Felix, Origen, Porphyry, and Anatolius, in the 3rd; and by Eusebius, Ambrose, and many others in the following centuries. 2. EFFECT ON THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION. 864. The second point, which we proposed to consider in these concluding remarks, was, The effect that the results of our investigation have upon the doctrine of the Inspiration of the Scriptures. We have, however, found it impracticable to do any thing like justice to this difficult subject within the space that we can afford to it; in fact, the pages we have written on it amount to a number sufficient to form another volume; and we have therefore determined to reserve them for publication in a separate form, if it should hereafter appear advisable to offer them to the public. Consequently, our remarks at present will be very brief. 865. (1). Scott, in a note on Acts xiii. 20, says, The Apostles" were inspired to deliver divine truth to mankind: not to correct genealogies, or give chronological calculations." In this opinion we fully agree. The commission of the Sacred Writers was limited to the declaration of divine or religious truths,-to that truth alone, which is necessary to the salvation of the soul. The Revelation which their writings contain is admitted on all hands to be a revelation of religion only, and not one of art, science, or history: and surely it is unreasonable to extend the inspiration beyond the Revelation. At any rate, it cannot be proved that the Scriptures themselves claim inspiration for more than the Revelation, or, in their language, "THE TRUTH;" that is, the essential verities of the Christian faith. Hence it necessarily follows, seeing that they contain much which no one can pretend to say is of the essence of the faith, that they comprehend an admixture of what is human with what is divine. To demonstrate what is human, more clearly than has been done before, cannot be to impeach that which is divine. On the contrary, it must serve to define more unquestionably the limits of "the truth;" and thus tend to remove the great objection which is made, though most illogically, against this theory of inspiration, viz., the difficulty of divarication. We say, then, that our investigations have not tended in the least to subvert the true theory of inspiration, though they must overthrow all those false theories, which are so prevalent and so fondly cherished. 866. A special difficulty, however, may be started, with regard to which it behoves us to offer a few remarks. It may be said: If these computations have been framed since the desolation of Judæa, the books containing them must have been written, or at any rate they must have undergone extensive alterations, since that period. Now it will be observed that this objection presses with the greatest weight upon the commonly-received theories of inspiration. These allow of no designed corruptions at all, much less of systematic alterations to so great an extent. How, then, plenary theorists can meet it, we know not; for it would seem impossible that they can deny the facts which have been brought to light. The true theory will admit of the supposition of such alterations, and thus escape the objection. It is true that very great difficulties will attend the hypothesis. For instance, it would seem to require that there should have been only one copy extant at some time, or that all the copies should have come into one hand. This, however, would be as much the case in the instance of any one variation,—say, one of the many numerical discrepancies, if universally read, as of many alterations. But there have not been wanting occasions, when it would seem to have been the fact, that very few copies indeed were in existence. When Hilkiah found the book of the Law among the rubbish of the Temple, it was evidently the only copy extant; and it had been so long lost that all recollection of its contents was gone. The same appears to have been the case, when Ezra produced the book of the Law, and read it in the ears of all the people. It would seem that the Jews had then also lost sight of it for so long a time, and their language had undergone so great a change during the Captivity, that it had become necessary, in addition to the reading, to "give the sense and cause them to understand the reading." Again, in the Antiochian persecution every copy that could be found was destroyed; and if it be considered that few complete copies were likely to be in existence previously, it would be only by a special Providence, probably, that any would escape. But what is more to our present purpose is, that we have in Josephus an apparent indication of a tradition that only one copy escaped at the time of the second destruction of Jerusalem; for he says that he obtained "the holy books by the grant of Titus." Various occasions then have occurred in which it is possible that great alterations, which would extend to all future copies, may have been made. And it may serve to facilitate the hypothesis to consider that it is very And possible that, if the original notation was made in numerical symbols, the knowledge of the system of notation may have been irrecoverably lost during one of the periods, in which the books themselves had been wholly lost sight of, and their contents forgotten. If this was the case, the Priests would naturally supply the loss in the best way they could; which might be from the systems in use amongst those people with whom they had been sojourning. There is great reason to believe that artificial and mystical systems of the kind prevailed over all the East. They may have been originally derived from Egypt, or they may have been learnt during the Captivity in Babylon, and introduced into the Sacred Books subsequently to the Return. On either of these hypotheses, little alteration might be needed to adapt them to the destruction of Jerusalem, when that event was taken as the æra. And if it was traditionally known that they had such an origin, small scruple would be felt in making the mass of cycles and coincidences centre in that great and final event. It would be only in the period antecedent to the Call of Abraham (from the epoch of whose migration the computations of the three recensions diverge to a vast extent), that any material corrections might be needed. it is with regard to these recensions that the greatest difficulty lies in conceiving how the alterations could