« AnteriorContinuar »
heftrine of a double Gospel Scheme the Epistles, aby the Learnedotes
An Introduction to the Reading of the Holy Scriptures, in
tended chiefly for young Students in Divinity. By Messrs. BEAUSOBRE and L'ENFANT. Camb. 1779. p. 1o.
This is a Work of extraordinary Merit; the Authors have left scarcely any Topic untouched, on which the young Student in Divinity may be fupposed to want Information. Macknight's Preliminary Observations, &c. prefixed to his Harmony; Lamy's Apparatus Biblicus; Pritii Introductio ad Lectionem N. Teftamenti; Harwood's Introduction to the Study of the New Testament; Percy's Key to the New Testament; and Collyer's Sacred Interpreter, may be properly read along with this Introduction. A Key to the Apostolic Writings, or an Esay to explain the
Gospel Scheme, and the principal Words and Phrases the Apostles have used in describing it. By J. Taylor. Lond. 1754.
p. 315. This Work, which is prefixed to the Author's Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, is greatly admired by the Learned, as containing the best Introduction to the Epistles, and the clearest Account of the whole Gospel Scheme, which was ever written. The Doctrine of a double Justification was disliked by Bp. Bull; and it has lately been animadverted on, as not founded in Scripture : however that may be, it has had, in modern Times, other Supporters besides Dr. Taylor; and it seems to have been well understood by Grellius, above 150 Years ago. Justificatio noftra vel accipitur pro ejusmodi a reatu ac pæna, quam peccatis promeruimus, absolutione ac liberatione, qua fit, ut nolit nos Deus punire, sed potius nobiscum perinde velit agere, ac fi justi et innocentes essemus : vel accipitur pro ipsa salute noftra quam aliquando consecuturi fumus. Illa Justificatio fimul ac fidem in Christum complectimur nobis contingit, et tam diu durat, quamdiu in nobis du. rat fides, eaque viva et per charitatem efficax, seu quæ Obedientiam, qualem Christus a nobis requirit, habeat conjunctam. Hæc vero poftea rior Justificatio quæ ex illa prima fuit in adventu Domini Jesu nobis continget. Crel. in Rom. c. v. and in his commentary on 1 Cor. c. i. he says, Justificamur fimul atque Doctrinæ Chrifti fidem adjungimus, id eft jus adipiscimur ad immunitatem ab omnibus pænis et ad vitæ æternæ adeptionem. Verum hoc jus nondum est plenum, sed adhuc a conditione, quæ fequi debet, pendet, nempe ut constantes in fide fimus, ac fanétitati vitæ in posterum ftudeamus, itaque justificatio partim antecedit fanctificationem, partim fequitur. Hinc patet, quid fentiendum de illo triftiffimo dicto (of St. Augustine) : Bona opera non antecedunt jusificandım, fed fequuntur justificatum; antecedunt enim justificandum plenè, sequuntur justificatum inchoatè, &c. Plain Reasons for being a Christian. Lond. 1730. p. 456.
The Merit of this Tract will not be seen by an hafty Reader; every Article of it contains Matter for much Consideration, and thews the Author to have been well acquainted with his Subject. It was written by Dr. Chandiir, but not published till it had been revised by some other Diffenting Ministers.
REVEREND SIR, VOU desire to know, “ Since the Greek Septuagint and 'the Eng:
I « lifb Bible are Translations from the Original Hebrew, how " it comes to pass that these two Translations have such Variations
from each other? I do not mean in some few Words only, but in “ whole Sentences ; many being in our English Translation which are “ not to be found in the Septuagint, and some again in the LXX which " are not to be found in our English Bible.”
I do not at all wonder at your asking such a Question; for a Clergyman who has but a small Benefice, which will not afford him Means to buy Books of a large Price, and lives in an obscure Place in the Country, near no Library from which he may borrow such Books, or have Opportunity to consult them, is not to be blained, if he should not know how to answer this, or other Questions relating to ecclefiaftical Matters. For although he came from the University well versed in the learned Languages, (as you fhew yourself to be, or you could not have compared our English Bible with the LXX, and so would never have thought of the Matter) yet for want of Bocks to inform him how the Scriptures have from Time to Time been copied, translated and published, he may not be able to answer such a Question, and satisfy himself in such a Point as this.
