt, sed scriptorum culpa ascribendum.

in Epist.

Contrast the following

et

ad Pammach.

Lege eundem Grcscum

compara
;

Latinum,

et vet.

edit. nostrcB translationi

et liquidb pervidebis,

quantum

distet inter veritatem, et

mendacium.

Comment,
sit ilia

in

Abac.

Non

quaro quid Aquila, quid Symmachus sapiant, quare Theodotion

inter novos et veteres

medius incedat

vera Interpretatio,

quam Apostoli prohaverunt. Cf. Grabe. Proleg. tom ii. 21. Neque verb LXX. Interpp. ut invidi latrant, errores arguimus
nee nostrum laborum, illorum reprehensionem putamus.

Editio
Edit.

LXX.

toto or be vulgata est:

Comment,

in Esa. p. 791.

Vallars.

Eos, Spiritu Sanct. plenos,

scrihit

Hieron.

Pref. 2 in
dicat, eos

Paralip.

Ea qua

vera sunt transtulisse

^'c. (licet alibi

illis

Interpretes fuisse, non vates, variosque errores

attribuat.

Walton. Proleg.
Llieronymus, qui

ix.

cap. 8.

Edit. Tigur. 1673.

Lpse denique
elevat,

LXX

Interpp. auctoritatem

nonnunquam
iis,

magnijick aliquando, ac, sicut cateriPatres, de

velut de Lnterpp.

avainapTi]Toig kuX OeoTrvtvaroig, sentit et loquitur, ut Prafat. in

Paralip.

et

Apologia Secunda in Ruffinum: in qua accusatus,

Literjip. detraheret,

qudd

LXX.

magna animi contentione ah hue

.

calumnia

se tuetur, Sfc.

Morini Pra^faf ad Edit. LXX, Par. 1628.

APPENDIX.
Much
by
allowance, however,
is

ir>3

due

for these

apparent contradicharassed
radiare in

tions of Jerome,

when we

consider

how much he was

i.

his opponents.

Ubicumque

asteriscos,

e. Stellas,

hoc volumine videritis, ibi sciatis dc Hebr. additum, quod in Lat.

Codd. non habetur.

posita

Ubi veto obelus, transversa

quid

soil,

virga pra-

est, illic sigiiatur,

LXX.

Interpp. addiderint, vel ob

decoris gratiam, vel ob Spiritus S. auctoritatem, licet in Heb.

non legatur. Epist. ad Domnionem.

It

gives
in

me

sincere regret, to allude to the severe

and summary

manner,

which, the learned Professor Lee treats the opinion of

Augustine, respecting the Scriptural authority of the Septuagint.

Augustinus, nescio quofato, additanienta, defect usque hujus adeo
defosdada P ersionis, ad Spirit i/s Sancti operationes refer re non dubitavit.

Proleg. iv. 3,

c. 7.

He cites
in

the same passages, which

had been adduced by Walton

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

account
for the reverence,

in this

Apology,
I

on behalf of the sentiments of the primitive Church, may,

trust, satisfactorily

which AugULstine,

as the representative of that Church, paid to the Septuagint.

They

deserve, at least, a serious examination.

The following
no unfit
'*

extract from Twells's Life of Pocock, will form

justification of these

remarks:

Jerome's salvo, that the Version of the

LXX.

with

all

its

faults,

was used, because

Jews; though
is
it

it

was already

in the

hands of the Hel-

lenistic

has been a thousand times urged in

disputes of this kind,

for St.

far

from satisfying this important query

Matthew,

in his Gospel, without regard to the circum-

stances of the Hellenists, often

makes
all

Greek

translation of his

own, and
if

so, doubtless,

would

the other

penmen have done,

the

Greek of the
easy had
it

LXX.

had been so corrupt, as some pretend.

the gift of tongues was so

How

been,

when

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

the generality of Christians, both

Old Testament, which was the case of in the Apostolical and suc-


154

APPENDIX.
left

ceeding ages, and not to have

Scripture

an important part of the

Canon to them, in so bad a condition, as the Greek of They had Httle to the LXX. is by some represented to be. 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 In a word, the insufficient to recommend a new version of it. seeming differences between the Hebrew text and the transla-

tion

we

are speaking of, are scarce wider anywhere, than in

cited thence, in the

some passages
riations,

New Testament;

which should
sound

incline us to be sparing of our censures,

on account of such va-

and

to think the

LXX.

at least in general, a
is

and useful version." pp. 320-333.

reader's attention.

The whole
6.

worthy of the

No.

THE
the

following brief notice of several passages, adduced in

New

Testament from the Old,

in

which the

LXX.
is

are followed, even

where they

differ

from the Hebrew,

sub-

mitted to the reader, to evince the rashness of Jerome's challenge

to Ruffinus.
lor, that the

It

may

also suffice, to refute the assertion of

Tayis

Apostles never argue

in St.

from

the

Greek

version.
iii.

The second Cainan

entirely

Luke's genealogy, (cap.

37),
i.

LXX. 1 Par. 2. May zee 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
dependent on the authority of the
Query,

from the Hebrew.

17,

So likewise. Act,

ii.

25, Ps. xvi. 8, Act. xv.

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.
xlvi.

See also Heb.

v. 6, Ps. cix. 4, Acts. vii. 14,

Gen.
the

27.

The number might be

:

easily enlarged.

Consult
ista
i.

note of Mill at the end of Hebrews, Hnjusmodi sunt

ex

P salmis
Tiixraq

'O

iroiiov

tovq ayyiXovg avrov

ti Trap'

irvi.vfxaTa,
ii.

cap.

7.

'HXar-

avTov (ipa^y

ayyiXovQ, cap.

7. Qvcriav kuI irpoa-

^opav

ovKiidiXrifTag, awfia dl Karrj^rttrti)

fioi,

cap. X. 5, pro quibus,

APPENDIX.
si

155

reponas ea qua sunt in Hehrao, ratiocinatlonis PauIincB robur,

ac nervos omnes plant incideris.

(cap. ix. 16-19), qua, in locis ex

Quod autem
Jerem.
et

ex voce

dia9{]Kr}

Exod. ah

illo

citatis

utuntur LiXX. Interpp.prohet Apostolus mortem Testatoris intercedere debuisse, quod aliter
Hebra'icis ap. Jerem. et
locus.

ratum non

sit

Testa^nentum

cert^ in
isti

Exod. mdlus omnino datur probationi

significat

Berith enim non

Testamentum, sed tantum in ge-

nera Foedus, 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

and
that, unless

with the reasoning of the Apostle,

you

believe the inspiration of the Septuagint,

you must cease

and thus

to believe the inspiration of the author of the

Epistle to the Hebrews.

it

passages in
lenistic

The LXX. ti-anslated berith by diaOijKi], must be construed a Covenant, foedus, in various But the word ^La9i]Ki], in Helthe Old Testament.
Jos. Ant. 17. 9. 7.),

Greek (see

means
it

also,

a Will, testasignifi-

mentum, and therefore, the Apostle took

cation, as implying both a covenant,

in

a double

and a covenant,
Yet,

fortified
it is

by a Will, which implies the death of the testator.

true, as

not

Spearman argues, p. 371, that a mere knowledge of the word berith would have led to this explanation. It results though, it is from the double meaning of the word SiadnKt]
;

likely, the

Apostle associated the secondary use, with the proper

Berith.

Hebrew meaning of
to the Epistle to the It should

Consult
2.

also,

Macknighfs Preface

Hebrews. Sect.

be remembered, that the verbal argument, here adto the

duced by Mill, to prove that the Epistle

Scripture.
xvi. 18,

Hebrews was
-n-trpa.

originally in Greek, will equally apply to several other parts of

Thus the play on the words

liiTpog,

and

Matt.

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

piest

on

concision, Phil. Hi. 2.

v. 6.

Their hap3, is

example

is

original

James

In

Sam. xxv.

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
of the

those

who know,
it

that both Jerome and Origen have fre-

quently charged the Jews, with the wilful corruption of the

text,

Hebrew

can scarcely be credited, that one of the most

popular arguments for exalting that text, to the disparagement

LXX. was

the supposed immutability, or, as

It

it

was

called,

the integrity of that text.

was represented, on the other

value.

hand, that the Greek Version had come down, so utterly depraved and corrupted, that
it

was of no
their

Such arguments
Instit.

may
sit

be found stated in

all

extent,

by Turretin,

Theolog. Pars Prima, Quasi.

XIV. An

7.

Versio

LXX.

Vet. Test,

authentica

Negatur.
1,

Nay,

even by Limborch, Theologia

Christiana,

lib.

cap. 3,

Also by Episcopius,

Instit.
it

Theolog.

lib.

4, cap.

21, p. 276,

who

admits, however, that

ij' it

would be of equal authority with the Hebrew,

had come
whenever

down to us equally uncorrupted. Hebrew text should be corrected by

the

He
the

admits also, that the

version,

Greek

New Testament

citations are in its favour.

