OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS; NEW TESTAMENT CITATION; LATER JEWISH OPINION.
In determining to some extent the Text, but more especially the meaning of the Hebrew, very considerable and most important help may be derived from the ancient Versions. As regards the use to which they may be applied in settling the Text, we may begin with a quotation from Westcott: 'The problem of the true relation of the Masoretic text, represented in all known Hebrew MSS. with the exception of isolated readings, to the text represented by the Samaritan Pentateuch, and by the older versions (Greek and Syriac) has not yet been solved.' So much is this felt that some critics decline to render any homage whatever to the Versions for textual purposes. With Westcott's statement agrees a remark made by the late Mr. Darby to the writer: No one, either Jew or Christian, understands the matter.' The same student of Scripture writes: The ancient versions have so far more authority in the Old Testament that no Hebrew MS. is so old by many centuries as the oldest of the New.' Cf. Payne Smith on Gen. 4:88And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. (Genesis 4:8). The bad state, however, of the Texts—of the LXX and Vulgate especially—mar their usefulness; so that, as Westcott says, the Text of the Versions would often need to be first settled. With well edited Versions, De Rossi's Fifty-sixth Canon is reliable and useful: where the extant MSS. disagree, the Versions primarily determine which should be followed. But, again, the former absence of a printed Hebrew Text, added to frequent interpolation, weakens the authority of these Versions, except so far as they combine—while really independent of each other—to support a particular reading.
De Rossi may well be followed in his opinion that a reading which no existing MS. supports must be considered as at least doubtful (Canon 69). Carpzov before him had with prudence laid down that where there is a general agreement of MSS. we must not yield to the temptation of following any adverse Translation. This may, however, be modified by the evidence of Jerome, of whom Thrupp goes so far as to say that a reading received by him, and sanctioned or countenanced by the Targum, is preferable to the united testimony of all MSS. whatever.'
It will be convenient to begin our notice of the Versions by taking first those which are, it is believed, of strictly Jewish origin.
§ 1. Of the Septuagint.
The history of the Translation conventionally called the Septuagint (Ἐβδομήκοντα, Septuaginta), which is so important because of the use made of it in the New Testament, is not quite clear from doubts, and must be sought elsewhere, as in the Prolegomena to Tischendorf's edition. The way in which Plumptre supposes it was put together seems highly probable. It is generally regarded as having been made for the use of the Hellenistic Jews settled in Egypt: an intimate knowledge is displayed of that country. There seems little doubt from the latest researches, that whatever be the origin of the title by which it is known, the whole or the greater part of the translation was already in existence in the second century B. C.: some have placed it still earlier. There was thus time for the use of it to have become common amongst Greek-speaking Jews Ellicott's of Palestine. Plumptre (referring to Walton's 'Prolegomena') writes: The authority of the version was never acknowledged by the Jews of Palestine. To them this translation of the sacred book into the language of the heathen seemed an act of sacrilege, a sin as great as the worship of the golden calf. They appointed a day of fasting and humiliation to be held annually for this profanation, as they did for the destruction and desecration of the Temple.' Though the authority of the Septuagint might be impugned by Palestinian Jews, nevertheless it seems to have been largely used even by such as Josephus: Nöldeke says that in course of time it was by some Jews regarded as inspired.
It seems reasonable to suppose, with Westcott, that as used by Palestinian Jews, it would undergo revision from the Hebrew.
Of the translators Hävernick well says, They did not scrupulously follow the original text.' This should be considered in connection with the study of New Testament citations. They failed from want of skill, and from intentional alterations or emendations. Thus it has a varied hue according to the different persons engaged upon the translation. The variations may be referable to the use of corrupted codices, but the love of novelty among the Alexandrians lies at the root of these divergences, which cannot be charged upon the conservatism of Palestinian Jews'. The reader may here further listen to Professor Robertson Smith: When the Septuagint was composed, the Hebrew language was either dead or dying, and the mother-tongue of the translators was either Greek or Aramaic.'
That the translation was made, not from the old or Samaritan, but from the square character, would appear from the frequent confusion of Vav and Pod; whereas the corresponding Samaritan Ba and Yud are dissimilar from each other . The best part of the Septuagint, as might be expected, is the Pentateuch. Jerome says that these Books agree with the Hebrew more than do the others.