And I must confess for myself, that if I had not the Polvglot Bible, before which Bishop Walton (the learned Editor of that noble and useful Work, consisting of fix large Folios) has put several excellent Prolegomena, and Du Pin's Compleat Canon' of Scripture, with some other Books relating to the Editions and Translations of the Holy Scriptures, I could not have answered your Question. But by the Affistance of Vol. III, А
Differente always, Mic lieve
these Books, I hope I may do it to your Satisfaction. And I can give you a plain, short, and caly Answer, which is, that there were different Copies of the Hebrew Original, and the LXX translated from one Copy, and our English Translators from another; so as the Copies differed, the 'I ranslations differed also.
But another Question inay arise. How came there to be so much Difference between several Copies of the same Book ? I answer, the faine will always happen in all Books frequently transcribed by several Hands. Now, I believe no Book ever had so many Transcripts as the Bible. As the Jews had several Synagognes in Judea, so had they in all Countries where they were dispersed after the Captivity. For they did not all return to Yudea at the Restoration of Jerusalem and the Rebuilding of the Temple, but very many continued in those Parts of the Chaldean, Perfinn, Greciun and Roman Empires where they had obtained Settlements, where also they increased and multiplied. This we may be convinced of from what we find in the New Testament, where we read that in every Place unto which the Apostles went to preach the Gospel they found Numbers of Jews and a Jewish Synagogue. And every Synagogue had at least one Copy of the Bible, beside the many Copies written for the Uie of private Persons. Every one of thete Copies was written fingly by itself, (the Invention of Printing, by which ten Thousand Copies coming out of the fame Press Thall not differ so much as a Letter or a' Comma, being yet scarce three Hundred Years old) and therefore could hardly fail to differ in some Particulars even from the Copy from which it was taken, unless more than once carefully revised, compared and corrected, which we may reasonably suppose was not always done. These Copiers therefore could hardly keep free from making many Mistakes, such as often to omit a Word, or to write one Word for another: which last Mistake might easily be made in Hebrew Books, where the Letters ) and 2, 7 and 7, 7 and 77, and some others are so near alike, that very often in Writing one can hardly be distinguished from the other; and the mistaking luch a Letter changes the Word, and gives it another Signification.
Copiers alto, in the transcribing lo large a Book as the Hehrew Bible, might calily mistake so far as to be guilty of considerable Oversights, even to overlook and omit a whole sentence, especially when they wrote in Haste, as, no Doubt, many of them did, who made it their Butiness to copy Books for their Livclilood. Where therefore the LXX want a Period or Sentence which is in our English Bibles, we may suppose it was wanting in the Copy from whence they translated : And where they have a Sentence which is wanting in our English Bibles, we may suppose it was in the Copy from which their Tranlation was; made, but left out in the Copy from whence our present Hebrew : Copies were taken, and from which we have our English Translation : And so vice versa. This I think is a natural and rational Account how these Diversities arose; that is, from different Copies of the Original. Which Differences could hardly be avoided, and might calily happen through the Carelesness and Oversights or Mistakes of Transcribers, who could scarce avoid them in so long a Work. Sowpe indeed will tell you that the LXX in their Translation took
great Liberties, and departed from the original Text with Design, adding fome Things, and leaving out others wilfully to serve fome private Views of their own. And others will tell you that this has been done by the Jews, who out of Hatred to the Christians have maliciously altered the Hebrew Copies. But I think it is unjust to charge either the Jews, who were the Keepers and Preservers of the Original Hebrew, or the LXX, who trantlaied the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, with any wilful Variations froin the true and authentic Text, where those Variations may be otherwise accounted for in the Manner I have thewed they may be. However, I confess, there are some Variations which I think cannot be so accounted for ; the Difference being such as could hardly proceed from mere Mistake or Oversight. This particularly appears in the Genealogies of the Patriarchs in the fifth and eleventh Chapters of Genesis: Where almost every Patriarch is said to have lived an hundred Years longer before he begat his Son according to the LXX, than he is according to the present Hebrew Bibles. Such a long, regular Difference as this could not proceed from the Carelesness or mere Oversight of any Transcriber. However, we cannot say that the LXX did here wilfully vary from the Original, or that this Variation was not in the Hebrew Copies before the LXX made their Tranllation, and that these hundred Years might be in that Hebrew Copy from whence they translated ; though at this Distance of Time we cannot account for it. We have just Reason to believe that in the Chronology of those Genealogies there was a Variation in the Hebrew Copies before the Days of Josephus, who lived at the Time when Jeruo falem and the Temple were destroyed by the Romans : And therefore also might be in those Copies before the Version of the LXX. . For as Josephus was a Priest, who in his Course attended on the 'Temple to perform the Service of the Temple, we can scarce doubt but he had an Hebrew Copy of the Bible; nevertheless, in his Chronology, he differs from the present Hebrew Text, as he does also from the LXX. The Samaritan likewise (which is but another Copy of the Original Hebrew, written in the more ancient Hebrew Letter ; that which is now used by the Yews, being what they learned from the Chaldeans during their Captivity in Babylon) differs in its Chronology from the other threc. From whence we may reasonably conclude, that the LXX were not the Authors of this Difference, but followed that Hebrew Copy from whence they translated.