Concerning these

citations, I shall give the opinions of Turretin, in his

Testimonia qua ex LXX.

tica sunt,

own words:
in

versione allegantur in N. T. authen-

non per
;

se, sive

quateniis a

LXX.

ex

Hehrao

Gracum

sunt traducta

sed,

per accidens, quateniis approbata

et sancti-

Jicata sunt a Spiritu S. et ejus afflatu, ah Evangefistis in contex-

tnm 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 prejudiced 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 *

timents, Dr. Pocock,

Against such dangerous sen;

and

all

sober-minded divines protested

but, in avoiding the extreme of Vossius,

site error,

many

ran into the oppo-

of denying the

LXX.

all

canonical authority. Pocock,

Twells's Life of Pocock, p. 320.

Lond. 1816.

APPENDIX.
took a middle course.

157

perhaps the greatest Oriental scholar of the seventeenth century,

Though he held

the Masoretic text, in

the highest esteem, yet he labours in his Commentaries on

sea,

No-

and

in his

Hebrew
**

text

" He well

Porta Mosis, to reconcile the Greek, with the

knew," says

his learned biographer,

the regard that was, on

;

many

accounts, due to that famous

its

version

its

great antiquity, and the nearness of

living

authors to
all,

the times,

when Hebrew was a

it,

language

above

the

use
first

made of

in the Scriptures of the

&:c.

New

Testament, in the

ages of the Church,"

"Happy had
;

it

been for truth,

if

others,

who opposed

the extravagancies of Vossius, had observed

if,

the

same decorum and judgment

hke 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 Twells, went "too far in

supposing the Hebrew text always, and in every particular, read,

as
it is

at present," &c.
at, if

" But," he adds, "it

in

is

the less to be

wondered

he was prejudiced

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,
pp.

essential to the interests of the Reformation,"

330335.*

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

the

to Dr. Mill, for his laborious collation of

New

Testament

MSS.
this

There was, indeed, no opposition

for their collation of
for,

raised against

Holmes and Parsons,

;

Sep-

tuagintal

MSS.
still

but

may be accounted
fallen.

from the
probable,

low estimation, to which that text had

that

It is

many

entertain a mysterious and indescribable venein the

ration of

Hebrew, which may long stand

way, of any

satisfactory adjustment of texts,

which should never have been

* Appendix No.

7.


158
treated, as rivals.

APPENDIX.
Yet,

it is hopeful and satisfactory to know, that nor Western Church, nor the Church of neither the Eastern, England, have made any pubhc declaration against the Scrip-

tural

and canonical authority of the

are Bellarmine

LXX.

It is to

be lamented,

indeed, that several of the most learned Romanists, amongst

whom

and Morinus, have evinced a contrary But the Church of Rome is not committed, by their tendency. 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.

is

As

to the

Church of England, there

nothing in her Articles,

Homilies, or Liturgy which should prevent us, from the free and

unbiassed exercise of our

question.

Though our Bible

it

own judgment, on this important translation is made professedly from

the Hebrew,
is,

often adopts the interpretation of the

LXX.

It

hke the Vulgate, a mixed translation, taking the Hebrew as

standard, but frequently amending that standard, by the col-

its

lation of the

Greek version (Ps.

xxii. 16).
it

In the Prayer-Book
takes the

version of the Psalms, on the contrary,

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,
respect,

is

the Church

of Geneva.
plained.

Her conduct,

in this

may

be easily exall

At
He

the Reformation, Calvin disclaimed

subjec-

tion to ecclesiastical authority, as derived from primitive anti-

quity.

consequently

felt

no reverence

for the early

Canon, no
title

and the prescription of 400 years could give the

to canonical authority, in his esteem.*

LXX.

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

to

evince on this subject, the following extract, from the Preface

sion,

his Latin

Ver-

may

suffice.

Quis enini

tot ineptias in

tantorwn

{si

credimus)

huminum animos

tanto consensu incidisse credat,qtiales singulis paginis offenduntur? tot corruptos locos? tot additosl totomissos? Quis denigue eosdeni esse

cum

antiquis exemplaribus

putet, qui eos ipsos locos guos EvangelistcF, Apostoli, et

hiim adduxerunt,

alii

Patres de verbo ad verlibri

cum

lihb. nost7-is contulerit ?

Extant scptem loquutionis

ab Augustine scripti; in quibus quotusquisque est lucus cni bene cum

libb. nostris

APPENDIX.
thers,

159

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.
at issue, therefore, as relating to the

The point

Canon, was the

Apocrypha, not the

inference to be
alliance.

LXX.
is
it

This remained in statu quo.

The

drawn
rate,

clearly in favour of a joint canonical

At any

should be considered mi open question

for all members of the Church of England.

And now let us contrast with this abuse, the opinion of one, who was by no means over favourable to the LXX. Rarum et incompurubilem thesaurum esse, neminem ignorare posse, nisi qui ab omni erudilione alienus sit. Ileinsii Ariscojiveniat?
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 tlie highest terms, of the Greek Version.
Grabii Edit.

LXX.
to

Postscript. Editoris.

With regard
Nearly
all,

the various readings collected by

are, as Schleusner has

remarked,

little

Holmes and Parsons, they more than mendarum J'urraginem.'" *

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

to evince

light

on the
little

text.

They

are,

however, valuable as negative arguments,

how

the text has materially suffered, whilst they form an excellent barometer, for

testing the
I

cannot conclude

comparative value of superior MSS. this note, without observing,

how much

a really good and

instructive edition of the

far as relates to the

LXX.

is still

a desideratum, in Biblical literature.

As

New

Testament,

have imperfectly attempted

to

supply the

wants of the student,

ment.

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-

Such an

edition should at once, explain the rationale of the Hellenistic

to

Greek, by referring

the

Hebrew

text,

and

also furnish us with philological

to the

and doctrinal

illustrations,

by corresponding references

New

Testament.

and citations, sliould 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 theoloEverything relating
to the illustration of parallels

gical student, in the vigour

of his faculties, should attempt the task.

But,

if

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,
well accomplished,
it

as heretofore, to following implicitly any single

MS.

* Prrcf. Lexicon.

LXX.

IGO

APPENDIX.
No.
8.

THE
ment of

following extracts, from Bishop Pearson's admirable

Preface to his Edition of the of Spearman, "

LXX.

give in the

words

who

thinks

them

full to his

purpose."

But the

reader will judge, whether they do not rather confirm the statethis

Apology.

" After enumerating several benefits

sion, he saith

we reap from
and necessary,

this

Ver-

" Nor

is

the

LXX. version

less useful

to a tho-

rough understanding and a right explication of the

New

Testatesti-

ment

for the sacred

penmen, not only frequently produce

monies out of the Old Testament, but also accommodate Moses

and the Prophets,

will

to the doctrines of Christianity

and hence

it

needs happen, that the

the phraseology of the Hebrew, which was

mode and manner of expression, or 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.

the

Neither can this obscurity be taken

away, or cleared, by any other means, than by the knowledge of

Hebrew idiom,
its

in

which the Old Testament

is

written

upon
little

which, the Apostles every where keep an eye, and which, a

varied from
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,

the idioms of the

all

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 accusit is

tomed.

And

reasonable to believe, that this translation, by

first

Divine Providence, was at

made

to be the instrument

and

had

means of preparing the minds of the nations, who every where it among them, for the better and more kindly reception of
the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles.

APPENDIX.
"There
are, therefore,

IGl

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,
what
all

become

easily intelligible.

No

one knows what aap^,

TTvtvfxa signify,

among

the Greek authors:

and

if

you

collect

the senses in which the Greeks use these words, you will find
will

none that

reach the Apostles' meaning.

,^es//,

For as

~)\i;s

pro-

perly signifies

and yet

is

put by the Hebrew writers, for the

man

himself, for liuman nature, for the weahtess,

all this

and even deis

pravity of that nature; and

variety of senses

rendered,

by the

LXX,

by

this

one word oop^.

Hence, as often as the

to the Greeks,
it

Apostles use this word, in a sense

unknown
As

be-

comes necessary
sage,

to explain

it

from the genius of the Hebrew lan-

guage, and the version of the

LXX.

in that

remarkable pasIjivero, which,

is

John

i.

14,

where we read, Koi 6 \6yog

crapu,

without any authority of the ancient Greek writers,

interpreted, yhid the
ture.

rightly

Word was made man,

evXoydTw

or put on human nattcktci

And

'E^

fp-ywi' vofxov

ov SiKaiwOijaiTai

aap^, that

is,

any man, as Ps.

cxliv. 22,

ttcktci crcifjE, [/. e.

every man]

TO ovofia TO ayiov.

Hence these phrases,

and

^fjovrjjua Trig

ev aapKi et kutu crapKci uai, Kara crapKa TrepnraTa7v,

the flesh,

the

aapKog
will

of

to

be

in,

after the Jiesh, to

all

walk after the

flesh,

and many more; which are

illegitimate

modes of speaking, unknown and

So, the proper signification of

among

the Greeks.

nn Ruah,

wind, or air in motion, as wvlvfia,

among

the ancient

Greek authors, denotes.

significations in the

But then,

as

nn

hath several other

Hebrew, which have no place among the

Trviv/xa, in
it is

Greeks, whenever the Apostles use

a sense foreign to

the Greek tongue, the passages wherein

so used,

must be ex:

plained by the
iii.

