« ForrigeFortsæt »
may be govern'd in this case by the agreement of quotations with their originals, no thing seems more true, than what is imply'd in these words of St. Austin. (k) For my part, says he, being desirous to follow the example of the apostles, who made use both of the Hebrew text and Septuagint verfior in citing the prophets, I thought, that Í ought to make use of both, as being both the same, and having both the same divinë autority:
What can be more evident; than that the apostles fometimes cited the hebrew ? For if there be a citation made by the apoftles from the Old Testament, which, word for word, agrees with the hebrew text; and differs from the Septuagint; must not the faid citation be fuppos'd taken from the he: brew text; to which it agrees, and trot from the Septuagint, to which it does not agree? Now this is the cafe (() of the famous paffage cited by MATTHEW 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 Sons.” And this
(k) Auguft. De Civitate Dei, 1. 18. Č. 44
U See Hieron. in Of. l. 3. c. 11. & in Matt. 1. 8. c. 2.
Dripin Differt. Prelim: ser la Bible; I. t. c. 4. p. 4876 Le note.
citation seems also to discover to us the reafon, why the apostles do sometimes cite the Hebrew, as at other times they do the Septuagint, when these two texts differ, viz. because the hebrew reading seems sometimes more applicable to their purpose thani the Septuagint reading. For in the case before us, the term Son, as the Hebrero reads it, seems more to favour the aộplication 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) mani festly cite the hebrew text for these words, € ) Behold my servant whom I have çc chofen, my beloved, in whom my soul is «s well pleased ;” which agree to the He: brew, and not to the Septuagint, that differs (6) greatly from the Hebrew, and makes express mention of Jacob and Israel there in ?
St. Jerom () fays; It is evident, that the apostles and evangelists made use of the bebrézo fcriptürës. Our Lord and Re
mm) Matt. 12. i8. . .
Se Kidder's Demonftrat. of the Meffias, Vol. zá B: 23 Hieron. 1. a. Apol. contra Ruffinum.
deemer, fays he, whenever he cites passages out of the Old Testament takes them from the Hebrew: As for example, " He that belie“ veth on me, as the scriptures have said, “ out of his belly shall flow rivers of living “ water ; " and "upon the cross, “ Eli, Eli, “ Lamazabackthani,” 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 be. cause I believe; that the autority of the apoItles and JESUS CHRIST is preferable to theirs.
I confess the apostles do feemi (9) much more frequently to cite the Septuagint, than the Hebrew (tho' herein it may be easy to mistake, if it be true, what Simon and Mr. W. affirm, that the Septuagint version has fr) been accommodated to the citationis of the apostles ; or what Mr. W. (s) himself also says, who not only finds plain indications of the frequent accommodation of the Sep. tuagint version to the latter Hebrew, but the alike FREQUENT ACCOMMODATIONS OF
(9) See Earl of Nottingham's Answer to Mr. Whifton's Letter, &c. p. 105.
Capelli Critica Sacra, 1. 2. ...
(msimon Hift. Crit. du N. Teft. p. :34. and Whis fon's Essay, p. 299.
(5) p. 48, 49, 298, 299.
THE READINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, as also in JOSEPHus, and others, TO THOSE OF THE SEPTUAGINT, whence they were commonly suppos'd to have been taken); and it is particularly manifest, that, in the fac mous (t) speech before the Sanedrim, attri, buted to St. STEPHEN, the Septuagint, and not the Hebreze, is cited in respect to the number of fouls, that went down into Egypt ; the Septuagint reckoning seventy five souls, and the Hebrew but seventy. But I must own my concurrence with father (21) SIMON in his conjecture, that it is not credible, that Şt. STEPHEN in the original Speech deliver de by him to the Jezers of Jerusalem recited the words otherwise than they were in the hem brew 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 antient jewish fact, which that assembly by their knowledge in the hebrew. tongue were undoubtedly able P 3
(1) Acts 7. 14, 15. (z) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. T. p. 186,187. 1. 2. C. 2. See also Dupin Differt. Prelim. 1. 1. c. 4. Nute. P. 486.
to detect as a misrepresentation of the jewish story, and would not fail to do so to the con fusion of St: STEPHEN. SO
For further 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 (2) truly learned Dr. (x) Hody; and to (y) SuRENHUSiuś, who shows, 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 genealogies in the New Testament, which should seem to be taken from the Old Testament, are very different from the fame genealogies recorded both in the Hebrew and Septuagint, so that, the citations of the apostles, whether consider'd as taken from either the Hebrew or Septua. girt, must be accounted for from the jewish
(w) Whilon's Efay, p. II.