Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

rected by the Hebrew text, or by ancient copies of the Alexandrine version, is unknown: it seems, however, that fewer changes were made in it than in that of Lucian. This edition was received by the churches of Egypt. JEROME, Præf. I. in Paralip. The third recension, transcribed by Eusebius and Pamphilus from the Hexapla of Origen with all the marks, was not only received by the churches of Palestine, but also very common in libraries. JEROME, Præf. I. in Paralip. The marks in course of time were altered, and at last totally omitted; whence the difficulty of ascertaining the true reading became even greater than it had been before the time of Origen, inasmuch as it became impossible to distinguish the original text of the translators from the additions of Origen. This is complained of by JEROME, Præf. in Iesaiam.

From these three recensions all our manuscript copies have arisen; for the fourth, or Melchite recension, proceeded in course of time from that of Lucian, from which it differed but little. As none of these recensions was pure at its very origin, it is plain, that the evil, subsequently increased by the transcribers of succeeding ages, must be very great; on which account, the critical edition undertaken by Holmes in England, was much desired, and it is greatly to be regretted that its learned editor should have died before he had advanced beyond the Pentateuch.

Of printed editions, the principal and most celebrated are the following: I. The Complutensian, contained in the Polyglot so called, printed 1514-1517; its text has been followed in the Paris and Antwerp Polyglots, and printed separately at Geneva in 1596 and 1599. That it is not altered from the Hebrew, as has been supposed, is shown by Bruns in EICHHORN'S Repertor. Th. III. S. 174. Th. VIII. S. 109. ff.—————II. The Aldine, printed at Venice in 1518. Several very old manuscripts were used by its editors, yet Masius asserts that its text is very much interpolated from Theodotion and other ancient versions. It was printed separately at Strasburg, in 4 vols. 8vo in 1525; at Basil, in folio, in 1545, in 8vo. in 1550 and 1582; and at Frankfort, in folio, in 1597.-III. The Roman, taken from the Vatican Manuscript, printed in 1587, folio. The beginning as far as Gen. xlvii, and several other places, which are wanting in the MS., have been supplied from other manuscripts, while other places have been slightly altered by the editors. Its text is followed in the London Polyglot, and has been printed separately with many alterations at London in 1653, which altered edition was very incorrectly

printed by Leusden, at Amsterdam in 1685. The Cambridge edition,*
1665, and that of 1697,† contain the same text.-IV. The edition of
Bos, with various readings, printed at Franeker in 1709. The text is
taken from the Paris or London Polyglot. From this edition those of Rei-
neccius, 1730, 1757, and of Mill, 1725.‡ are taken.-V. The edition of
Grabe, from the ancient Alexandrine Manuscript, but with many altera-
tions from the Vatican and other manuscripts, and from conjecture, which
are given in a smaller character, printed at Oxford 1707-1720, in four
folio volumes.(VI. The edition of Breitinger, containing the Alexan-
drine text according to the edition of Grabe, but with the marks of the
Hexapla, and the various readings of the Vatican MS. as given in the
Roman edition, printed in 4 vols. 4to. at Zurich, 1730-1732.-
[VII. The edition of Holmes, containing the text of the Roman edition,
with the various readings of all the MSS. known to be extant, beauti-
fully printed in folio, Oxford, 1798-1818. The first volume, containing
the Pentateuch, was edited by Holmes. The second, containing from
Joshua to II. Chronicles inclusive, was published after his decease, upon
his plan, by the Rev. J. Parsons. The third is now publishing by the same
editor. See HORNE, Introd. II. 182. Tr.] In all these editions the
book of Daniel is in the version of Theodotion. The Alexandrine ver-
sion of this book was first published from a Chisian manuscript at Rome,
with many dissertations, in folio, 1772. It was reprinted at Göttingen, in
8vo. in 1773, and in 4to. with some other pieces, in 1774.[a] ||

[a) For accurate notices of the principal editions of the LXX, see DE WETTE, Einleit. § 47. Anm. (b) and HORNE, Introd. II. 178-183. Tr.]

* [With a learned preface by Bishop Pearson. Tr.]

† [Edited by Cluver. The edition published at the Clarendon press, Oxford, 1817, also follows this text. Tr.]

[Also that of Valpy, 8vo. 1819. Tr.]

[The first and fourth of these, containing the Octateuch and the metrical books, were published by Grabe himself; the second, comprising the historical books, by Francis Lee, M. D.; and the third, containing the prophetical books, by W. Wigan, S. T. D. It was printed at the same time, from the same types, in 8 vols. 8vo. Tr.]

|| [The Alexandrine version of Daniel was published together with that of Theodotion by Holmes, in a manner corresponding to his edition of the Pentateuch, in 1805. Tr.]

[blocks in formation]

Aquila, as Irenaeus* and Jerome† testify, and his method of translating shows, was a Jew; the other circumstances that Epiphanius relates concerning him are by no means probable. He translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek during the interval between the years 90 and 130 after Christ, with the intention of exhibiting to the Hellenistic Jews an accurate representation of the Hebrew text, for their assistance in their disputes with the Christians.