Hebrew idiom, and

the Septuagint version

as

John

6,

To yeytwrjiiivov
(c

Ik tiiq aciOKOQ, crap^ Igti'

kol to yeyevvr]is

fiivov
flesh,

Toii rii'Eu/ioroc, TTviVjia Iutl:

;

That which

horn of the
is

is

flesh

and that which

is

born of the Spirit,

pi]fia

Spirit.
i.

"

Whence should we know what

aSvvaT{](yH Trapa toj

means, Luke

37,

OuK
is

Gew
14,

ttciv

pnpa, unless
J^^D'H,

we

recollect

what

written.

Gen.
M>)

xviii.

"in mn'Q

which the
;

LXX

translate,

cidvvaTiiaei

Trapa t(o

Qsm

pripci

and consider

162

APPENDIX.
;

that *irn not only signifies a icord, but any matter, business, or
transaction
ticular

or

whence should we know, what

force and parin the

emphasis to SiKaiovv and to

diKaioixrOai have,

Apostles' usage of these expressions, unless the

Hebrew pTH

in the same sense, and the LXX had rendered by these Greek words ? In vain, among the ancient Greeks, will you inquire after the meaning of TnaTeveiv tm 6tw, tig tov

had been used

it,

Qiov, to believe God, or in God, Triarevsiv

TTpog TOV

slg

tov Kvpiov, and

Qtov

IT laTig,

faith in the Lord, and faith totcards God,

in the

which are so often enforced

New

Testament; which yet

are easily understood from the

LXX

version.

How
vii.

should we
;

guess at the meaning of doTsiog

t(^ <{>>

Acts

20

unless

the Septuagint had rendered the

i^ovTeg St avTo atrraov?
6 Kvpiog

Hebrew

3"ilD"'D

iriN J^^ni,

by

Who

would have even imagined, that

was

to be taken, for the

it,

gint had so used

with

Lord God, unless the Septuawhom, Kvpiog is, 6 "12v ? pp. 422-429.
it is

In this learned Preface,

often mistaken the

clearly

shown, that Jerome has

meaning of Hebrew and Greek words, from

fre-

not collating the original with the version, and that he has
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,

to the Italic;

which might have been avoided, had he adhered

or

had

his prejudice

been
it

less strong, against the

Alexandrian

version.

Nor, could

be expected, that his translation should

tells us,

be more free from error, since he

that he finished the

Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, in three days, and Tobit,

in

one!

See the article Vulgate, in Kitto's Cyclopadia of Bib-

lical Literature.

No.

9.

ON
of the

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.
also of a

His work abounds with valuable adjustments Hebrew and Greek texts. The same may be affirmed

Paraphrase and Annotations on

the book of the Psalms,

APPENDIX.
by the learned Dr. Hammond. London, 1659.
tively little

163

It is comparaknown, but forms an admirable specimen of the

mutual
fair,

illustrations of the

Hebrew, and the

citations in the

LXX.

It is

only

however, to add, that

Hammond

gives a decided preference,

to the

Hebrew

text.

The

New Testament

are

taken chiefly verbatim, from the

LXX.

learned and accurate

account of the Psalter version

may

be found, in

Bona De Reh,
It contains

Liturg. Uh. 2, cap. 3, pp. 297-301.

Rom.

1671.

much

valuable information respecting the

LXX. Bp. Home

Greek of the
This
(Preface).

allows, that the Apostles generally cited from the

LXX

version,

and took

it

us they found

it, Sec.

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 .

i.

Our
let his

translators

have given Acts

serting the
St.

20,

Rom.

xi. 9,

too strong a meaning, by intable," &c.

word "

let his

habitation," and "

Augustine,

who

constantly read and studied the Greek ver-

sion, interpreted their

language in a

far milder tone

Hs^c nan

optando sunt dicta, sed optandi

specie,

prophetando, pradicta.

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
passages, both in the Old, and
sigius,

many

New

Testament.

Kuster, Dre-

and

WoU

have shown, that in

many

texts, the force of

the middle verb should have been preserved, where

rendered by the passive. See particularly Act.

14, ix. 22.

xiii.

now it is 48, Rom. vii.

No. 10.

AS

it is

somewhat hazardous,

in this country,

even to allude
let

to the Apocrypha; to avoid misapprehension,

me

at once

declare

my

sentiments, in the simple and decisive language of

''

Augustine,

///

Apocryphis,

etsi

invenitur aliqua Veritas, tamen

_.

1G4

APPENDIX.
est

propter miilta falsa, nulla

to be deplored, that
it

canordca auctoritas.

It is

much

was ever intermingled with the Canonical

books; and especially, that Jerome should have given his high
authority, to this Biblical confusion.

As a
I hope,

sincere Protestant, having

it

made

this

acknowledgment,

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.

same, as that of the

LXX,

Though their style is essentially the it is somewhat more free, and ap-

proaches nearer to that of the

arises,

New

Testament.

This difference

from their compositions being original, and not transla(except

Sirach),

tions,

and also from

their

being composed Representing

at a later date, than the Alexandrian version.

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
for the

do some chapters of the Maccabees approach to the diction of

others, in the Acts of the Apostles, that,
if it

were not

subject, but little difference could be found

between them.

The two moral books. The Wisdom of

Sirach,

are peculiarly valuable, as specimens of Jewish ethics,

and of Solomon, 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
1st.

useful here to give the hst of

Hellenistic authorities.
3rd.

The

LXX.

2ndi.

The Apocrypha.
JosepJius.

The

Nets) Testament.

4th. Philo.
7th.

5th.

6th.

The Pseudepigraphal Writers, comprehending those published by Fabricius and Thilo, especially, Evangelium Nicodemi. To these may be added, some of
the earher Reliquice Sacra, as edited by Grabe, and Routh.

The Apostolic Fathers.

The

labours of Bretschneider on the Apocryphal writings, should

always be mentioned with esteem.

APPENDIX.
No. 11.

1G5

T"^HERE

an ambiguity, as Professor Stuart has rightly observed,* in the use of the words Canon, and Canonical,
is

in the ancient writers,

which has frequently led theological stuSometimes, they are used as equi-

dents into serious mistakes.

valent to our word inspired, and at others, only as equal to our

word authoritative, i. e. readable, in the public worship of the In this Apology, I have ventured to take them occaChurch.
sionally in both these significations,

and

to

adapt both, to the

purpose of the argument.

But,
it

may be

objected, that

have also used the word

usual,

Canonical, in a

more extensive sense than

by applying

it,

not only to the number of the books in the Old Testament,

(which

is

the same in the

Hebrew and

LXX);
it

but also to

the textual distinction arising from the Original, or the Version.

If

any defence be required on

this point,

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

or avoid such language,
theirs,

is it

possible to forget

when advocating
I

the same opinion, as

it,

on the subject of the Canon.

have used

therefore,

in reference to the

LXX

sometimes, as implying divine inspi-

ration

at others, as confined to that ecclesiastical authority,

in the assemblies of

which pertains to writings, publickly read

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

in

for

the use of professed schismatics, or seceders from the Jewish

Church.

2nd. Because

it

had never been publicly used

it

any

Jewish synagogue.
I

3rd. Because

was not

ratified, or
it

recog-

nized

by

Christ, or the Apostles.

* Section

4th.

Because

had never

ii.

Definition of Canon, pp. 22-29.

16G

APPENDIX.

been esteemed as canonical, by the Christian Church.

these are precisely the criterions, by which,
tural
It

Now,

we prove
to

the Scrip-

and Canonical authority of the LXX. is now, indeed, of the utmost importance

be explicit on

the subject of the Canon, since a party has arisen, even within

our Church, which joins the continental neologists, in their " dissolving views," respecting any positive, or objective,
Scripture.
It is the characteristic

Canon of

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
tianity,

the profession of spiritualising whatever

is

material,

and

of exalting the internal, over the external, evidences of Chrisit

silently

undermines

all historical fact,

and leaves us

poor indeed,

to toy

and

trifle

with our

own

imaginations.

Satan assumes the appearance of an angel of light, he approaches in his most dangerous and fascinating aspect, and

When

when

it is

represented, that christian piety can flourish, without

external ordinances, or that christian truth can be established,

independently of the writteti

of his old pretence, to give us

Word
all

of God,
if

the world,

we are reminded we but fall down

and worship him.

It is just at

such a

crisis

of the written Canon, that an Apology

all

for the

LXX

may

claim the attention and regard of

prudent

and

reflecting Christians.

The Greek Version should be adits

mitted, as Canonical, not only on

it

own

account, but because

It exhibits

stands pledged and united to both Testaments.

the

Hebrew Canon of
It

the Old Testament, stereotyped in that

Hellenistic Greek, in

which we have received the Canon of the

imparts that unity and compactness to the
it

New Testament.
Word
Christ,
the Spirit.
is

of God, which, at once transforms

into the stvord of

the Cross of

Next

to the folly of being

ashamed of

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

established,
till

satisfactorily be
is

the authority of the Septuagint

recognised, as

the sole Canonical Interpreter of the

Hebrew

text.