possibly have been introduced, if the versions were actually made at the dates assigned to them. One of the most learned critics of the present day considers it the most probable opinion that the translation of the several books of the Old Testament into Greek was made at different times after 286 B.C. and before 130 B.C. The Samaritan Pentateuch, it is said, "cannot be ascribed to a later period than that of the schism between the Tribes." It has been confidently affirmed to be "the most ancient original," older than the Hebrew. There appears, however, to be the greatest uncertainty as to the dates of both recensions. With regard to the origin of the LXX., the legend of Aristeas was implicitly believed, until within these 200 years. The hypothesis of Gesenius, and it is adopted by Moses Stuart, is, that "both the Samaritan and Septuagint flowed from a common recension of the Hebrew Scriptures, one older than either, and different in many places from the recension of the Masoretes, now in common use." Professor Lee's conjecture is that "the early Christians interspersed their copies of the LXX. with Samaritan glosses, which ignorant transcribers afterwards inserted in the text." R. Asaria di Rossi suggested that "the LXX. may have flowed from an inexact and corrupted Chaldee version. Another opinion, generally received by the learned, is, that the Samaritan was derived from the LXX. Certain it is that the Samaritan was lost for 1000 years, and was not found again till the beginning of the 17th century. Such a variety of conjectures may suffice to shew that very little is known with any certainty respecting the origin and date of these two recensions; and it may possibly admit of a doubt, whether they can with confidence be assigned to a period anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, or even whether they may not have proceeded from the same source as the Josephean Works, and be of the age to which the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch is supposed to belong; namely, the second century of the Christian æra. 867. But, independently of the possibility of this, it may be observed that the assertions which have been made, by equally great names, and with equal weight of argument, that alike the LXX., the Samaritan, and the Hebrew have been corrupted to a great extent, may suffice for our hypothesis. After what has been said in reference to the two first, it may suffice now to allude to the charges of corruption in the Hebrew text. Vossius contended that the Jews wilfully corrupted their Hebrew copies. Pezron, Hayes, Jackson, and Hales followed him in rejecting the Hebrew chronology. "The contracted scheme of the Hebrew text," says Dr. Beard, "is rejected by the greatest names in this branch of Biblical literature." Dr. Russell undertakes to prove that "the difference which is found between the chronology of the modern Hebrew Scriptures and the system of dates which determine the order of the corresponding events, as recorded in the Samaritan Pentateuch, in the Septuagint version, and in the Works of Josephus, did not always exist, but must have been occasioned by an alteration introduced into the Jewish registers between the period at which the translation of the Seventy was first made public, and the middle of the second century of the Christian æra. Evidence is also adduced to shew that this difference was not accidental, and such as might have originated in the ignorance or carelessness of transcribers, but was regularly planned and effected for an unworthy object. The chronology of the Hebrew Scriptures and that of the Greek version, the author contends, were originally the same; and that the accuracy of the latter was not called in question by the Jews for nearly 400 years that is, until the rapid progress of Christianity awakened the enmity of certain unprincipled individuals of that nation, who were induced to alter the dates of their ancient chronicles in order to weaken the arguments derived from them in support of the new religion." It might be added, in support of this view, that, as the alone sufficient evidence for the inspiration of the Old Testament is the testimony of Christ and his Apostles, which testimony was evidently given to the LXX., if any can claim the guarantee of inspiration for its numbers, it must be that version. 868. Unto this day Divines of the highest repute are about equally divided, some maintaining the Divine authority of the LXX., and rejecting the Masorete text as having suffered from the vitiating hand of the Rabbi," others asserting the Divine inspiration and consequent exemption from error of the Hebrew, and repudiating the Alexandrine version. Hence it is competent to us to allege the testimony of each in turn, and to argue thus. Since the highest authorities maintain that each recension actually has been greatly corrupted, both may have been. And if the numbers have been altered in one part, they may have been in any part. This is all that it concerns us to shew. 869. It will be to the purpose here to demonstrate, that, at and after the time, when we suppose these computations to have been reduced to their extant form, a partiality for such mystical computations as we have exhibited did actually exist, and that they were more than ordinarily in vogue: whence it may be inferred that there would be a strong disposition to make ancient documents afford testimony to them. Perhaps, indeed, it will be thought that this is so evident from all the writings which remain, that it is quite superfluous to adduce any proofs of it. There may, however, be this objection raised, viz. that the numbers which these writings contain are, for the most part, transmitted numbers. And therefore we would mention, as examples, a few indications of the kind, additional to those already adduced, against which this objection will not lie. We may take occasion also to introduce one or two, which may not be quite pertinent to the present point, but for which a more suitable place has not been found. 870. The following are clear proofs of the mystical import then attached to the number 7. Speaking of the golden candlestick, (Wars VII. v. 5) Josephus says, "It had 7 lamps, which represented the dignity of the number 7 among the Jews." It would appear hence that it maintained its dignity" when this Work was written. And the same dignity" it might be thought, from the following quotation, 66 66 |