7. We come next to the books of Kings and Chronicles, the writers of which confessedly employed previously existing materials. In the two books of Kings (which, like the two of Samuel and of Chronicles, originally constituted one work) reference is made to the following sources: For the reign of Solomon, "the book of the acts of Solomon" (1 Kings 11:41); for the kingdom of Judah after the revolt of the twelve tribes from Rehoboam to Jehoiakim, "the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah;" for the kingdom of Israel, "the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel." In the books of Chronicles we have: For the reign of David, "the book" (history) "of Samuel the seer, the book of Nathan the prophet, and the book of Gad the seer" (1 Chron. 29:29); for the reign of Solomon, "the book of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite," and "the vision of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat" (2 Chron. 9:29); for the reign of Rehoboam, "the book of Shemaiah the prophet," and "of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies," that is, in the manner of a genealogical record (2 Chron. 12:15); for the reign of Abijah, "the story" (commentary) "of the prophet Iddo" (2 Chron. 13:22); for the reign of Jehoshaphat, "the book of Jehu the son of Hanani," who is mentioned (rather,who is inserted, i.e., as an author) in the book of the kings of Israel (2 Chron. 20:34); for the reign of Uzziah, "the prophet Isaiah" (2 Chron. 26:22); for the reign of Hezekiah in part, "the vision of Isaiah the prophet" (2 Chron. 32:32); for the reign of Manasseh in part, "the sayings of the seers," or, as many prefer to render, "the words of Hosai" (2 Chron. 33:18). Besides the above, reference is made to "the book of the kings of Judah and Israel," "the book of the kings of Israel and Judah," "the story of the book of the kings;" "the book of the kings of Israel." These last are probably only different titles of the same collection of annals, embracing in its contents the history ofbothkingdoms; since the references to the book of the kings of Israel are for the affairs of the kingdom of Judah (2 Chron. 20:34; 33:18).
8. With regard to the aboveoriginal sources, it should becarefully noticed that the references in the books of Kings are not to our present books of Chronicles, which did not exist when the books of Kings were written. Chap. 20, No. 21. Neither can the allusions in the books of Chronicles be restricted to our present books of Kings; for (1) they refer to matters not recorded in those books—for example, to the wars of Jotham, 2 Chron. 27:7; (2) they refer to the book of the kings of Judah and Israel for afullaccount of the acts of a given monarch "first and last," while the history of the same monarch in our present books of Kings refers forfurtherinformation to the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah. It is plain that both writers had access to alarger collection of original documents, which were in great part the same. The chief difference in outward form is that, when the books of Chronicles were written, the annals of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel seem to have constituted a single collection, whereas in the books of Kings they are always mentioned as two separate works. In making his selections from these annals, each writer proceeded independently. Hence the remarkable agreements, where both used the same materials; and the remarkable differences, where one employed documents, or parts of documents, which the other omitted to use.
9. As to thecharacterof these original documents, it is plain that a portion of them were written by prophets. By some the books of the kings of Israel and Judah so often referred to, have been regarded as simply the public annals of the two kingdoms written by the official annalists, the "scribes" or "recorders" so often spoken of. No doubt such annals existed, and entered largely into the documents in question. But the right interpretation of 2 Chron. 20:34, shows that, in some cases at least, the writings of prophets were incorporated into these annals. The extended history of Elijah and Elisha cannot have been the work of the public scribes of the kingdom of Israel, but of prophets, writing from the prophetic point of view. The question, however, is not one of practical importance, since, whatever may have been the source or characterof the materials employed, the writers of the books now under consideration, used them at their discretion under the guidance of the Spirit of God. To us, therefore, they come with the weight of prophetic authority. The further consideration of the relation between the books of Kings and Chronicles is reserved for the special introductions to these books. It may be added here that the probable date of the former is the first half of the Babylonish captivity; of the latter, the time of Ezra under the Persian rule.
10. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah constitute a continuation of the books of Chronicles, and need not be particularly noticed in the present connection. For their authorship and date, as also for the book of Esther, see the particular introductions to these books.