They are very literal, although there are said to be about 2000 places different from the Hebrew Text. Next to the Pentateuch in point of excellence comes the Book of Proverbs; this too is natural from Greek proclivities. Jeremiah is perhaps best done of the Prophets: his connection with Egypt would account for this. As to the Text used by the translators, Mr. Smith puts this accurately enough in saying, 'the Hebrew, without omitting anything in the Greek, has a number of additional clauses and sentences.' Amos and Ezekiel are also well done; Isaiah is bad; Daniel so much that it has rarely been used. Cf. Pusey on Daniel, pp. 378 sqq. A peculiarity of Esther is the introduction into the Greek of God' and 'Lord' for which the Hebrew original of this Book has no equivalent.
The oldest of the MSS. of the LXX go back to the fourth or fifth century, being the Sinaitic," Vatican' and Alexandrian,' familiar to New Testament students; hence they are older than any Hebrew MSS., nevertheless are, as we have said, all Christian documents. The Sinaitic in the Old Testament is fragmentary; amongst its contents are the whole of Nehemiah and Esther, and most of Jeremiah.
The Text of the Complutensian Polyglott comes nearest to the Hebrew.
By the LXX' De Rossi ordinarily refers to the Vatican Codex, which it is thought represents the original version. What is called the Alexandrian' Text misleads so far, as indeed often it contains readings drawn from the Hexapla ' of Origen.
Tischendorf's sixth edition (1880) is at present the best printed Text of the LXX, but that by Holmes and Parsons is a storehouse of various readings. Lagarde has made a start with a standard critical edition, and the Syndics of the Cambridge Press have undertaken a similar work.
In the use of the LXX, Trommius' Concordance would be of great service. Upon the link formed by the LXX between the vocabulary of the Old and that of the New Testament we must not here dwell.
§ 2. New Testament Citation.
We may here take the question of New Testament Citation, and transcribe some remarks of Mr. Darby. He says: When the Septuagint gives the sense, they (the New Testament writers) use it.' In other words, the inspired Christian writers follow the LXX when it sufficiently suits their purpose; not that they attach greater accuracy to this version than to a literal translation of the Hebrew passage: it would be a mistake to assume that we may read the LXX into the Hebrew. Mr. Darby further says: Half their quotations are faithfully rendered from the Hebrew, and if there are passages which differ from the present Hebrew text, the researches of the learned have proved that they are borne out by the testimony of the oldest translations. In many instances they give the meaning without confining themselves to the exact words.'
A thorough knowledge of the exact relation between the New Testament Text, the LXX, and the Hebrew, may be obtained from Gough's 'New Testament Quotations' already referred to, by the help of whose lists the student can work from the hints above quoted from Mr. Darby, who also contributed to Gough's book. The New Testament citations from the Old are fully set out and classified in Horne's Introduction'; but at the end of Gough's work will be found some useful notes. We shall only notice a few typical passages, confining ourselves to Matthew's Gospel.
Chapter 8:17; cf. Isa. 53:44Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:4). Matthew follows the Hebrew. The LXX wrongly anticipates in verse 4 what is taught in verses 5, 6, Jo, 12. The Lord bore the infirmities and carried the sorrows of His people, before Jehovah laid their iniquity upon Him.
Chapter 9:13 and xii. 7. In either passage the citation is from Hos. 6:66For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. (Hosea 6:6), but in the one the use made of it is different from that in the other.
Chapter 13:14, 15; see Isa. 6:99And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. (Isaiah 6:9) and cf. parallels, Mark 4:1212That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. (Mark 4:12), Luke 8:1010And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. (Luke 8:10). The first Evangelist follows the LXX; the second and third incline rather to the Hebrew.
Chapter 21:16; cf. Psa. 8:22Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. (Psalm 8:2). The Lord quotes from the LXX. This is one of several instances in which the Savior did not quote the Hebrew, and disposes of a remark we think made somewhere by Jerome that He always did follow the original Text. 'Praise' here is instead of strength ' (Heb.).
The occasional amplification from the New Testament of passages in the LXX must not be neglected; cf. Psa. 11-5 in the Vatican Text with Rom. 3 and the Hebrew, where we have plain evidence of Christians having tampered with the Greek Text of the Old Testament.
Special attention should be given in this connection to what are called the Messianic passages' of the Old Testament; for instance, to Psa. 22:1616For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. (Psalm 22:16) and Zech. 11:1212And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. (Zechariah 11:12). Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament' and 'The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah according to Jewish Interpretation with Introduction by Pusey ' (1877) would be helpful in this study. It ranges itself rather under interpretation.
