Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

:

tions to the book of Esther, from c. x. 4. to c. xvi. 24;* 8. The Song of the three Children, Dan. iii. 24—90;† 9. The History of Susannah, Dan. xiii. ;† 10. The History of Bel and the dragon, Dan. xiv.t The arguments by which some have attempted to show that the Hellenistic Jews attribute to these books a divine authority, are of no force. Comp. Germ. Introd. P. I. §. 29. pp. 133. ss.[a] Of greater weight is 1) the testimony of Jerome, who (Praef. in Tobit. et Judith.) declares, that the Hebrews read them among the hagiographa, i. e. among the sacred writings: to the same purpose 2) Origen (Ep. ad Afric.) attests, that the Jews placed the book of Tobit neither in the canon, nor yet among the Apocrypha. So also 3) Junilius (De Partit. Divin. Leg. c. 3.) says, that these books were received by the Jews with some doubt: 4) the Apostolical Constitutions allege that the Jews read the book of Baruch in their synagogues on the day of expiation 5) the Talmudists, and long before them the writers of the New Testament used them, although they never cite them by name: 6) Josephus (Cont. Ap. L. I. § 8.) says, that these books were not thought worthy of as much credit as the others, because the succession of prophets, or of inspired writers, could not be traced with certainty as low as the time of their composition. 7) Lastly, all things considered, it seems probable that these books were recommended to the churches by the Apostles together with the others as they were found in the Alexandrine version; for unless that had been the case, it would be difficult to conceive how so many Chris-' tian churches could have received them from the Jews without suspicion. Nevertheless, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, the anonymous framer of the 59th canon of the Council of Laodicea, Hilary, Ruffin, and Jerome, exclude these books from the canon. But when some persons carrying their opposition to a greater length, disapproved of their being read in churches, the Council of Hippo in 393, (AUGUSTIN. de Doct. Christ. L. II. c. 8.) and the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419, received these books into the canon, with the proviso, that the transmarine churches should be consulted ;

* [Forming in the English translation a separate book in the Apocrypha, under the title of "The rest of the book of Esther, which is found neither in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee." Tr.]

† [Forming in the English translation a separate book in the Apocrypha. Tr.]

which seems to have been done, for Innocent I. (Ep. ad. Exsuperium,) declares these books canonical, in which he is followed by the synod held at Rome in 494, if indeed the acts purporting to be those of that synod are genuine.

These decrees however are not of general obligation, nor are they to be understood otherwise than as declaring the reading of these books in the churches to be useful for the edification of the people, not as asserting their sufficiency to prove theological doctrines. This is attested in express terms, not only by JEROME (Praef. in libros Salomonis, Praef. in Judith, and Praef. in Tob.) but also by RUFFIN, (in Symbol.) and by GREGORY I. (Comm. in Job.) Comp. Du PIN Proleg. sur la Bible, L. I. c. i. § 4. p. 8. [Du Pin on the Canon, p. 7. s.]

[a) The author, after having stated these arguments in this work, remarks, that they prove no more than that the Hellenistic Jews might have had those books in their canon, not that they had actually introduced them. Tr.]

[blocks in formation]

The Protestants desiring to have these books expelled from the churches, the Council of Trent took up the subject in its deliberations on the formation of a Canon. According to the relations of Father Paul, (Hist. del. Conc. Trid. L. II. p. 157, 159,)* and Palavicini, (Hist. Conc. Trid. L. VI.) there were sharp disputes upon the subject; not a few contending that these books ought to be distinguished from the rest, and thrown into a separate secondary canon: others however, opposing this proposition, on the ground that there was no precedent of an establishment of a double canon by any council, and that the difference of the books was already sufficiently known to the learned; at length all present, namely, 48 bishops and 5 cardinals, agreed that all the books should be placed in one collection. This decision is contained in the proceedings of the 4th ses sion, wherein all are anathematized who do not receive all these books entire with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic church, and as they are contained in the old Vulgate Latin edition, for sacred and canonical, or who knowingly and deliberately

* [Hist. du Conc. de Trente, tr. LE COURAYER, Tom. I. p. 275. s. BRENT'S Council of Trent, p. 152. Tr.]

contemn the aforesaid traditions.—The distinction between these books, therefore, is by no means removed, and on this account Lamy (Appar. Bibl. L. II. c. v.) denies that the deuterocanonical books have the same authority with those of the first canon, (Comp. above § 29.) while on the other hand Du Pin affirms it; Diss. Prelim. sur la Bibl. L. I. c. i. § 6. [On the Canon, p. 15. s.]