11. Under theprophetical books, in the stricter sense of the word, may be included the three Greater prophets—Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel—Daniel (though largely historical), and the twelve Minor prophets. These will all come up hereafter for separate consideration. At present we view them simply with reference to the growth of the Old Testament Canon. From the settlement of the Israelities in the land of Canaan to the time of Samuel, a period of several centuries (according to the chronology followed by the apostle Paul, Acts 13:20, four hundred and fifty years), we read of several appearances of the "angel of the Lord." Judges 2:1; 6:11; 13:3. The notices of prophets during the same period are only three in number. Judges 4:4; 6:8; 1 Sam. 2:27. But with Samuel began a new era. He was himself one of the greatest of the prophets, and he established a school of the prophets over which he himself presided. 1 Sam. 10:5, 10; 19:20. From his day onward such schools seem to have flourished as a theocratic institution throughout the whole period of the kings, though more vigorously at certain times. 1 Kings 18:4; 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3, 5;4:1, 38, 43; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1. So far as we have notices of these schools, they were under the instruction of eminent prophets; and "the sons of the prophets" assembled in them received such a training as fitted them, so far as human instrumentality is concerned, for the exercise of the prophetical office, as well as for being, in a more general sense, the religious instructors of the people. From these schools came, apparently, most of those whom God called to be his messengers to the rulers and people, though with exceptions according to his sovereign wisdom. Amos 1:1; 7:14. We find, accordingly, that from the days of Samuel and onward the prophets were recognized as adistinct order of menin the Jewish theocracy, who derived their authority immediately from God, and spoke by direct inspiration of his Spirit, as they themselves indicate by the standing formula: "Thus saith the Lord."
12. It is a remarkable fact, however, that from Samuel to about the reign of Uzziah, a period of some three centuries, we have nobooks of prophecywritten by these men, if we except, perhaps, the book of Jonah. Their writings seem to have been mainly historical (like the historical notices incorporated into the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel); and what remains to us of them is preserved in the historical books of the Old Testament. See above, Nos. 6 and 7. But about the time of Uzziah begins a new era, that ofwrittenprophecy. During his reign appeared Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, and probably Jonah, Joel, and Obadiah. Micah followed immediately afterwards, being contemporary in part with Isaiah; and then, in succession, the rest of the prophets whose writings have come down to us. When the theocracy was now on its decline, waxing old and destined to pass away for ever, they felt themselves called toput on record, for the instruction of all coming ages, their words of warning and encouragement. Thus arose gradually our present collection of prophetical books; that of Lamentations included, which is but an appendix to the writings of Jeremiah.
13. These are a precious outgrowth of the theocratic spirit, in which the elements ofmeditation and reflectionpredominate. Concerning the date and authorship of the book of Job, which stands first in order in our arrangement, we have no certain information. Learned men vary between the ante-Mosaic age and that of Solomon. Its theme is divine providence, as viewed from the position of the Old Testament. See further in the introduction to this book.
14. With the call of David to the throne of Israel began a new and glorious era in the history of public worship, that of "the service of song in the house of the Lord." 1 Chron. 6:31. As when Moses smote the rock in the wilderness the water gushed forth in refreshing streams, so the soul of David, touched by the spirit of inspiration, poured forth a rich and copious flood of divine song, which has in all ages refreshed and strengthened God's people in their journey heavenward "through this dark vale of tears." Nor was the fountain of sacred poetry confined to him alone. God opened it also in the souls of such men as Asaph, Ethan, Heman, and the sons of Korah; nor did its flow wholly cease till after the captivity. The Psalms of David and his coadjutors were from the first dedicated to the service of the sanctuary; and thus arose our canonical book of Psalms, although (as will be hereafter shown) it did not receive its present form and arrangement till the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.
15. After David came Solomon in the sphere of practical wisdom. This, according to the divine record, he received as a special endowment from God, though doubtless he had in a peculiar measure a natural capacity for such an endowment. In Gibeon the Lord appeared to him in a dream by night, and said: "Ask what I shall give thee." Passing by wealth, long life, and the death of his enemies, the youthful monarch besought God to give him "an understanding heart," that he might be qualified to judge the great people committed to his care. The answer was: "Behold, I have done according to thy word:lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee." 1 Kings 3:5-12. Thus divinely qualified, he embodied, in a vast collection of proverbs, his observations on human life, and the course of human affairs. Our canonical book of Proverbs is a selection from these, with some additions at the end from other sources. For notices respecting the arrangement of these proverbs in their present form, as well as respecting the books of Ecclesiastes and Canticles, which are also ascribed to Solomon, the reader may consult the introductions to these books.
The subject thus far before us has beenthe growth of the materialswhich constitute our canonical books. The question of their preservation and final embodiment in their present form remains to be considered.