APPENDIX.
The truth of this observation cannot be than by considering the strong and unnatural
the Septuagint
position, in

107
better illustrated,

which

now

stands, in reference both to the believer,

" It has been

and unbeliever of
an able writer

Christianity.

made an ob-

jection to the plenary Inspiration of the

New

Testament," says
Version, and that

in the Biblical Cyclopaedia (Article Inspiration),

" that they generally quote from the

LXX

these quotations are frequently wanting in exactness.

is,

Our

reply

that the quotations are

made

in the usual

manner, according
in

to the dictates of

common

sense,

and always

such a way, as
is

to subserve the cause of truth,

and therefore, that the objection

without foundation.
never quote
it,

As

to the Septuagint version, the Apostles

so as to interfere with the authority of the

Hebrew

Scriptures.

Their references to the Old Testament, are

is

just used, as the case requires. There

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,
it

Septuagint Version, and arranged

The Use of the 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,
first

when

it

is

remem-

bered, that, during the three

centuries of the Church, no

such thoughts or animadversions could have been entertained,

either

by the

believers, or unbelievers of the

first

Gospel? Would any

Christian, of the three

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
and

Sense.

Once assume the

it

Inspiration of the

New Testament,

you place
tions.

in a category, distinct
is

from

all

ordinary composi-

Nor

the subsequent remark correct, that the Ajjostles

so as to interfere

never follow

it,

with the Hebrew.

It is sur-

prising, that this able writer should

have hazarded such an asser-

168
tion,

APPENDIX.
when
it is

well

known, there
differ

are

numerous

citations in the

New

Testament, which

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
version.

their

quotations

belongs
text,

quite
to

as

much

to

those,

derived from the

Hebrew

as

others,

from the Greek

How surprised and shocked the early Christians would

New
Testament
!

have been, by such a defence of the

It

never

entered into the minds of Celsus or Porphyry,

jections, because the Septuagint
ferior value, to the

to urge such obin-

was then not supposed of

Hebrew.

Nor can

the plenary Inspiration of the

New
its

Testament ever

be defended, unless we satisfactorily defend

tations from the

numerous quo-

LXX.

But
to

this

can never be accomplished,

of common
sense,

by putting them on a

level with the dictates

nor by supposing them

be

made

in

the usual

manner.
the

Common

sense

applies

to

the ordinary state of

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 TesInfidels,

tament; or we must submit to the taunts of

is

and what

far

more

painful, to the secret misgivings of our

own

con-

sciences.

The hypothesis, which Dr. Lee has

which he assumes no
literal
little

recently advocated, and for

credit,^ viz. that the grammatical

and

sense of the citations in the

New

Testament

is

to be dis-

tinguished, from their spiritual and exegetical import, cannot

be admitted,

think, as adequate to explain the peculiar dis-

crepancies of quotation between the

text,

LXX,

and the Hebrew

if

because

it

will

apply equally to both.

But,

intended, as

* Appendix, No. 6.
j-

Unum me

monstrasse, ni fallor, gJoi'iarer

Crisin

sc.

literahm, a crisi exeProleg. iv,

3,

getica didactica, alienam prorsiis esse, atque jure ita esse debere.
c.

18.

APPENDIX.
and
original meaning,
it

109

a general solution of all variations in quotation, from their exact

is

but a development of the doctrine of

Origen, applied to citations, and thus converting citations into

parallels.

This hypothesis
;

may
will

be tenable,

if

limited to passages

of mere adaptation

but

it

not avail to historical appeals, to

prophetic predictions, or to the purposes of strict argument.

cautiously admitted,
it

If

forms a fresh illustration of parity bein their essential

tween the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament,

relation to the

New.

No.

12.
felt

IN this " Apology," of has any distinct notice

it

not been

necessary to introduce

the Samaritan Pentateuch, on account of

origin, the slight value
it

the great obscurity of

its

now

generally

attached to

its text,

and the small influence which

could possess,

on the general argument.

high
in repute,

The time was, when

it

this

Version was
to trace its

and when

might have been worthy

;

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
is

now

generally admitted, that the Samaritan Pentateuch

not, for a

moment,

to be
its

compared with the Hebrew

In

text, in

critical value,

and that

readings,

when unsupported by other

its

authority, are seldom, if ever, to be preferred.

chrono-

logy,

it

approaches to the

LXX.

It is also

admitted, that the

Samaritan Pentateuch generally agrees with the

occasionally,

LXX,

and

when

it

differs

from the Hebrew.

5,

A
oi

slight

example

of this occurs in Matth. xix.

in the

where the words

Suo are found

;

Samaritan and the

iv. 8,

LXX,

but not in the Hebrew

see also

Gen.

where the words

diiX9u)iuiev elg

to ireSiov in the

LXX,

are supported by the Samaritan version. The principal value of the Samaritan Pentateuch,
z

in reference

170
to the

APPENDIX.
LXX, consists, first, in
Hebrew
it fortifies

showing, that the vowel points and

itself,

accents in
therefore,

are not coeval with the language

and

the hypothesis, that the

LXX

translated

from unpointed MSS.

Secondly, that the variations from the

in the

Hebrew
in the

text,

which are found

Samaritan Pentateuch and

antiquity, as can be

LXX,

must have been of as great

claimed for the former.

But the
proves

latest date,
is

which can be

as-

signed to the Samaritan Pentateuch,

fact is of importance, as
it

the age of Ezra.

This

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

ton's

LXX, should

consult Whis-

Appendix No.

1, in his

" Essay on the Text of the Old

Testament." Lond. 1722.

It

might have translated from the Samaritan

once have destroyed
all their credit

was once supposed that the LXX But this would at

!

with the Alexandrian Jews, then could Josephus or

unless they were Samaritans.

How

Philo have believed, in the Divine origin of the Septuagint?

How

could our Saviour, or the Apostles, have given

it

their

sanction?
carap, to

only mention this absurd hypothesis of Hassenall parties, to

show the readiness of

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
is

his different tracts

are well deserving of republication.

There

also

much

infor-

mation respecting

it,

in Walton's " Prolegomenon x\.," in Kitto's

Biblical Cyclop&clia, and in Davidsons Ninth Letter on Biblical

Criticism.

From
Hebrew

the relative position of the Samaritan Pentateuch, to the

text

and the Greek

version, I think

important conclusions:

1st.

That, the

we may deduce these Hebrew text ever re;

mained of supreme authority

gint

at Jerusalem

whilst the Septua-

was considered, as secondary, but of great and legitimate

APPENDIX.
importance
:

]71
2nd. That,

this

we may term
and

the Temple Canon.

in Samaria, a defective

heretical

canon was prevalent, con3rd. That, in Galilee, the

fined to the

Samaritan Pentateuch.

Septuagint was in general use in the synagogues, and was held

of equal authority, with the Original. This
istic

we

term, the Hellen-

Canon.

It

was

this,

which descended, through Christ and

the Apostles, to the Primitive Church.

As

to the remains of the

Greek

version,

(To

Sa^uajoeiTtKOv) of

the Samaritan Pentateuch, they are too few and desultory, as

Dr. Davidson has remarked, to render

value.

them of any

critical

Had

they been more numerous or continuous, they would

have been of the highest importance, in augmenting our knowledge of Hellenistic phraseology.

See Montfaucon's "Prselim.

Hexap. Orig." cap.

ii."

1,

9; and Professor Lee's " Prolegom.

15.

No.

13.

THE
titles,

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

ascribed to Jehovah in the

LXX.
fi

and
is

to

Jesus in the

New
14,
re-

Testament.

Of these, the most remarkable

"^QiV

that in Exod.

iii.

'Ey w

tl/xi

''Qv ttTrlffraXicI

irpog vfiag.

Now,

it is

marked by Glassius,* Carpzov,f and

title is

others, that the

same Divine

ascribed to our Lord, in several passages of the

New TesApoc.
i.

tament.
4, 8.

See John

i.

18;
6

iii.

13;

vi.

46

Rom.
It

ix.

5;

The same

title,

''12v, is

repeatedly used by Philo.

See

particularly

De Mund.

Opi/ic. sub Jin.

may

be questioned,

whether such passages, in the

clearly understood, if they

New

Testament, could have been

illustrated

had not been thus

by

the

LXX.
is

There

another, and

somewhat

similar, expression, 'Eytu Eijue,

is

to denote the divinity of Christ,

which

also transferred from

* Philolog. Sacr. p. 355, Edit. Dathe.

t Carpzov. ad Ileb. passim.


172
the Septuagint;
it

APPENDIX.
occurs frequently both in the

New Testament,*
xliii.

and the

LXX.
24,
is

But the coincidence between Esa.

so striking, as to

10,

and

Joan

viii.

demand

particular notice.

It

is still

more doubtful, whether such a passage could be under-

stood without the corresponding interpretation of the

LXX.
conde-

See Esa.

xliv.

6;

xlviii.

12; Apoc.

i.

11.

