Page images
PDF
EPUB

i.e. the application thereof to the covenanting parties. By this was symbolised, as in the more ancient form, their being joined together in the one body to which the blood appertained, p. 301.

(8) Priest and victim in the later form of covenant answered to the victim alone in the primitive form ; and hence when CHRIST is represented as discharging a twofold function as Mediator, the idea is not novel but archetypal—the two lines of thought, which had a common origin, once more converging, p. 299.

(e) The idea of being in CHRIST, which in one form or other pervades the New Testament, is an expression of the inner symbolism of the ancient sacrifices, wherein the victim represented the covenanter or the person for whom atonement was made, pp. 298, 301.

NOTE ON CHAPTER XIV.

A. The statement that transiit et Abraham requires further consideration; but it may suffice to remark that the main argument of the chapter depends upon a general view of the covenantal sanction, and not specially upon the covenant of Gen. xv. The sanction in this case is assumed however to be of the same class as in Jer. xxxiv., even though abnormally developed in one direction. The chapter was indeed written on the assumption that transiit et Abraham; and thus undue prominence may seem to have been given to some points in the account of the covenant in Gen. xv. But this will not impair the argument, if it be granted that the ordeal was implicitly the same there as in the general case.

CHAPTER XV.

The LXX. as a Medium of Citation.

The intrinsic value of the original Septuagint Version, the state of preservation of its text, and the estimation in which it was held by our Lord and His Apostles, are questions which have entered largely as controversial elements into the momentous and widely-ranging subject of Citation in the New Testament from the Old.

1. Some have inferred from the frequent use made of the LXX. in the New Testament, that the Version is authorized and declared immaculate, not only in passages cited, but throughout. Discrepancies between portions of the Hebrew text and the corresponding Greek citations have been thought to prove a corruption, by wilfulness or by negligence, of the former; and again, from the palpable inadequacy of the existing LXX. renderings in numberless instances, it has been argued that the text of the LXX. has likewise suffered, and that, from the same cause or causes as the Hebrew. Thus Dr Henry Owen, after attributing a high degree of excellence to the original Septuagint, proceeds as follows :

Whilst the Jews therefore employed such diligence about it, the genuine purity of the Septuagint Version must needs have remained in a great degree at least, if not entirely, unblemished. For few, if any, errors could creep into their Copies in that early age, when they were carefully transcribed, critically examined, and publickly read in their Synagogues. And since no occurrence appears to have happened for a length of time, that could induce them either to remit their care, or to make alterations in this version; we may reasonably conclude, that it continued in a pure, uncorrupted state, and in general agreement with the Hebrew Original from which it was derived, quite down to the days of our Saviour.'

The same writer supposes the LXX. to have been since corrupted, partly by Christians', who, 'to serve a turn, have daringly interpolated, altered, or expunged, as best suited their purposes ;' and partly by Jews, when pressed by arguments from the Greek Version, to which they allowed a certain authority, by their adoption of it in their Synagogue worship

"Can we suppose, that the Jews...could strictly adhere to the Septuagint Version, when they saw it produced so frequently against them ?... must we not rather on the contrary imagine, that such a circumstance would have provoked their resentment, and set them entirely against this version? This is certainly the most natural conclusion. And IRENAUS assures us, that they were so enraged on this very account, that, “if they had known the Christians would have arisen, and brought such Testimonies from the Scriptures against them, they would have made no scruple themselves to have burned their own Scriptures”—meaning thereby the Septuagint copies : for the Testimonies alleged, or the Quotations produced by the ancient Christians, were drawn from them only.'

2. Others have contended for the Hebraica veritas, or practical perfection of the Masoretic text, and have thought more or less slightingly of the LXX. The Hutchinsonian school of Hebraists held high mystical views of the Hebrew, and depreciated the Greek Version. They conceived that Greek terms were totally inadequate to represent the mysteries contained under the corresponding words in the Hebrew; and that it was out of mere condescension to the Gentiles, the New Testament was written in Greek. Viewing, therefore, the Greek Version, as a Targum rather than a literal translation, they would not admit, strictly speaking, there were any quotations from the LXX. Neither doth the use the writers of the New Testament make of the LXX.(writes Spearman) stamp any authority on that version, or entitle it to impose the sense of the Greek words and phrases on the Hebrew?' Surenhusius, again, argues learnedly for a Hebrew original of the New Testament citations, while fully recognizing the divergences which have to be accounted for. In his treatise on the subject he undertakes (as the title-page announces) to harmonize the quotations and their originals in accordance with Rabbinic usages in citation and modes of interpretation.

1 This statement is exemplified by have arisen as a Christian midrash from the reading of the Alexandrine: év 'Yeo's. An Enquiry into the Present ύδατι ουκ έλούσθης του Χριστού μου State of the LXX. (p. vi). (Ezek. xvi. 4). The latter words may

3. A third class of harmonists assert the co-ordinate canonicity of the Hebrew and the Septuagint. Spiritus qui in Prophetis erat,' writes St Augustine, 'quando illa dixerunt; idem ipse erat in LXX. viris quando illa interpretati sunt.' This side is espoused by Mr Grinfield, who, in his Apology for the Septuagint, lays chief stress upon the use made of that version by our Lord; remarking, that nearly all the quotations made by JESUS Himself from the Old Testament are taken verbatim from the LXX., and occasionally, where they differ from the Hebrew; whilst several quotations made by the Evangelists, differ from the LXX. and agree with the Hebrew.'

1. Results of Investigation with Inferences therefrom.

The persevering advocacy with which mutually exclusive theories on the immediate sources of the citations have been defended, has been instrumental in shewing clearly the difficulties which have to be surmounted, and has suggested simultaneously, as the only safe course to be pursued, that the phenomena of the various cases should be noted carefully, while a priori theories of reconciliation are abstained from. Space forbids the attempt to treat this broad question exhaustively: it may suffice therefore to state generally some of the results which seem to have been established by the labours of successive harmonists; and to consider one or two cases of citation, which have a marked and special bearing on the point at issue. (a) A large proportion of the Citations are taken from the

1 See Grinfield's A pology for the Septuagint, where frequent references to the literature of the subject may be found.

LXX. (B) The LXX. is sometimes followed where it differs con

siderably from the Hebrew, (6) In some few cases the Greek, being clearly inadequate,

is replaced by another rendering of the original

Hebrew. Bishop Horne, in his Preface to the Psalms, expresses the reasonable conclusion to which many have been led by the above results :— 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 as it then stood was sufficient to prove the main point which it was adduced to prove ;' and closely connected with this is the important canon of interpretation, not unrecognized by Jerome, that the general purport, rather than the mere words, should be considered, and that the Apostles may be thought, in their citations, 'sensum scripturæ posuisse, non verba.

Dr Owen, in his Modes of Quotation, gives reasons why the Septuagint should have been adopted, for the most part, as the source of citation :

It is allowed on all hands, that, as the Old Testament Prophecies were delivered in Hebrew, and the Gospels were penned in Greek, the Evangelists must either have translated for themselves, or else have adopted the Septuagint Version,

« PreviousContinue »