§ 31. Apocryphal Books.

There were formerly many apocryphal books of the Old Testament in circulation, but most of them have perished. Those that have withstood the injuries of time are,—the Fourth Book of Ezra, the Prayer of Manasseh, and the Third Book of Maccabees. All of these are preserved in the Alexandrine version, and the first two in the Latin Vulgate. From the rejection of these books it is evident, that the ancient Jews and Christians did not receive books as sacred without discrimination, but examined carefully whether their inspiration could be satisfactorily proved. Although some ecclesiastical writers have made use of the apocryphal books, yet the church has never acceded to their judgment, but has uniformly rejected such books.

7

CHAPTER III.

HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

§ 32. Division of the history of the books of the Old Testament.

AFTER having shown that the books of the Old Testament are genuine and incorrupt, worthy of credit, and of divine authority, and given a catalogue of them, it remains to examine their external and internal history during the course of so many centuries. To their external history we refer an account of the different versions: to the internal, accounts of their language, of the changes of the writ ten characters, and of their various readings. These preparatory researches will be divided as follows: this third chapter will be occupied by the versions; the fourth by the language and the means of acquiring a knowledge of it; the fifth by the characters; the sixth by the various readings; and lastly, the seventh will treat of the art of criticism by which the true readings are to be discovered.

§ 33. Subjects worthy of notice respecting the ancient versions. The ancients are indeed valuable witnesses as well in interpretation as in criticism, but their respective authority is by no means equal. This depends partly upon the age, the country, and the author of each version; partly upon the text from which it has been taken; and partly upon its conformation, nature, and character. For this reason, before we can have a correct idea of the value of any particular version, it is necessary that we should be particularly acquainted with 1) its age, and if possible its author, and the place where it was composed; 2) the text from which it was made; and 3) the method pursued in making the translation, and the state in which it now exists after having undergone the vicissitudes attending

the lapse of ages.- We shall pay attention to all these particulars in treating briefly of all the ancient versions, especially with respect to the Alexandrine version on account of its being the most ancient, and to the Vulgate Latin on account of its being the adopted text of the church of Rome.

§ 34. Origin of the Alexandrine Version.[a]

Aristæas, an author who pretends to be a Gentile, præfect of the body guards of the king of Egypt, relates in a letter addressed to his brother Philocrates, that Ptolemy Philadelphus, at the instance of Demetrius Phalereus the keeper of his library, obtained from Eleazar the high priest of the Jews, by means of magnificent presents, seventy-two interpreters, who in the palace of the isle of Pharos, after mutual conferences and consultations, translated the books of Moses from the Hebrew into Greek, whence their version was called, in round numbers, the version of the Seventy interpreters. This account, repugnant as it is to historical truth, and contradictory in itself, has been copied from Aristæas by JOSEPHUS, Ant. Jud. XII. ii. 1—15, and by EUSEBIUS, Præf. Evang. VIII. ii-v. p. 350-355. By the oral traditions, on which Philo, Justin, and Epiphanius have relied, it was exaggerated to such an extent, that the interpreters were transformed into inspired writers.[b] Upon comparison with the history of those times, the following appears to be all that is true in the narration.The Jews, who were carried by Ptolemy Lagus into Egypt 320 years before Christ, together with those who voluntarily accompanied them thither, having become accustomed to the use of the Greek language, a Greek version of the sacred books, and especially of the Pentateuch, became necessary, and seems to have been accomplished by some translator attached to a synagogue. Plutarch informs us, Reg. et Imperat. Apothegm, p. 124. Opp. Vol. VIII. ed. Hutten, that Demetrius Phalereus advised Ptolemy Lagus (in whose reign Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria say the version was made,) to read authors on political subjects, because they, although dead, utter truths to kings which living men are afraid to speak. Hence, perhaps, it happened that Ptolemy requested of the Synagogue a copy of their Greek translation of the Laws of Moses, and placed it in his library. This version of the Pentateuch must therefore have been

« AnteriorContinuar »