This leads us to a subject which has received less attention from the learned world than it deserves. The reader has probably often asked himself, What language did the Lord and the Apostles use? It is a question not easily answered. Scholars have for the most part assumed that Aramaic was the language that underlies the discourses of the Lord in the Gospels, and of the Apostles in the Book of the Acts; but some have held that Greek was the usual language they employed. Of the first view Professor Sanday may be taken as a recent representative; Professor Roberts is an exponent of the other. The only solution of the difficulty is to suppose the Lord and his immediate followers were bilingual, speaking both Aramaic and Greek; employing the one language in the midst of the less cultivated portion of the community, the other ofttimes in parts of the country such as Galilee of the nations,' or in intercourse with Hellenist Jews even. in Jerusalem. There is a modern analogy familiar to English people acquainted with Wales or the Channel Islands, where a host of the upper grade addressing his guest will use the English tongue, and afterward may turn to address his servant in the vernacular of the lower orders. Who could suppose that in Luke the angels addressed the shepherds in any language but Aramaic? It is as little likely such could speak Greek as English peasants in olden time would speak Norman-French. That Greek was not in the time of our Lord the usual language of the common people in Syria (at least), would lie in the fact of the need being early felt amongst the Christians of an Aramaic translation of the New Testament as much as the Old. The translation then made we possess substantially in the Peshito version. It is a fact that the Lord spoke from heaven to Saul of Tarsus in the Hebrew dialect' (Acts 26:1414And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. (Acts 26:14)) which Paul himself used, as well as Greek, according to the circumstances in which he was placed, or according to his object: cf. Acts 21:37, 4037And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? (Acts 21:37)
40And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, (Acts 21:40). Greek—like modern French in diplomacy—was the medium of communication between at least the upper classes of the Jews and their rulers. On the other hand, when Peter conversed in the hall of judgment, he must have used Aramaic, because of the reference to his provincial accent.
This subject has a bearing as well on New Testament citation from the Old as on New Testament textual criticism. To speak only of the latter, it would seem as if in Luke 2:1414Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (Luke 2:14) the question of the choice between ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία and ἀυθρώποις ςὐδοκίας should be governed to some extent by the comparative suitability of these readings to the native idiom.
Further hints as to citation will be found scattered throughout Mr. Darby's writings.
§ 3. Other Greek Versions.
The three following Greek versions, like the LXX, are all believed to be of Jewish origin. The authors would seem to have been Jewish Proselytes.
Aquila's version, of the second century A. C„ is of great critical value because it is extremely literal. When the Jews gave up using the LXX, they accepted Aquila's translation instead. Hence you will find Lightfoot (seventeenth century) saying that the Talmud quotes Aquila's alone of the Greek versions.
Theodotion’s version, posterior to Aquila's, was a fresh revision of the LXX, following the Hebrew still more closely. Origen made considerable use of it for his Hexapla (i. e. Book in six columns) when supplying such words to the Greek Bible from the Hebrew as the LXX had failed to represent. The translation of Daniel by Theodotion Christians have used in lieu of the LXX, as far back as Jerome's time. See the Prolegomena, pp. xlvii sqq. of Tischendorf, in whose edition the LXX of Daniel follows the Books of the Maccabees.
Symmachus' translation is freer than the versions of which we have already spoken. The author evidently aimed at clearness and elegance.
The readings of these three Greek translators may be found in Field's edition of the Hexapla (1867-74).
§ 4. the Targums.
Confining ourselves still to Jewish sources, we have to notice the Targums or Chaldee Paraphrases of the several Books of the Old Testament. These are early witnesses for Jewish interpretations; and some are in Babylonian, others in Palestinian Aramaic. That of the Pentateuch ascribed to Onkelos is of considerable value. The Targum ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel of the historical Books is also useful; his paraphrase of the Prophets is less exact. These Targums were in existence at or shortly after the birth of Christ. The first employment of such helps to the elucidation of the original Text has been placed in Ezra's time (Neh. 8:7, 87Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place. 8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehemiah 8:7‑8)). Lagarde's are the best critical editions. Etheridge has translated Onkelos, and what is called the Jerusalem Targum of the Pentateuch; the one affording an example of the Babylonian, the other of the Palestinian dialect. There are several of less note upon other Books, which are often curious for their interpretations, but afford little help in determining the Text. Walton's Polyglott may be consulted, and the grammar of the Targums may be studied in Winer's Manual, translated from the second edition by Riggs, to which the Reading Book by the same German scholar, edited by Fürst, but of which there is no English edition, is a good companion. The Targum of Jonah, which affords a good example of the language of the Targums generally, is printed in Wright's Book of Jonah, parallel with Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions of the same Book, and is furnished with a glossary. The best Lexicon to the Targums is by Levy.