Whoever

will

scend to consult
the

my labours, will find, that almost every page of New Testament admits of similar observations. 'ETriaTevaa,
koX
VfJieig

Sib tXaXr}(Ta, (Ps. cxv. 10.)

Ibiev.

iriaTevofxev, Sib

icat

\aXov-

(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 doctrinal

phraseology of the

New

Testament would have been

it

scarcely intelligible, be not formed of materials, which entitle

to

be esteemed of Divine authority.

The sublime
of the

doctrine, so

satisfactorily

proved by

Bishop

Bull in his Defence of the Nicene Creed, that, by the sole study

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-

Nicerie Fathers.

This

is

a decisive testimony to the Scriptural

value and authority of the Greek Version, and should silence

those,

the

who absurdly seek to undervalue it, by contrasting it with Hebrew text. During the canonical reign of the LXX, i. e.
it

for the first three centuries,

should be remembered, that the

original purity,

Church retained much of her

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,

e'i/mi

when speaking
1

of himself, sometimes reverses their order,

lyd.

Rom.

xi.1,13;

Tim.

i.

15.

This

is

a delicate

and refined

attention to verbal associations.

APPENDIX.
riod
!

173

Secular knowledge of every kind has been carried to a

height, of which the early Christians could form

no imagination.

Nay, even the

of the Church.

historical evidences of the

Gospel are now^ much

better understood, than they could have been, at that early age

But look

at the general aspect of Christianity

on the Continent, where the study of Hebrew has been carried, as it is

thought, to

its

highest perfection; and contrast their

religious
believers.

and doctrinal sentiments, with those of the primitive

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.

mirror in the

The man, who

habitually collates the

He-

brew with the Septuagint, and who

finds their best

and brightest

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
in

is

another,

and very
as

different cause, for the

low estimation of Septuagintal,

this country.

compared with Hebraic knowledge,

;

We
to us,

inherit this prejudice, as Protestants

it

has come

down

from the

first

Reformers.

But of

late years, this

sentiment has

been much augmented, by a strong current

approach of the Millennial age.
to hazard

to the study of pro-

phecy, particularly to the expected return of the Jews, and the

do not

feel

myself at liberty

any opinion, on such obscure

investigations.

Many

wise and good

men have
topics.

entertained very different sentiments,

on these prophetic

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

us.

study of the

LXX.

now stands amongst

But

would respectfully submit, that no attachment

in the

to pro-

phetic enquiries, no expectation of an approaching Millennium,

can justify any Christian,

neglect of that Greek version,

which was the main channel of bringing both Jews and Gentiles,
into the pale of the early Church.
is

The conversion of the Jews

not likely to be furthered, by fostering any contempt of a

174
version,

APPENDIX.
made
nearly 300 years, before the Christian era, and
till

revered

by Jewish rabbins,
if

they found

it

employed by

Christians, to convict their rejection of Jesus, as the Messias.

On

the contrary,

we may

reason, from the past to the future,

their reception of Christianity will their returning veneration

probably be associated, with

of the Septuagint.
it

When

grafted

upon the Christian Church,

version

seems highly credible, their con-

may

be effected, by that sacred instrument, which can

alone enable them to read and understand the Old and

New
our

Testament, as the expositors of each other.

There

is

one point, which should never be

viz.

lost sight of, in

communication with the Jews,

verted into Judaism.

that

they are to be conis

verted to Christianity, not that Christianity

It
is

ever to be conin

not,

by confirming Jews

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.
looked

have met with many converted Jews, who evidently

Christians, as their inferiors

down upon
if

and secondaries.

Instead of cherishing their temporal hopes of returning to Jerusalem,

the prejudices of their Rabbins could be overcome
it

by the
are

LXX.

is

probable, they

would drop that latent

assumption of spiritual superiority, which, even Jewish converts

now

too apt to indulge, and which forms their strongest

bar, to the full reception of the Gospel.

The Hebrew convert

is

is

but half Christian

the Hellenist convert

an entire Christian.

No.

14.

MAY
whilst the

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

is

most unremitting attention

given to the study of

is

heathen authors, so httle regular provision

tical

made

for the cri-

study of that peculiar Greek, in which the

to

LXX.

and

New

Testament are confessedly allowed

have been composed.

In
the

the days of Blackwall, attempts were

made

to associate

APPENDIX.
beauties of the classics, with the style of the

175
Greek Testament,

and youths were taught

to

compare Pindar and Anacreon, with

passages in the Evangelists, or Epistles.

in his elaborate Edition of the

Nay, even Wetstein,

dis-

Greek Testament, does not

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,

am

sorry to say, would

result of such

ill

bear to appear, in an English garb.

risons,
it is

The

compataste.

to be feared, cannot be very favourable to the piety

of the pupils.

Nor can

it

be more conducive to their good

The
the

beauties of the Classics are so entirely distinct, from those of

Hebrew

or Hellenistic w^riters, 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
told,

is

the subject of study, the pupils should be

foot-

"they are standing on holy ground/' and no profane

Till

steps should be admitted to intrude.

the plain

line

of

demarcation
is
little

is

drawn between sacred and

secular literature, there

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
there
seniors at our public schools,

and more

especially,
is

at the College Lectures, in our Universities? Till this

is little

effected,

hope of the

critical

study of the Greek Testament,

becoming prevalent amongst

our

us.

The perpetual

recollection of

own

excellent English translation forms a peculiar obstacle,

inter-

which can hardly be surmounted, but by constantly

* For

much

valuable information on these and

many kindred

topics, relating

to the study of the

Greek Testament, I would The Christian Remembrance7; AprW, 1848.

refer to a masterly Critique, in

17G

APPENDIX.
LXX,
I

posing the Version of the

association.
tolic

and thus breaking

or Philo.

ofi'

tlie

If

more be required,

would recommend the Apos-

Fathers, with

some portion of Josephus,

The result

would be, that we should read our Greek Testament, with a Hellenistic taste,

without which,

its

peculiar phraseology can scarcely

be appreciated.
the

With

all their errors, it

must be allowed, that

vation of sacred criticism.

Germans have bestowed far greater attention, on the cultiNay, even the Dissenting Academies,
classical scholars, equal to those
I

though they do not produce

of our pubhc schools, yet, more than rival us,

may

be strictly termed, a theological education.

"

fear, in
I

what

began," says

a late eminent Dissenter, " about the year 1785, to read the Septuagint 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

the theological books,
a short
I

my
all
it

mind, than

all

had ever consulted.

I

had proceeded, but

the prejudices

way
it

in

it,

before

was convinced, that

;

against

were utterly unfounded

and that

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

with the study of the Greek version.

Hebrew Chair, by connecting it The Hebrew Professor

and the Version. By
diffused

should be considered, as Professor of Hebrew-Greek, and his Prelections should relate equally to the Original,

such a union, mutual

facility

and pleasure would be

over these studies, and

their conjoint

Canonical value would

be recognised.

It

would then remain

for the Professor of Divito the doctrinal

nity, to direct that philological

knowledge
gives

study

of the Old and

New Testament. It

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.
iii.

At
3,

p. 25, he satisfactorily shows, that the quotations Matt.

Mark
lists,

i.

23,

Luke

iii.

7,

John

i.

23 "

are, in all the

Evange-

either mediately or immediately, derived from the Septua-

gint,

and not from the Hebrew."

APPENDIX.
I

177

cannot close

this

Note, without expressing

my
is

painful

convictions, that the absence of Septuagint authority,

defect, in

the fatal

as concerns the
his extensive

Bishop Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article, New Testament, Admirably, as he has shown

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 Gieek.

As

far as I

can judge, he would have derived

no support

for his theory,

from the
I

LXX.

or from the writings

is

of Philo, or Josephus.

This,

apprehend,

fatal to the

gram-

matical argument, theologically considered.

the

The testimony of

LXX. would

have been of

far

more

value, on such a subject,

than the whole phalanx of the Greek Classics.

whicli Dr.

Fathers,

The testimonies, Wardworth subsequently collected from the Greek 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

it

treatise, I

beg

will

be distinctly understood, that

its

only speak

of the grammatical argument, in

ment.

relation to the

New

Testa-

Indeed,

it is

utterly incredible, that Galilean fishermen

should have paid any attention to such grammatical minutics.

But
not

it

marks the low estimate

of the

Greek Version amongst

us, that such a profound

Scholar, as Bishop Middleton, had

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

effect, in their illustrations

LXX.

with most

of Scripture.

No.

15.

IN

most of the accounts, which have been given of the pecuof the Hellenistic style of the

liarities

LXX

sufficient weight,

I think, has not been attributed to the fact, that they were Jewish

who were religiously devoted to the Hebraic original. There appears too much attempt, on the part of Sturzius and
translators,

others, to insist on a pecuhar

Greek
A A

dialect, previously existing

at Alexandria.

That the

LXX.

version might have taken

some

178
slight tinge from

APPENDIX.
the provincial

Greek there spoken,

is

highly
left

probable.

But, since no other Alexandrian writers have

style, as the

us

any specimen of the same

being Jewish Interpreters,

LXX.

think,

we may

safely infer, that their chief peculiarities

were owing, to their

duty to adhere, as

who

felt

it

their

closely as possible, to the style of the Inspired Original.