Another great Difference between the present Hebrew Copies and the LXX, which may also seem to have been done with Design, is the Transposition of Chapters or Parts of Chapters towards the latter End of the Book of Exodus. After you come to the End of the seventh Verse of the 36th Chapter in the LXX, you will find iminediately following, what follows not in the present Hebrew, consequently not in our English Bibles, until you come to the 39th Chapter. And so through the 36, 37, 38 and 39th Chapters, you will find that put in one Place of the LXX which stands in another Place in the presenc Hebrew and English Bibles. The Occasion of these Tranfpofitions, and of the like in some other Places, Dr. Grabe, in his Letter to Dr. Milles, conjectures might probably proceed from those who made up or stitched
.Theo: Gorabe, in biso made up or
together the Rolls or Leaves the Books after they were written, and by Miftake placed one Roll Leaf where another should have been: Such Mistakes we find Bookbinders sometimes make now. And this Mistake having been made in the Hebrew Copy from whence the Verfion of the LXX was made, there Dislocations are found in all the Copies of the LXX.
Another Ocoafion of various Readings, particularly as to whole Sentences or Periods, is supposed to have risen froin marginal Notes, which private Persons sometimes made in their Bibles; some Copier Transcribing from such Book, believing these Notes to have been set there to supply an Omission of a Sentence by the former Copier, ha's put it into the Text of the Copy he writes, from whence other Copies being taken, this marginal Note becomes Part of the Text in those Copics which are transcribed from it. This might be done in Hebrew Bibles, before the Translation of the LXX, and from thence might be taken into that and other Translations.
Many various Readings also with regard to Words only between the LXX and other ancient Translations, and that of our English Biblc and other modern Translations made from the present Hebrew Copies, have proceeded from the Jewish Maorites, who having invented a Number of Vowel Points and Pauses, have thereby affixed a particular Read. ing and Sense to many Words, different from that Reading and Sense in which they were understood by the LXX, and other ancient Translations made before the Invention of these Points. But of these Maforitic Points I shall have Occasion to say more hereafter.
As I said before, various Readings, and considerable ones too, will be found in all Books written before Printing was invented. And the more Copies of such Books have been written, the more various Readings there will be. And as more Copies of the Holy Scriptures have been written than of any other Books, it is no Wonder if more various Readings be found in them, than in Books less often transcribed. For except the Transcribers of the Holy Scriptures were all inspired, and preserved from Error by the Spirit of God, as the first Penmen of thofe sacred Books were, it is morally impossible but they should be guilty of some flight Mistake or Oversight in so long a Work. And therefore, we find like various Readings in the Greek Čopies of the New Testament, which you (by comparing the LXX and the English Versions) have done in the Old, though perhaps not so considerable. The fearned and industrious Dr. Milles has collected a very great Number of various Readings from several Manuscripts, in his excellent Edition printed at Oxford and published 1707. To give an Instance of one or two considerable ones. The Doxology at the End of the Lord's Prayer, Matth. vi. 13. is omitted in several MSS. And eleven whole Verses at the Beginning of the eighth Chapter of St. John's Gospel. Also the 7th Verse of the fifth Chapter of the first Epistle of St. John is omitted: in almost all the MSS. now remaining in these western Parts of the World. So that the Doctor could not procure or be informed of one MS. that had it. Though Robert Stephens declares it to have been in fome of the MSS. from which he published his neat and correct Edition of the New Testament 200 Years ago: Which Edition our present
one in Yohe (by comparing the Greek Copies ork. And if various and industriousd, though the LXX anders of the Neutherefore,