Some books of the Apocrypha, as Tobit, have also come down to us in Chaldee versions.
§5. The Rabbins.
This brings us to post-biblical Jewish authority. The great repository of Jewish opinion is the Talmud, to which we have already referred. It is a very complex congeries of ceremonial ordinances, moral tales, poetry, philosophy, grounded upon tradition. It forms the text-book of the Rabbinical Jews, and is divided into two parts, the Mishna (repetition, cf. Deuteronomy) or Text, written in a corrupted form of Hebrew, belonging to the second or third century A. C., and the Gemara (completion) or Commentary, written in Aramaic of a developed type, which is referred to the fourth and fifth centuries. The Jews commonly mean by Talmud' the Commentary alone, for this is in most esteem: an illustration of the strange but common fact that Commentaries in time override the authority of the Text they profess merely to explain. We may compare amongst the Hindoos the Mitakshara superseding the Institutes of Manu, in Islam the Hedaya being looked to rather than the Koran. So powerfully did the study of the Mishna operate upon the relations between Jews and Christians, that the Emperor Justinian thought fit to issue an edict (Novel 146) in which he enjoined the Jews to use the Scriptures in Greek or other languages, the better to understand them, and to discontinue their employment of the Mishna (δευτέρωσις), which he described as an invention of men speaking from the earth alone and possessed of nothing divine.' This was in the year 553.
The Jewish Commentary again divides into the Palestinian, dating from the fourth, and the Babylonian, dating, if Deutsch were right, from the fifth century, representing the tradition's respectively most in favor among the Jews of Palestine and of Babylonia.
Extracts from the Talmud have been translated into English by De Sola and Raphall, by Barclay and by Hershon; but these, while giving a good idea of the style and spirit of the whole, little, if at all, assist an investigation of the Text of the Old Testament as such.
A bona fide quotation, however, in the Talmud is regarded as equal to a manuscript of the century to which the quotation may be shown to belong. It should be remembered that the Talmud generally follows the Keri. A good collection of its readings may be seen in Davidson's Digest.
The Rabbinical commentators such as Rashi (eleventh century), Maimonides (eleventh century), Ibn Ezra and Kimchi (thirteenth century), and Abarbanel (fifteenth century), generally follow the common Text. Ibn Ezra's and Kimchi's annotations are of most value: the influence of Kimchi's may be seen in our Authorized Version. They are in Rabbinical Bibles, as Buxtorf's, at the side of or underlying the text. Samples of such comments, with a vocabulary, may be found in Winer's Talmudic and Rabbinic Chrestomathy;' and Bernard's Selections from Maimonides,' containing a Digest of Rabbinical phrases and abbreviations, is a most useful book. The language of the Mishna and Gemara has been shortly described by Renan, Histoire ' (pp. 157-61). There is no good English book upon the grammar of either, but there is one in German for the Mishna, by Geiger; and Samuel David Luzzatto, Professor at the Rabbinical Institute of Padua, wrote in Italian a Grammar of the Babylonian Gemara (1865), of which there has appeared a German edition by Kruger.
The best Lexicon for the Talmud and Rabbinic is Buxtorf's, edited by Fischer. Ibn Ezra on Isaiah has been translated by Friedlander, Kimchi on Zechariah by McCaul; whilst the commentaries of the latter on the Psalms and on Isaiah are aveilable in Latin. The Yalkut' on Zechariah, being a collection of Rabbinical Hints ' for interpretation, has been translated by King (1882). This last contains interesting appendices, A ' being on Messiah ben Joseph' (see Gen. 49:22-2622Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall: 23The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him: 24But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:) 25Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb: 26The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren. (Genesis 49:22‑26)), and 'B ' on The Jerusalem of the World to come ' (cf. Ezek. 41), with elucidation of Eph. 2:14, 20-2214For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; (Ephesians 2:14)
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:20‑22).
Christian authorities cannot always be relied upon for the vocalization of unpointed Hebrew, such as the Rabbinical regularly is. Instances of mistake made by the celebrated Buxtorf have been pointed out to the present writer by a Jewish instructor. The Lexicon under Jewish editorship (1869-1874) will be found more correct.
§ 6. Arabic Versions.
The Sahidic and Erpenian Arabic versions are also Jewish works. That of the Pentateuch by Rabbi Saadiah (tenth century) is useful. The Erpenian, so called from a Dutch scholar who brought it to light, which dates from the thirteenth century, is the more literal.