16. Respecting thepreservationof the sacred books till the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, our information is very scanty. Each king was required to have at hand for his own personal use a transcript of the law of Moses (Deut. 17:18), the original writing being carefully laid up in the inner sanctuary, where Hilkiah, the high priest, found it in the reign of Josiah. 2 Kings 22:8. We cannot doubt that such kings as David, Solomon, Asa, and Hezekiah complied with this law: though after the disorders connected with the reign of Manasseh and his captivity, the good king Josiah neglected it. Jehoshaphat, we are expressly told, sent men to teach in the cities of Judah, who had "the book of the law of the Lord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught the people." 2 Chron. 17:7-9. Of course it was a copy, and not the original autograph, which might not be removed from the sanctuary. It is a natural supposition that other transcripts of the law were made under the direction of the high priest, forthe use of pious men, especially pious prophets, princes, and Levites, who needed its directions for the right discharge of their official duties, though on this point we can affirm nothing positively. As to the prophetical books, we know that Jeremiah had access to the writings of Isaiah, for in repeated instances he borrowed his language. We know again that Daniel had at hand the prophecies of Jeremiah; for he understood "by books" (literally "by the books," which may be well understood to mean that collection of sacred books of which the prophecies of Jeremiah formed a part) "the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." Dan. 9:2. The consecration of the Psalms of David and his coadjutors to the public service of the sanctuary must have insured their careful preservation by the Levites who had charge of the temple music; and, in general, the deep reverence of the Jews for their sacred writings is to us a reasonable evidence that they preserved them from loss and mutilation to the captivity, and through that calamitous period.
17. To Ezra and his coadjutors, the men of the Great Synagogue, the Jews ascribe thecompletion of the canonof the Old Testament. Their traditions concerning him are embellished with extravagant fictions; yet we cannot reasonably deny that they are underlaid by a basis of truth. All the scriptural notices of Ezra attest both his zeal and his ability as "a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel," a man who "had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments." Ezra 7:10, 11. The work in which he and his associates were engaged was the reëstablishment of the Theocracy on its old foundation, the law of Moses, with the ordinances pertaining to the sanctuary-service afterwards added by David; and that too in the vivid consciousness of the fact that disobedience to the divine law had brought upon the nation the calamities of the captivity. In such circumstances their firstsolicitude must have been that the people might have the inspired oracles given to their fathers, and be thoroughly instructed in them. The work, therefore, which Jewish tradition ascribes to Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue was altogether appropriate to their situation, nor do we know of any man or body of men afterwards so well qualified for its performance, or upon whom it would so naturally have devolved.
That they arranged the inspired volume in substantially its present form, we have no good reason for doubting. But we should not, perhaps, be warranted in saying that they brought the canon of the Old Testament absolutely and formally to a close. Josephus (against Apion 1. 8) affirms that no book belongs to the sacred writings of his nation "which are justly believed to be divine," that had its origin after the reign of Artaxerxes, Xerxes' son (Artaxerxes Longimanus, under whom Ezra led forth his colony, Ezra, chap. 7); and that on the ground that from this time onward "the exact succession of the prophets" was wanting. This declaration of the Jewish historian is in all essential respects worthy of full credence. We cannot, however, affirm with confidence that all the later historical books were put by Ezra and his contemporaries into the exact form in which we now have them. The book of Nehemiah, for example, contains some genealogical notices (chap. 12:11, 22) which, according to any fair interpretation, are of a later date. We are at liberty to suppose that these were afterwards added officially and in good faith, as matters of public interest; or, as some think, that the book itself is an arrangement by a later hand of writings left by Nehemiah, perhaps also by Ezra; so that while its contents belong, in every essential respect, to them, it received its present form after their death. Respecting the question when the canon of the Old Testament received its finishing stroke, a question which the wisdom of God has left in obscurity, we must speak with diffidence. We know with certainty that our present Hebrew canon is identical with that collection of sacred writings to which our Saviour and his apostles constantly appealed asinvested throughout with divine authority, and this is a firm basis for our faith.