Every translator

is,

no doubt,

to

some

extent, influenced
;

by
but

the style and language of the authors, which he translates

a Jew, translating the Holy Scriptures into Greek, would place

himself, under a far

more constraining

influence.

Viewing those
all

around, as Heathen, he would, as

much

as possible, avoid

conmion and secular phraseology, by endeavouring

that sacred idiom, which he deemed, the

to preserve

of the Mosaic oeconomy.

&c. to illustrate

mark and shibboleth The attempts of Raphelius, Eisner, Hebraic Greek, from some stray expressions
us,

in the classical writers, are, as Valckenaer observes, of very small

value, nay, are

sometimes mischievous. They decoy

classic,

from the

Hebraic or Hellenistic, to the

meaning. In investigating

the force of any fifoc^nwa/ expression, they are not of the slightest
authority.

The
is

Hellenistic style of the

LXX. and
its

of the

New

Testament,

essentially based

on the Hebrew idiom.

Jewish origin.

With

the exception

of a few grammatical peculiarities,

sively belonging to its

characteristics are exclu-

turning over the Lexicons of

You may learn more, by 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

into the

and

sacrificial

terms of the ancient Hebrews,

same phraseology, as

that,

which was subsequently

adopted by the Evangelists and Apostles.

satisfied

To

those,

who

are
is

with availing themselves of the

light, the

Version

sufiicient.

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.

but

The

knowledge of Arabic may serve to illustrate Hebrew etymologies,

it

will not

conduce

to pointing out the

connexion between

APPENDIX.
Hebrew and Greek.
It

179
idiom either of the

cannot

illustrate the

LXX.

or the

New Testament,

still less,

can

it

determine the force

of any doctrinal term.

These observations are designed

bounds, which
strictly

to

define

the marks and

belong to a Theological education, apart

from those interminable pursuits, which the German neologists

would now represent, as the proper ends and objects of Theological enquiry.

To

those,

who

devote their

lives, to

the professed

study of Philology, the knowledge of

ancient or modern,

all

languages, whether
desirable.

may

be thought

fit

and

But,

it is

consoling to the Christian Divine, to know, that a competent

knowledge of the Hebrew

requisite, to render

text and the Septuagint, is all that is him thoroughly conversant with the Scrip-

tures of the

Old and

New

Testament.

am

speaking only of

Theological requirements.

The Hebraic,

or Hellenistic Greek, constitutes the sacred idiom,

as distinguished from the classic, or profane.

apart, not to blend them,
is

To keep them
It con-

the characteristic of theological

good

taste

nay

it

is,

apprehend, something more.

stitutes

the

to attire the

garb and livery of sound doctrine. language of the Scriptures, in a

If you

attempt

classic form,

are in danger of substituting heathen ethics, for Christian

rals,

you mo-

by bringing down the doctrines of the Bible,

speculations.
or, as I

to the level

of

human

The Divine Wisdom,

Testament,
is

would rather term

it,

the verbal

Inspiration which characterizes the Greek Version of the

chiefly developed,

Old

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

one who

of Divine Revelation, 'and thus prepare for the advent of the Gospel
Dispensation.

Thus maTOQ,
is

in profane writers, signifies,

is

adheres to truth in his promises, or

aTTicTTOQ signifies

worthy of

credit,

and

a har, or one unworthy of credit.

called TricrTog
is

But, in the

Hellenistic idiom, he

who

gives credit to another,

and he
the

aTrtaroc,

who

unbelieving, or, will not give credit.

So, diKaioc, in the

LXX.

and the

Judge pronounces innocent,

i.

New Testament, is one, whom e. whom he absolves, or par-


180
dons.
just
ill

APPENDIX.
Whereas
himself]
^[naiog, in Classic

Greek,

signifies one,

and on

his

own

account,

rectus in

who is who curia,

therefore needs no pardon.

Hence the word StKatouv, in Classic Greek, means to adjudge, and even to punish never to absolve, needless to add, that the doctrine of Christian or pardon.
;

It is

Justification

depends on

this verbal, yet essential, difference.

for the

When

Augustine claimed

LXX.

the privilege of Divine

aid in carrvins; on their Version, no doubt, he was led, by his

deep knowledge of human nature, to infer this Di\ane help, from

their adoption of such
that,

remarkable phraseolog}'.

He

considered,

nothing

less

than supernatural assistance, could have en-

abled Alexandrian Jews, to anticipate the very names, terms,

and intents of Christian theology.

me

to

ridicule,

make

the

same avowal.

Though The

it

may

expose

inspiration of

the Hellenistic

Greek of the

New

Testament appears to estainspiration of the

blish the corresponding fact,

the antecedent
irvivfj.a,

Hellenistic Version of the

ditate the
ayaTTij,

Old Testament.

Let the reader me-

moral and

spiritual

import of these doctrinal terms,

ayiodvvr), a~aTr]
-11]^

ayiaLnv, ayia ayiiov, ayiov

^ij^aioixrOai
tiKaiu)(Tic,
rrji-

QfiaoTiaQy
tiKaioavi'Ti,

tcauciav, ^iel^aiovfievog Iv ti^ Tr'ny-u,

ebpaiog, iKKaKelv,

evTvy\aviv run

ifTrip

Tivog, iv\api(rTaiv,

ari^pi^eiv,

iiaTripi^iiv

rag i^v\ag
the

Sec.

&C.

From such
he
will
is

expressions in the

LXX. and

New

Testament,

be able to judge,
justified.

how

far this theory of verbal inspira-

tion

The

diligent study of Valckenaer's Schola in

y>ov. Test, will

much

assist

him, in these researches.

This view of the Greek Version

may be
is,

still

further illustrated,
close or

by considering, that the Septuagint

literal interpretation of the

bv no means, a
it

Hebrew
it

text, that

often amplifies,

and often abbreviates, and that

tinct sense,

not unfrequently gives a disto the purposes of the

is

which

is

more accommodated
it is,

Xew

Testament.

Hence

that this Version

it

often quoted

bv Jesus and the Apostles, when

Original.

clearly differs

from the

The comprehensive character of

the Septuagint can

never be understood, unless viewed as a stepping-stone to the

>'ew Testament, not a

the

servile translation of the

strict

Hebrew.
literal

Had
repre-

LXX.

confined their version, to a

and

APPENDIX.
been adopted, as the vocabulary of the
of the Gospel.

181

sentation of the Original text, their version never could have

New

Testament.

It

could not have been applied, to interpret the peculiar doctrines

The

objections,

which are urged against

it

on

this subject, are the strongest evidences of its

Divine Inspiration.
distinct

Whilst

it

confers a

new meaning on Greek words,

:

from

that of classic writers

to

it

also frequently modifies the

Hebrew,

meet the more

spiritual

import of the better covetmnt.

Such a sacred
It

peculiarity, is of itself, sufficient to intimate its

supernatural character.

may

be questioned, indeed, whether the pecuUar 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.

single versicle, in the
trated,

There

is

not a
illus-

New

Testament, which

may

not be

both in thought and expression, from the Alexandrian

After more than twenty years of dihgent examination,

Version.
I

am

constantly alighting on

new

correspondences.

\A e

may

challenge infidels to produce, from

all

the books which ever have

been written, any thing, which can even approach such a singular phenomenon.
If this identity
thors,
tion.
it

had taken place between any two

single au-

might have been assigned, to a studied and

artful imita-

But, as the Old and

New

Testament

is

composed of a
likeness,

great variety of distinct writers, each of

teristic style

whom

has some characis

and manner,

this general

and pervading

something marvellous and singular.

counted
for,

It cannot, I think,

be actill

on any ordinary theories of human nature, and

some
it,

rational solution can be given,

we
is

are justified in viewing

the unity of the Spirit.
out, to

as peculiar to Divine Inspiration. It

These verbal coincidences, when carried

such an amazing

extent, are no less real, though less striking, than the coinci-

dences ofy7cf, collected in Paley's HorcE Pau/in(!,SLnd they

be logically considered,

may

when

ecrouped, as forming a kind of

philological evidence for Divine Revelation.

But

everything,


182
in

APPENDIX.

such evidence, depends, on the aggregate and amount of the

examples.

It is altogether curmdative.

Having furnished the data of this

new and

striking species of

grammatic evidence, for the authenticity of the

New
its

Testament,
nature and

may
able.

be permitted to

offer a

few observations on
it is

extent ?

Considered merely as expositive,

extremely valu-

It provides us,

with the exact and scriptural import of

all

every word and phrase, apart from

metaphysical speculation,

and

all

doctrinal controversy.

To

collate parallel words, expres-

and thoughts, between the LXX. and the New Testament, is the most exact method of arriving at their real meaning, without provoking any party passions, or opinions.
sions,

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
it

was
the

this

Ca}i yon, by

the process of exhaustion, or as

it

were, by super imposition,

make

appear, that the entire phraseology

its

of

New

Testament, even

in

minutest point,

is identical,

with the words, thoughts, and

expressions of the

LXX ?
and
it

After

many

years of unabated labour, the result of this uni-

versal collation has been submitted to the public,

may now

be assumed,

I trust,

that this question

is

satisfactorily answered.