Yet he did

not on this account pervert the passages which relate to Christ by unfaithful translations, as some of the ancients thought; for the examples of designed want of fidelity, which they produce, are nothing more than etymological renderings, or expressions of the same things in other words, or various readings, or else his own mistakes. His version is so literal, that he expresses not only those Hebrew particles which have no corresponding terms in Greek, but even the etymology of words. In order to secure the greater accuracy in his work, he edited it a second time. This scrupulous nicety makes his version so obscure, that it cannot be understood without being collated with the Hebrew text: hence it happens that Jerome sometimes finds fault with Aquila as a captious translator, and sometimes praises him as very critical and diligent. JEROME Epist. ad Pammachium, Comm. in Jes. c. viii. and Comm. in Hos. 2. Comp. DATHII Opusc. p. 1. ss.

§ 41.

The Version of Theodotion. Theodotion is called an Ephesian by Irenaeus§, and a semichristian or Ebionite by Eusebius and Jerome. The account which Epiphanius, a learned writer, but possessed of very little judgment, gives of him, may as well be omitted. Theodotion wrote his version during the first half of the second century; for it is cited not only by Justin, A. D. 160, in his dialogue with Trypho, but also by Irenaeus who lived in Gaul, A. D. 177. His object seems to have been to

* [Cont. Her. Lib. III. Cap. 24.]

[Praef. in Ezram et Nehem. and Praef. I. in Job.]

[De Pond. et Mens. Cap. 13.]

[Cont. Her. iii. 24.]

[Praef. in Ezram. et Neh. et in Job.]

[Hist. Eccles. V. viii.]

1

indicate to such of his fellow sectarians, the Ebionites, as might be engaged in controversy with the Jews, the true reading of the Hebrew text. This translation is so closely copied from the Alexandrine version that almost his whole aim seems to have been to add what was wanting in that version, to take away what was superfluous, and to correct what was inaccurately rendered; in doing which he has not manifested any great erudition. It is not unworthy of remark that he has retained several Hebrew words, which seem to have been used among the Ebionites; such as payuλ, Levit. vii. 18., parqaa, Levit. xiii. 6., xwhupa, Deut. xxii. 9., sôd, Isa. lxiv. 5.

[blocks in formation]

Symmachus, according to the testimony of Eusebius* and Jerome,t was a semichristian or Ebionite: what Epiphanius tells concerning him is of doubtful credit. His version, as Jerome frequently asserts, was published after that of Theodotion: this appears also from the fact that Irenaeus who often quotes Theodotion, never mentions Symmachus, which shows at least that his version had not at that time (A. D. 177.) reached as far as Gaul. Symmachus was better acquainted with the rules of translation than his fellow interpreters, and has observed them more accurately; for he has not, says Jerome, translated word for word, like Aquila, but according to the sense. He bestowed upon his work the care of a revision, as we learn from JEROME, Comm. in Nahum 3, and in Jerem. 32. For these reasons his version is celebrated by the ancients as perspicuous, clear, plain, and worthy of admiration. Comp. HODY De Text. Original. p. 588. THIEME, Diss. de puritate Symmachi, 1735, Lip

sia.

[Hist. Eccles. VI. xvii.]

† [Praef. in Ezram et Neh., et in Job, et Comment in Hab. 3.]

[De Pond. et Mens. c. 16.]

[Non verbum e verbo, ut Aquila, sed sensum ex sensu transtulit. Praef. I. in Job.]

§ 43. Fifth, sixth, and seventh Greek versions.

These three versions by anonymous authors, none of which extend to the whole number of the sacred books, are designated by the numbers of the columns which they occupied in the Hexapla. The author of the sixth was a Christian; for he renders Ha. iii. 13. dia Indou Xpisou. The object of these three translators seems to have been to instruct those belonging to their side of the question who might be engaged in the controversies between the Jews and the Christians, in the contents of the Hebrew text.-All three contained the Psalms and minor Prophets the fifth and sixth the Pentateuch and Canticles in addition, and the fifth and seventh beside the books just mentioned those of Kings, fragments of which were found by Bruns in a Syriac Hexaplar Manuscript at Paris.*The fifth and sixth frequently accord with Theodotion, and the seventh appears to be the work of a learned interpreter.

Origen in JEROME (Praef. ad Homil. Orig. in Cant.) relates that the fifth version was found in a cask at Nicopolis in Actium. Epiphanius gives the same account of the sixth, adding that the fifth and seventh were found at Jericho. Eusebius' account of this matter, E. H. VI. xvi. is rather obscure.

§ 44. Remains of the Greek versions.·

These six versions in course of time became neglected, not only by the Jews and Ebionites, but also by the Christians; hence they have all perished, nothing remaining but some fragments found in the works of ecclesiastical writers, in some very ancient Hexaplar manuscripts, and in a Syriac Hexaplar version. From these the indefatigable industry of the learned has endeavoured to restore the Hexapla of Origen, and, considering the difficulty of the task, much has been done to effect it. The first who collected these scattered fragments was Peter Morin, who added all that he could find to his edition of the Alexandrine version, published in 1587. At the same time Drusius was labouring upon a collection, which was first published in 1622. Martianai collected a considerable number of fragments from the works of Jerome, and added them to the third volume of

* [See EICHH. Repert. VIII. Th. S. 100. f. IX. Th. S. 157. ff. X. Th. S. 58, ff.]

« AnteriorContinuar »