The attempt has been made, but without success, to show that a portion of the Psalms belongs to the Maccabean age. The words of the Psalmist (Psa. 74:8) rendered in our version: "They have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land," have no reference to the synagogues of a later age, as is now generally admitted. The Hebrew word denotesplaces of assembly, and was never applied by the later Jews to their synagogues. The Psalmist wrote, moreover, in immediate connection with the burning of the temple—"they have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling-place of thy name to the ground"—and this fixes the date of the Psalm to the Chaldean invasion (2 Kings 25:9); for the temple was not burned, but only profaned, in the days of the Maccabees. By "the assemblies of God," we are probably to understand the ancient sacred places, such as Ramah, Bethel, and Gilgal, where the people were accustomed to meet, though in a somewhat irregular way, for the worship of God. But whether this interpretation be correct or not, the words have no reference to the buildings of a later age called synagogues.Some of the apocryphal writings, as, for example, the book of Wisdom, the book of Ecclesiasticus, the first book of Maccabees, were highly valued by the ancient Jews. But they were never received into the Hebrew canon, because their authors livedafter"the exact succession of the prophets," which ended with Malachi. They knew how to make the just distinction between books of human wisdom and books written "by inspiration of God."
The attempt has been made, but without success, to show that a portion of the Psalms belongs to the Maccabean age. The words of the Psalmist (Psa. 74:8) rendered in our version: "They have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land," have no reference to the synagogues of a later age, as is now generally admitted. The Hebrew word denotesplaces of assembly, and was never applied by the later Jews to their synagogues. The Psalmist wrote, moreover, in immediate connection with the burning of the temple—"they have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling-place of thy name to the ground"—and this fixes the date of the Psalm to the Chaldean invasion (2 Kings 25:9); for the temple was not burned, but only profaned, in the days of the Maccabees. By "the assemblies of God," we are probably to understand the ancient sacred places, such as Ramah, Bethel, and Gilgal, where the people were accustomed to meet, though in a somewhat irregular way, for the worship of God. But whether this interpretation be correct or not, the words have no reference to the buildings of a later age called synagogues.
Some of the apocryphal writings, as, for example, the book of Wisdom, the book of Ecclesiasticus, the first book of Maccabees, were highly valued by the ancient Jews. But they were never received into the Hebrew canon, because their authors livedafter"the exact succession of the prophets," which ended with Malachi. They knew how to make the just distinction between books of human wisdom and books written "by inspiration of God."
18. The earliest notice of thecontents of the Hebrew Canonis that contained in the prologue to the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus, where it is described as "the law, the prophets, and the other national books," "the law, and the prophecies, and the rest of the books," according to the three-fold division already considered. Chap. 18, No. 4. Josephus, in the passage already referred to (against Apion, 1. 8), says: "We have not among us innumerable books discordant and contrary to each other, but only two-and-twenty, containing the history of all time, which are justly believed to be divine. And of these five belong to Moses, which contain the laws and the transmission of human genealogy to the time of his death. This period of time wants but little of three thousand years" (the longer chronology followed by him). "But from the death of Mosesto the reign of Artaxerxes, who was king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets after Moses wrote the history of their times in thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to God and precepts for human life. From Artaxerxes to our time various books have been written; but they have not been esteemed worthy of credence like that given to the books before them, because the exact succession of the prophets has been wanting." In this list the books of the Old Testament are artificially arranged to agree with the numbertwo-and-twenty, that of the Hebrew alphabet. The four that contain "hymns to God and precepts for human life" are, in all probability: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles; and the thirteen prophetical books (see below) are: (1) Joshua, (2) Judges and Ruth, (3) the two books of Samuel, (4) the two books of Kings, (5) the two books of Chronicles, (6) Ezra and Nehemiah, (7) Esther, (8) Isaiah, (9) Jeremiah and Lamentations, (10) Ezekiel, (11) Daniel, (12) the book of the twelve Minor Prophets, (13) Job. See Oehler in Hertzog's Encyclopædia, Art. Canon of the Old Testament. Origen, as quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 6.25), and Jerome (both of whom drew their information concerning the Hebrew Canon immediately from Jewish scholars, and may, therefore, be regarded as in a certain sense the expositors of the above list of Josephus) make mention of the same number, twenty-two. Origen's list unites Ruth with Judges, puts together the first and second of Samuel, the first and second of Kings, the first and second of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (under the names of the first and second of Ezra), and Jeremiah and Lamentations (with the addition of the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah—an inconsistency, or rather oversight, to be explained from his constant habit of using the Septuagint version). In the present text of Eusebius, the book of the twelve Minor Prophets is wanting. But this is simply an old error of the scribe, since it is necessary to complete the number of twenty-two. Jerome's list (Prologus galeatus) is the same, only that he gives the contents of the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa in accordance with theHebrew arrangement, placing Daniel in the last class, and adding that whatever is without the number of these must be placed among the Apocryphal writings. Smith's Dict. of the Bible, Art. Canon. The catalogue of these two distinguished Christian scholars—Origen of the Eastern church, and Jerome of the Western, both of whom drew their information immediately from Hebrew scholars—is decisive, and we need add nothing further.