As
and
that

a fact, a phenomenon, peculiar to the

New

Testament
its
is

and the

LXX.

it

may justly
solution,

challenge enquiry into

I

nature
this
it

origin.
it

The

which

humbly proposed

arises out of the verbal inspiration of both,

and that

can be explained, on no other hypothesis.

With
perhaps

respect to the verbal Inspiration of the

it

New

Testament,

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 unerring 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.
we
believe,

183
translators of the

was imparted
It

to the

Greek

Old

Testament.

was

chiefly verbal, enabling

them

to transfer

faithfully into Hellenistic

in the

Greek, what had before been spoken

Syro-Chaldaic dialect.

The

first

kind of Inspiration, was second to the transla-

imparted to the original speakers,

tors.

We thus secure the plenary Inspiration of the Gospels, by

;

the

uniting the real, to the verbal

the thought, to the language.

No.

16.
in

T may seem somewhat

narrow-minded and old-fashioned,

old

these days, to

recommend the

lologists,

in preference to
in

Dutch critics and phithose of modern Germany, as far

Scripture.

safer guides,

the study of Sacred

The School

of Holland began with Drusius, arrived at maturity with G"otius,

and was continued by Lampe, Markius, and Vitringa, &c.

its

Amongst
remain

Scriptural philologists,
Alberti,
is

the

names of Leusden,
will

Vorstius, Bos, Schultens,

illustrious.

and Valckenaer

ever

There

a vein of moderation

and good

sense in these writers, blended with devotion and submission

to the

Holy

Scriptures, which should ever

the attention of the Christian scholar and divine.

tions of Krebsius

and Ottius,

recommend them, to The annotaon Josephus; of Loesner, Hornman,

in elucidating

and Carpzov, on Philo, are of indispensable value,

the style of the

LXX.

and the

New

Testament.

In the biograwill find

phies of

Wyttenbach and Ruhnken, the reader

many

pleasing anecdotes of these eminent scholars.

No.

17.

LET me not
that Jesus,

disguise from the reader, that I had

drawn up

the whole of this Apology, before I arrived at the conviction,

when a
in

child,

was instructed

in the
I

knozdedge of the

LXX.

As

the

course of
it

my

studies,
till

had never met

wdth this suggestion,

train of this enquiry,

did not occur,

reviewing the entire

which

may

account for some apparent dis-

location, in the subordinate arguments.

Yet

this inference

seems

184
so obvious, that

APPENDIX.
we may wonder,
I
it

has not been often dwelt on.

first

As

it

is

now
it

proposed,
is

beheve, the

time to pubhc conit,

sideration,

only respectful to support

familiarize its reception.

by such

collateral

evidence, as

may

Let me be pardoned,

therefore, for exhibiting,

somewhat
based.

in detail, the historical

and

local facts,

on which

it is

The parents of Jesus

resided at Nazareth, a small village of

Galilee, about ninety miles north of Jei'usalem.

This was the

Judea, or

most northern division of Palestine, and

Samaria, in civihzation and repute.

far inferior to

It

was

totally

subdued

740

B, c.

by Tiglath-Pileser, and

its

original Jewish inhabitants

led captive into Assyria. (2

Kings, xv. 29.)

Galilee

into

two provinces, the Upper, and the Lower.

was divided The former was

1,)

called Galilee of the Nations, or Gentiles, (Esa. ix.

it

because

had the larger proportion of heathen, mixed with Jewish

inhabitants.

The
traffic

coast of Galilee was well adapted for commerce, and

through the port of Ptolemais (hodie Acre), kept up a constant

with Alexandria.
It is

repeatedly mentioned in the

Macv. 15,

cabees.

Hence, the Greek version of the Old Testament found

See
1

a ready access to the neighbouring regions.

21, 55.

Mace.

Ptolemais was amongst the

See Acts xxi.
7.

earliest stations of the pri-

mitive Church.
It

was

in the
till

Lower Galilee Jesus

resided,

and here he

chiefly

remained,
visits to

about thirty years of age, paying only occasional

festivals.

Jerusalem, at the great

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,

society.

in the

humblest condition of

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,
See

in

comparison with that of Judsea and Jerusalem.

Mark

xiv. 70.

The

plain inference

is this,

that Jesus was

in the

instructed

by

his parents, not in the

Hebrew, but

Greek

APPENDIX.
Version, of the Old Testament.

185
is

And

this inference

confirmed

from the following

fact

1st.

That Mary,

his mother, in her

hymn

of praise, Luc.
I

i.

46-55, employs entirely Septuagintal

had long since marked, Citata fere onuiia. 2nd. That, nearly all the quotations made by Jesus himself from
expressions, which

the Old Testament are taken vei^batim from the

occasionally, where they differ from the
8, 9)
;

LXX.

and

Hebrew

(see

Matt. xv.

whilst several quotations

made by

the Evangelists, differ

from the
It is

LXX.

and agree with the Hebrew.

I

with pleasure,

make

the following extract, from a masin

terly Article,

which appeared

The Quartei'ly Journal of Pro-

phecy, for October, 1849.

Quotations by our Lord from the Old Testament.

Matt.
iv.

iv. 6.
iv. 7.

Luke iv. 4. [By Satan.]

. . .
.

V^erbatim with the Septuagint.

Taken from

the Septuagint.

iv. 10.

ix. xi.

13;* xii. 10; Mark

27
;

7.
i.

Verbatim with the Septuagint. Taken from the Septuagint. Verbatim with the Septuagint.
Differs from both
gint.
.p

Luke
iv.
.

vii. )

Hebrew and Septua-

xiii.

Mark 14, 15 ' T Luke vm. , 10

1

12

;
.

)
{

the Septuagmt. laken from ^v, c . o

,
r.

XV.

8,9..
.

Differs

from the Hebrew, agrees with the

the Septuagint.

Septuagint.
xix. 5.
. .
.

Taken from

xix. 18, 19.

Verbatim with the Septuagint.

\'erbatim with the Septuagint.
<

xix. 19
xxi.

xxii. 39.

13; Markxi. 17; ' XIX 4o

'

Lukei
M
.

Agrees both with Hebrew and Septuagint. Bloomneld on Mark Lrovett on Isaiah Ivi. 7. Not mentioned by Home. C
;

Matt.

xxi.
xxii.

16

Verbatim with the Septuagint.

)
>
-.t

42 32

; '

Mark Mark
Mark

xii.

10; Luke '

-.i Verbatim with .u o * the Septuagint.

i

xxii.

; '

xii.

26
30

; '

Luke
Luke
.

)
>

^j

,. -^i Verbatim with .i c . the Septuagmt.

,

xxii.

37

xii.
.

X. 27.
xxii.

.^
) \

Agrees with the Septuagint in sense, not in words; nearly agrees with the Hebrew.
it
V
* a the o . Septuagint. erbatim with .i
,

44; Mark
'

xii.

36; Luke '

.

xxvi. 31

...
Hebrew].
.
.

V^erbatim with the Septuagint.

Differs from the Septuagint; agrees with

xxvii. 46. [In

Luke

iv.

18, 19.

xxii. 37.

....

the Hebrew. Taken from the Septuagint.

Agrees

in sense, not in

Septuagint.
*

words, with the Exact with the Hebrew.

from the Hebrew.

But Moses Stuart

says, this a direct translation

B B

186
" Here
it

APPENDIX.
will

be observed, that our Lord's quotations almost

universally agree with the Septuagint,*

some of which,

at the

same

time, differ from the

fairly, I

Hebrew."
in the Hellenistic version;

Now, we may
and
Ps.

think, deduce from these facts, that our

Lord was instructed by his parents,

this is further confirmed,

by remembering, that, when Jesus

put the Scribes and Pharisees to silence, by the argument from

cix.
1,

he adopts the

LXX.

so literally, that,
It

it

could

hardly apply to the Hebrew text.

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
version.

objection to the quotation, being taken from the

Greek

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.

in-

The

general deduction, that Jesus was himself instructed,

from his childhood in the Greek Version, by no means,

terferes with

any knowledge, which he might possess,

or

either

supernaturally,
tures.
life.

by

his

own study

of the Jewish

Scrip-

Thirty years form a long period even in an ordinary

How

inconceivedly great and rapid must have been

His

growth, in Divine Wisdom, whilst he remained outwardly subject

to his earthly parents
historical facts,
!

But we

are merely called

upon

to record
result.

and thence,

to infer their probable

That

Jesus was born and educated in Galilee, where

no Hebrew was known, and where no Hebrew Scriptures were

studied
craft

that his
and
that,

parents were poor, and engaged in a handi-

employment

that

his

mother was conversant with the

LXX.
nistry,

immediately on entering upon his public miwith Scribes and Pharisees, and that
to
its

he evinced his deep acquaintance with the Greek Version

that

he argued from

it

they made no objection

authority

nay that,
vii.

they

marvelled at his Scriptural knowledge, knowing that he had

not received a regular and learned education (see John
* Tlieve are four exceptions,

15.)