A sufficient knowledge of the grammar of Arabic for the purposes of Biblical study can be obtained from Bagster's Reading Lessons. Lane's Lexicon, the fruit of life-long labor, is the one key to the whole vocabulary of the language, which is unusually rich, that scholars of any nationality possess; but Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionaries give also the corresponding Arabic words, from which the great lexicographer often determines the root, and accordingly the meaning of the Hebrew. Walton can be referred to for Arabic versions, which, as other versions in his Polyglott, are there accompanied by a Latin translation.
§7. Modern Jewish Opinion.
Of modern Jewish versions into English there is one well known, the work of Benisch; in German a good one edited by the learned Zunz, in which Daniel and Ezra are the work of Fürst, and Chronicles that of Zunz himself; and we have besides the translation of the Pentateuch by Mendelssohn, a Jewish sage of the last century, to be found in his Collected Writings. Before we leave these Jewish helps, it may be interesting to the reader, unacquainted with the fact, to know of the turn that has been given to Jewish thought by the Reform' Movement. The Reformed Jews have from about the year 1840 thrown off bondage to the mediæval synagogue,' as they say—practically also to the Talmud—and have reshaped the principles of the Karaites of earlier days, taking their stand upon Scripture rather than tradition. We believe that our Lord has already imparted some life into the dry bones of `Lo-Ammi '; that out of this break from Rabbinism will issue the fruit of the Spirit's work at the end of days.' The published discourses of the ecclesiastical chief of the movement betoken the spirit that is at work. May the Lord direct it to its full fruition, preserve these sons of Israel from the pitfalls of rationalism, teach them yet more of Himself, and confirm them for the hour of trial that is yet to be.
§8. The Samaritan Pentateuch.
Of the Samaritan Pentateuch age and author are alike unknown. It is written in a Semitic dialect, and continues to be the sacred book of the remnant of this ancient people, settled at Nablus, the ancient Shechem or Sychar, described by Stanley as the most beautiful spot in Central Palestine.' The reader may here recall the interesting verses in chap. v. of Ecclesiasticus (25, 26 of Authorized Version; in Vulgate and Douay 27, 28), where mention is made of this people, no nation,' which the writer hated, the foolish people that dwell in Sichem.' The author of Sinai and Palestine' says: In the humble synagogue at the foot of the mountain (Gerizim) the Samaritans still worship-the oldest and smallest sect in the world,' and refers to the sacred spots where they alone of all the Jewish race yearly celebrate the Paschal sacrifice.' Dr. T. Robinson says of their ancient copy of the Pentateuch, that it is kept with great care, being only brought out on the day of Atonement. In some parts it appeared scarcely legible, and was mended at the bottom with a new piece of parchment. The priest, or as he is called, the high priest, declared it to have been written by Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron.' Gesenius, who is our principal authority upon the subject, considers it to belong to the first Christian century.
Of the Text that underlies this ancient copy of the Torah, it is enough to suppose that the copyists, like the LXX,' made use of MSS. with additional glosses and notes which they embodied as seemed convenient in the text formed by them. Where the Samaritan and Hebrew agree, it is strong testimony that the reading is authentic. The same remark would apply to the LXX. It is in the agreement of either with the Hebrew that the Samaritan and LXX have such critical value as they may possess, and then (as Thrupp says of the LXX) their evidence is of real worth as compared with later authority.
The Samaritan is included in Walton's Polyglott, transcribed from the Paris Polyglott of 1645 in which it had first appeared, but its variant readings may be seen in Davidson, or in Bagster. In Gen. 2:22And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (Genesis 2:2), it goes with the LXX, Syriac, &c., in reading sixth'; in which we have an illustration of the tendency to adopt easier and apparently less offensive readings, and so in Gen. 2:1818And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Genesis 2:18), again with the LXX and even Aquila, it has, Let us make,' apparently to agree with 1:26. But Jehovah Elohim is the speaker in chap. ii.
The English reader would find ample information as to the Samaritan in the Introduction by J. W. Nutt to his recent edition of a Samaritan Targum, and, if he wish to acquire exact knowledge of the language, should use Petermann's Short Grammar, Chrestomathy and Glossary' in the series entitled Porta linguarum Orientalium,' a real boon to Biblical students. This Professor had begun a critical edition of the Samaritan, but lived only long enough to bring out the Text of Genesis; that of Exodus has appeared since his death.