19. TheApocryphal booksof the Old Testament were incorporated into the Alexandrine version called the Septuagint; but they were never received by the Jews of Palestine as a part of the sacred volume. Concerning them and their history, see further in the Appendix to this part.
In the present chapter only those versions of the Old Testament are noticed which were made independently of the New. Versions of the whole Bible, made in the interest of Christianity, are considered in the following part.
1. This is worthy of special notice as the oldest existing version of the holy Scriptures, or any part of them, in any language; and also as the version which exerted a very large influence on the language and style of the New Testament; for it was extensively used in our Lord's day not only in Egypt, where it originated, and in the Roman provinces generally, but also in Palestine; and the quotations in the New Testament are made more commonly from it than from the Hebrew.
2. The Jewish account of its origin, first noticed briefly by Aristobulus, a Jew (as quoted by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius), then given at great length in a letter which professes to have been written by one Aristeas, a heathen and a special friend of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and the main part of which Josephus has copied (Antiq. 12. 2), is for substance as follows: Ptolemy Philadelphus (who reigned from B.C. 285 to 247), at the suggestion of his librarian Demetrius Phalereus, after having first liberated all the Jewish captives found in his kingdom, sent an embassy with costly gifts to Eleazar the high priest at Jerusalem, requesting that he would send him chosen men, six from each of the twelve tribes, with a copy of the Jewish law, that it might be interpreted from the Hebrew into the Greek and laid up in the royal library at Alexandria.Eleazar accordingly sent the seventy-two elders with a copy of the laws written on parchments in letters of gold, who were received by the king with high honors, sumptuously feasted, and afterwards lodged in a palace on an island (apparently Pharos in the harbor of Alexandria), where they completed their work in seventy-two days, and were then sent home with munificent gifts. The story that they were shut up in seventy-two separate cells (according to another legend two by two in thirty-six cells), where they had no communication with each other and yet produced as many versions agreeing with each other word for word, was a later embellishment designed (as indeed were all the legends respecting the origin of this version) to exalt its character in the apprehension of the people, and to gain for it an authority equal to that of the inspired original.
3. The letter ascribed to Aristeas is now generally admitted to be spurious. It purports to have been written by a heathen scholar, yet it bears throughout marks of a Jewish origin. It represents the translators as Jewish elders sent by the high priest from Jerusalem. Yet the version is acknowledged to be in the Alexandrine Greek dialect. For these and other reasons learned men ascribe its authorship to a Jew whose object was to exalt the merits of the Alexandrine version in the estimation of his nation. But we are not, for this reason, warranted to pronounce the whole account a pure fable, as many have done. We may well believe that the work was executed under the auspices of Ptolemy, and for the purpose of enriching his library. But we must believe that it was executed by Jews born in Egypt to whom the Greek language was vernacular, and probably from manuscripts of Egyptian origin. Thus much is manifest from the face of the version, that it was made by different men, and with different degrees of ability and fidelity.
The nameSeptuagint(Latin,Septuaginta),seventy, a round number for the more exactseventy-two, probably arose from this tradition of the execution of the work by seventy-two elders in seventy-two days. The storyof the parchments sent from Jerusalem for the use of the translators (with the request that they might be returned with them) has been rejected on the ground that the text used by them differs too widely from the Palestinian text. See further on this subject in No. 5, below. It has been further affirmed that Demetrius Phalereus did not belong to the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, but to that of his father Ptolemy Soter, the son having banished him from court in the beginning of his reign. For this reason some have proposed to assign the founding of the Alexandrian library to the father and not the son. But whatever be our judgment in respect to Demetrius and his relation to the two Ptolemies, the voice of history is decisive in favor of the son and not the father, as the patron of learning.