Matt.

xi.

10;

xxii.

37;

xxvii.

46; Luke

xxii.

^7; which

shall

be noticed after the theory has been propounded.

APPENDIX.
'

187
to

these
of the

are

the data, which

all

we now submit,

the serious

consideration of

who doubt,

or deny, the Scriptural authority

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 associate the Septuagint, with the nativity of Jesus.

As

this is

unquestionably the crowning argument of this

et

Apology (presidium,

duke decus meum!), may

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
it,

not enable

me

to

mention a single author, who has alluded to

either as fact, or hypothesis.

his cradle, in the

That Jesus was instructed, from

mistake not, be considered as a

knowledge of the Greek version of the Old

Testament,
self-evident

will henceforth, if I

and incontrovertible proposition, amongst theological

:

students.

The same inference will apply to all his disciples Behold, are not all these men rtho speak, Galileans ? The preix.
1,

diction of Isaiah, cap.

striking

2, will also

hence derive a more

iv.

and appropriate
;

fulfilment.
;

See Matt.

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 principal

department of our Saviour's

life

and ministry.

Its chief

towns were, Tiberias, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Nazareth, Cana, Caper-

naum, Nain, Csesarea, and Ptolemais.

according to Buxtorff and Lightfoot,

The Galilean dialect, was of a broad and rustic

It is probable, the

tone, differing from the Judsean Syriac.

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
iii.

synagogues (Matt.
;

iv.

23

ix.

35

xii.

Mark

i.

21, 39;

vi.

2;

John

vi.

59,)

it is

probable, that he


188

APPENDIX.
it
is,

used the Greek language, and the Greek Version. Certain, however,

that

tuagintal Greek.
ivere certain

all now comes to us alike delivered in SepThere The following passage is remarkable Greeks, amongst them that came up to ivorship at
it
:

the Feast

the

same came
desired

to

Philip, which was of Bethsaida, of

saying.
Sir,

Galilee,

and

him,

we would

see

Jesus.

John

xii.

20, 21. It should also be remembered, that Jesus

made
ii.

his first

appearance to the Apostles, after his resurrection, on a

in Galilee,

mountain
7, 16.

Where, he had appointed them.

Matt.

The only anecdote, which

doctors in the Temple,

is

related
is

by the Evangelists, conyears of age.

cerning Jesus during his youth,

that of his disputing with the

when he was twelve

Ancient Scriptures.

The

subjects of debate are not recorded, but they probably referred

to the predictions of the

Nor

is it

recorded,

whether the arguments were carried on,

our ignorance.

in the Hellenistic, or

Syro-Phcenician dialect; we must therefore remain content with

But, when the narrative proceeds to inform

and was
scarce understand any
filial

us,

that he returned with his parents to Nazareth,

subject

unto them;

we can

subjection, which

did not imply diligence and care in his education, more especially, as
it is

added, Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and

in

favour with
Galilee,
it

God and man. Luke

ii.

52.

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 profession,

and were detested by the more regular Jews, residing

at,

or

near, Jerusalem.

Amongst

the reproaches lieaped on Jesus by

the High priests and Pharisees, was one, that he was ^.Samaritan

(John

viii.

48); which, though false and unfounded, tends to

show, that the Galileans were often confounded with the Samaritans,

and held

in the

same low estimation. The communications

infer

between Galilee and Jerusalem were much impeded, by the mutual

divisions of the

Jews and Samaritans, as we may

to Jerusalem.

from the

expression
his

They

{the Samaritans) did not receive him, because

face was, as though he would go

Luke

ix.

53.

The Jews have no

dealing's rvith the

Samaritans. John

iv. 9.


APPENDIX.
It

189

does not appear,

think, that any of the Scribes or Phariin GaHlee.

sees resided constantly

They
xvi. 1;

are mentioned

as
1;

coming down from Jerusalem.

viii.

Matt.

Mark

iii.

22;

vii.

11;

Acts xxiv.

1,

a phrase, which seems to denote, that

they were deputed, from the high priest at Jerusalem, to go

to

down
in-

oppose the rising sect of the Nazarenes, without possessing

in that province.

any habitual residence

ference

Perhaps the same

stirreth

may

be drawn, from the accusation laid against him,

:

before Pilate

The chief

priests said,

He

up

the people,

teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning

place.

from

Galilee, to this

Luke

xxiii. 5.

There

is

a distinction also

made between
some difference
at

the leaven of the Pharisees, and the leaven of Herod, v. 15, which
intimates, that the jurisdiction of Herod had led to

of religious feelings^ from those prevalent

the Capital.

amongst the Jews,

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
it

mentioned, that the Hebrew text was read, accompanied with

theChaldee paraphrase; but,

scarcely

in the

Synagogues of Galilee,

can

be doubted, that the Greek Version was generally

Indeed, this
is

adopted.
17, 18,

rendered almost certain, from

Ixi. 1,

Luke

iv.

where the passage from Isaiah

accords with the

LXX. The
which
41, there
is

vernacular language of Galilee was Syro-Chaldaic,

differs so little

from that of the Peshito, that

in

Mark

v.

no interpretation given of the words

will

Talit.ha cumi.

The same observation

uttered from the Cross.

apply to the

last

solemn words,

But,

if

They are not Biblical we accept the hypothesis, so ably advocated byDiodati,*

Hebrew.

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

suggestion, though he

duced.
near
it.

He does not, however, touch He proves, with great force, the

may

t/ie

I have adcomes very

spread of the Greek over the East.

The

same

fact

also be deduced, from various incidents in

Xenophon's '^Anabasis."


]90

APPENDIX.
was taught, as a
it

will follow, as a necessary corollary, that he

child, to

read the Versioii of the

LXX.

Indeed,
it

so admirably

accords with that hypothesis, as to confer on

it

evidence, which

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.

vii.

The Syro-Phoenician
26), saluted him, as

woman (who
the

is

termed a Greek Mark

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,

or Socinian theory.

is not designed to favour any Arian, Something there was, no doubt, infinitely

superior in the

mind of Jesus, to
is

all others,

even from his infancy;

and this, I 'The Child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God loas upon Him. Luke ii. 40. But, with the deepest reverence
think,
plainly intimated:
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

They were
all
its

kept these things,

and pondered them

in her heart.

zealously attached to the Mosaic law, and observant of

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

is

other, as far

we can judge, than those of the Greek Version. It should be remembered, also, that the anthem of Zacharias, concerning
as

the birth of John,

uttered in Septuagintal language; and that

is

the Annunciation to Mary,

culiar phraseology.

likewise recorded in the

same pe-

My

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

APPENDIX.
the fact
(if I

191
Jesus was instructed^ Old Testament. This
decisive. It super-

may

venture to call

it

so), that

as a child, in the Septuagint version of the

fact, if

admitted,
further
it

is

essentially

paramount and
It

sedes

all

argument or enquiry.
principle of gravity,

harmonizes every dis-

cordance,
scurity.
all

explains every difficulty, and illustrates every obit

Like the
itself.

subdues and attracts

things to

If the fall of an apple were sufficient to in;

timate, to a philosopher, the centralization of the Universe

fall

the

of the Septuagint into the cradle at Nazareth, will be sufto intimate to a Christian,
its

ficient

Divine origin and

its

perpetual authority.

POSTSCRIPT.
In this Note {Introduct. p. 10),
text,
I

have cited the Vatican

which has been generally acknowledged superior to any

It is proper,

other.

however, to observe, that

it

appears in no
of which

other edition, except the Complutensian, the

MSS.

have never been produced.

Alexandrian

It is altogether

absent from the

MS. and from

the Aldine Edit. (1518).

is

In
is,

the

Frankfort Edit. (1597) there

KoifiwiiivoQ
jneTci

this note, al.

addunt
.

l-rriKapaTog o

a'SfX^f/c t^/C yvvaiKog

dvTov

In the Basil. Edit.

1530,

it

is juera

irevOepag avTov, but the Latin version

cmn

sorore uxoris sua!

Tov TTarpog,

Bos gives the authority of an Oxford MS. deinde eandem maledictionem repetit, et pro tov
Breitinger remarks, Cod.
X.
all

irarpoq habet tov fxqTpog.

Rom.

hasc

mtertexit, kiriKaTaparoQ

k. t.

This passage

is

absent from

the

MSS.
of

(136) collated by
little,

Holmes, except Nos. 54, 75.

great
cited

The

first, is

the latter, of

value,

being

the
is

celebrated

Codex Oxoniensis, above

from the standard text
the

by Bos.

It

absent

also,

of the Greek Church, and from all the ancient Oriental Versions.^

It

is

not alluded to by Philo, or Josephus,

or, in

controversy between Augustine and Jerome.

With

such strong

evidence against the Vatican

the painful conclusion, that

MS.

am

compelled to come to

it is

an interpolation, and that such

PLEASE

DO NOT REMOVE
FROM
THIS POCKET

CARDS OR

SLIPS

UNIVERSITY OF

TORONTO

LIBRARY

Bib. Lit G

W An apology for the Septagint

Gr infield, E