« ForrigeFortsæt »
Testament, should take them. But several of those Quotations being made after the Jewish Manner of quoting Authors, wherein great Liberty was taken in varying, both as to Words and Sense, from the Authors quoted; the Learned are at a Loss how to account for many Quotations, which neither agree to the Hebrew or Septuagint, and also how to account with Certainty even for such as agree either with the Hebrew or Septuagint.
Mr. W. (i) contends that the Apostles always quoted the Septuagint. But, if we may be govern’d in this Case by the Agreement of Quotations with their Originals, nothing seems more true, than what is imply'd in these Words of St. Austin. (k) For my Part, says he, being defrous to follow the Example of the Apostles, who made Ufe both of the Hebrew Text and Septuagint Verhon in citing the Prophets, I thought, that I ought to make Use of both, as being both the fame, and having both the same divine Authority.
What can be more evident, than that the Apostles sometimes cited the Hebrew ? For if there be a Citation made by the Apostles from the Old Testament, which, Word for Word, agrees with the Hebrew Text and differs from the Septuagint, must not the said Citation be supposed taken from the Hebrew Text, to which it agrees, and not from the
(i) Whiston's Elay. p. 176, &C.
Septuagint, to which it does not agree ? Now This is the Case (1) of the famous Paffage cited by MATTHE W out of HOSE AH, “ Out of Egypt have I called “ my Son ; ” which is read Word for Word in the Hebrew Bible ; but in the Septuagint is, “ Out of Egypt have I called my " Šons.” And this Citation seems also to discover to us the Reason, why the Apostles do sometimes cite the Hebrew, as at other Times they do the Septuagint, when those two Texts differ, viz. because the Hebrew Reading seems sometimes more applicable to their Purpofe than the Septuagint Reading. For in the Case before us, the Term Son, as the Hebrew reads it, seems more to favow the Application of the Passage to Jesus, than the Septuagint Reading Sons, which, beyond all Dispute, determines the Citation to relate primarily to the Children of Israel. ::
Again, does not MATTHEW ( m ) manifestly cite the Hebrew Text for these Words,
(n) Behold my Servant, whom I have cho“ len, my beloved, in whom my Soul is well « pleased;" which agree to the Hebrew, and not to the Septuagint, that differs (0) greatly
(1) See Hieron in Of. 1. 3. C. 11. & in Matt. 1. 1.c. 2. Capelli Critica Sacra, p. 55.
Dupin Differt. Prelim. fur la Bible, 1. 1. c. 4. p. 487. Le Note. .(m) Matt. 12. 18.
(n) Isaiah 42. 1. (0) See Kidder's Demonstrat. of the Messias, Vol. z.p. 207, 208.
from the Hebrew and makes express Mention of Jacob and ISRAEL therein ?
St. JEROM (P) says, It is evident, that the Apostles and Evangelists made Use of the Hebrero Scriptures. Our Lord and Ředeemer, says he, whenever be cites Passages out of the Old Testament takes them from the Hebrew. As for Example, “ He that believeth “ on me, as the Scriptures have said, out of “ his Belly shall flow Rivers of living Water;" and upon the Cross, “ Eli, Eli, Lamazaback“ thani;” That is to say, " My God, my God, “ why hast thou forsaken me ;” and not as the Septuagint has render'd it, and divers other Places. I say not This, says Jerom, to discredit the Septuagint, but because I believe, that the Authority of the Apostles and Jesus CHRIST is preferable to theirs.
I confess, the Apostles do feem (9) much more frequently to cite the Septuagint, than the Hebrew (though herein it may be easy to mistake, if it be true, what Simon and Mr. W. affirm, that the Septuagint Version has (r) been accommodated to the Citations of the Apostles ; or what Mr. W. (s) himself also lays, who not only finds plain Indications of the frequent Accommodation of the Septuagint Verfion to the latter Hebrew, but the alike FRE
(0) Hieron. 1. 2. A pol. contra Ruffinum.
(9) See Earl of Nottingham's Answer to Mr. Whiston's Letter, &c. p. 105. Capelli Critica Sacra. I. 2.
(r) Simon Hist, Crit. du N. Test. p. 234, and Whiston's Elay, P, 299. (s) p. 48, 49. p. 228, 299.
QUENT ACCOMMODATIONS OF THE READINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, as also in JOSEPHUS, and others, to THOSE OF THE SEPTUAGINT, whence they were commonly supposed to have been taken); and it is particularly manifest, that, in the famous (t) Speech before the Sanedrim, attributed to St. STEPHEN,
the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew, is cited, · in Respect to the Number of Souls, that went
down into Egypt; the Septuagint reckoning Seventy five Souls, and the Hebrew but feventy. But I must own my Concurrence with Father (u) Simon in his Conjecture, that it is not credible, that St. STEPHEN, in the original Speech deliver'd by him to the Jews of Yerusalem, recited the Words otherwise than they were in the Hebrew Bible ; but that St. LUKE writing to those, who either understood no Hebrew, or who chiefly or wholly used the Septuagint Version, was the Author of that Change; which is so different from what is contain’d in the Original of the Old Testament. For it 'seems very unaccountable, that St. STEPHEN should, in his Defence before the Sanedrim, argue from an ancient Jewish Fact, which that Assembly by their Knowledge in the Hebrew Tongue were undoubtedly able to detect as a Misrepresentation of the Jewish Story, and would not fail to do so to the Confufion of St. STEPHEN.
(t) Acts 7. 14. 15.
For farther Satisfaction in this point of the Apostle's citing the Hebrew Text (and That even in Places, where they seem to depart from the Hebrew) I refer him to the (w) truly learned Dr. (x) HODY; and to (y) SURENHUSIUS, who Ihows, how all the apostolick Quotations, by being confider'd as Quotations made after the Manner of the Jewish Doctors, were (or might be) taken from the Hebrew. It is evident; that, in many Instances, the Apostles cite Passages, from the Old Testament, not only in a different literal Sense from what they bear in their Places both in the Hebrew and Septuagint, but whose Words are to be found in neither of them; and, in particular, that many parts of the Ger nealogies in the New Testament, which should seem to be taken from the Old Testament, are very different from the same Genealogies recorded both in the Hebrew and Septuagint. So that, the Citations of the Apostles, whether confider'd as taken from either the Hebrew or Septuagint, must be accounted for from the Jewish Manner of making Citations so as to serve the Purposes, for which they were produced. And therefore, with as great Reason, many of the apostolical Citations may be supposed taken from the Hebrew, as from the Septuagint.
(w) Whiston's Elay. p. 11.