The nameSeptuagint(Latin,Septuaginta),seventy, a round number for the more exactseventy-two, probably arose from this tradition of the execution of the work by seventy-two elders in seventy-two days. The storyof the parchments sent from Jerusalem for the use of the translators (with the request that they might be returned with them) has been rejected on the ground that the text used by them differs too widely from the Palestinian text. See further on this subject in No. 5, below. It has been further affirmed that Demetrius Phalereus did not belong to the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, but to that of his father Ptolemy Soter, the son having banished him from court in the beginning of his reign. For this reason some have proposed to assign the founding of the Alexandrian library to the father and not the son. But whatever be our judgment in respect to Demetrius and his relation to the two Ptolemies, the voice of history is decisive in favor of the son and not the father, as the patron of learning.
4. It has been a question whether the Hebrew Scriptures were translated at one time, or in successive portions. The tradition above considered speaks only ofthe law, or, in the plural,the laws. These might, perhaps, be understood as comprehensive terms for the whole Old Testament, but they probably mean the Pentateuch alone, in which both the Egyptian king and the Jews of his realm would feel a special interest. It is probable that the Pentateuch—theLawin the proper sense of the term—was first translated, and afterwards the remaining books. But how long a period of time was thus occupied cannot be determined. Respecting the incorporation into this version of the apocryphal book, see in the appendix to this Part, No. 2.
When the translator of the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), says in his prologue, in immediate connection with his residence and labors in Egypt, that "the law itself and the prophets, and the rest of the books have no small difference [as to force] when read in their own tongue," he plainly refers to the Septuagint version as complete in his day. He visited Egypt "under Euergetes." But to which of the two monarchs who bore that title he refers is uncertain. If to the former, it was between 246-221 B.C.; if to the latter, between 145-116 B.C.
When the translator of the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), says in his prologue, in immediate connection with his residence and labors in Egypt, that "the law itself and the prophets, and the rest of the books have no small difference [as to force] when read in their own tongue," he plainly refers to the Septuagint version as complete in his day. He visited Egypt "under Euergetes." But to which of the two monarchs who bore that title he refers is uncertain. If to the former, it was between 246-221 B.C.; if to the latter, between 145-116 B.C.
5. The version varies so much in its different parts that it is not easy to give its character as a whole. It is agreed among biblical scholars that the translators of the Pentateuch excelled in ability and fidelity, according to the well-known judgment ofJerome—"which [the books of Moses] we also acknowledge to agree more than the others with the Hebrew." Among the historical books the translations of Samuel and Kings are the most faulty. Those of the prophets are in general poor, especially that of Isaiah. That of Daniel was so faulty that the Christians in later times substituted for it the translation of Theodotion. See below, No. 10. Among the poetical books that of Proverbs is the best. As a whole the Septuagint version cannot for a moment enter into competition with the Hebrew original. Yet, as the most ancient of versions and one which also represents a text much older than the Masoretic, its use is indispensable to every scholar who would study the Old Testament in the original language.
6. Independently of its critical value, the Septuagint must be regarded with deep interest from its close connection with the New Testament. In the days of Christ and his apostles it was known and read throughout the whole Roman empire by the Hellenists; that is, by those Jews and Jewish proselytes who had the Greek civilization and spoke the Greek language. As the Alexandrine Greek, in which this version was made, was itself pervaded throughout with the Hebrew spirit, and to a great extent also with Hebrew idioms and forms of thought, so was the language of the New Testament, in turn, moulded and shaped by the dialect of the Septuagint, nor can the former be successfully studied except in connection with the latter. Then again the greatest number of quotations in the New Testament from the Old is made from the Septuagint. According to Mr. Greenfield (quoted in Smith's Bible Dict., art. Septuagint) "the number of direct quotations from the Old Testament in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, may be estimated at three hundred and fifty, of which not more than fifty materially differ from the seventy. But the indirect verbal allusions would swell the number to a far greater amount." The discussion of the principles upon which the writers of the New Testament quote from the Old belongs to another part of this work. It may be briefly remarked here that they quote in a free spirit,not in that of servile adherence to the letter, aiming to give the substance of the sacred writers' thoughts, rather than an exactly literal rendering of the original word for word.
The prophecy of Isaiah, for example (6:9, 10), is six times quoted in the New Testament, wholly or in part, with very free variations of language. Matt. 13:14, 15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28: 26, 27; Rom. 11:8. From neither of these quotations, nor from all of them combined, could we draw acriticalargument respecting either the Hebrew or Greek text of the passage quoted. Neither can we argue from the exact agreement of a quotation in the New Testament with the Septuagint where that differs from the Hebrew, that the Hebrew text has been corrupted. The New Testament writers are occupied with the spirit of the passages to which they refer, rather than with the letter.
The prophecy of Isaiah, for example (6:9, 10), is six times quoted in the New Testament, wholly or in part, with very free variations of language. Matt. 13:14, 15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28: 26, 27; Rom. 11:8. From neither of these quotations, nor from all of them combined, could we draw acriticalargument respecting either the Hebrew or Greek text of the passage quoted. Neither can we argue from the exact agreement of a quotation in the New Testament with the Septuagint where that differs from the Hebrew, that the Hebrew text has been corrupted. The New Testament writers are occupied with the spirit of the passages to which they refer, rather than with the letter.
7. The Hebrewtextfrom which the Septuagint version was executed was unpointed and much older than the Masoretic text. Were the version more literal and faithful, and had its text come down to us in a purer form (see below, Chap. 17, No. 2), it would be of great service in settling the exact text of the original Hebrew. With its present character, and in the present condition of its text, it is of but comparatively small value in this respect. Yet its striking agreement with the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch (Ch. 13, No. 8) is a phenomenon worthy of special notice. Biblical scholars affirm that the two agree in more than a thousand places where they differ from the Hebrew. For the probable explanation of this see above, Ch. 14, No. 9.
The reader must be on his guard against the error of supposing that these more than a thousand variations from the Hebrew text are of such a nature as to affect seriously the system of doctrines and duties taught in the Pentateuch. They are rather of a critical and grammatical character, changes which leave the substance of revelation untouched. See on this point Ch. 3. There is one striking agreement between the Samaritan text and that of the Septuagint in which many biblical scholars think that the true ancient reading has been preserved. It is that of Gen. 4:8: "And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go out into the field. And it came to pass when they were in the field." etc.
The reader must be on his guard against the error of supposing that these more than a thousand variations from the Hebrew text are of such a nature as to affect seriously the system of doctrines and duties taught in the Pentateuch. They are rather of a critical and grammatical character, changes which leave the substance of revelation untouched. See on this point Ch. 3. There is one striking agreement between the Samaritan text and that of the Septuagint in which many biblical scholars think that the true ancient reading has been preserved. It is that of Gen. 4:8: "And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go out into the field. And it came to pass when they were in the field." etc.
8. In the beginning of Christianity the Septuagint enjoyed, as we have seen, a high reputation among the Jews; and as anatural consequence, among the Jewish converts also, as well as the Gentile Christians. To the great body of Gentile believers it was for the Old Testament the only source of knowledge, as they were ignorant of the Hebrew original. They studied it diligently, and used it efficiently against the unbelieving Jews. Hence there naturally arose in the minds of the latter a feeling of opposition to this version which became very bitter. They began to disparage its authority, and to accuse it of misrepresenting the Hebrew. The next step was to oppose to it another version made byAquila, which was soon followed by two others, those ofTheodotionandSymmachus.
9.Aquilais represented to have been a Jewish proselyte of Pontus, and to have lived in the second century. His version was slavishly literal, following the Hebrew idiom even where it is contrary to that of the Greek. For this very reason, not withstanding all the barbarisms thus introduced, the Jews highly valued it, calling itthe Hebrew verity. All that remains of it to us is contained in the fragments of Origen's Hexapla. See below, No. 12. Had we the whole work, its extremely literal character would give it great value in a critical point of view, as it would shed much light on the state of the Hebrew text when it was executed.
10.Theodotionwas, according to Irenæus, an Ephesian. Jerome calls him and Symmachus Ebionites, Judaizing heretics, and semi-Christians. He is supposed to have made his version in the last half of the second century. According to the testimony of the ancients, it had a close resemblance in character to the Septuagint. He seems to have had this version before him, and to have made a free use of it. Of the three later versions, that of Theodotion was most esteemed by the Christians, and they substituted his translation of the book of Daniel for that of the Seventy.
11.Symmachus, called by the church fathers an Ebionite, but by some a Samaritan, seems to have flourished not far from the close of the second century. His version was free, aiming to give the sense rather than the words. His idiom was Hellenistic,and in this respect resembled the Septuagint, from the author's familiarity with which, indeed, it probably took its complexion.
Of other ancient Greek versions discovered by Origen in his Eastern travels and made by unknown authors it is not necessary to speak.
12. The text of the Septuagint was never preserved so carefully as that of the Hebrew, and in the days of Origen it had fallen into great confusion. To meet the objections of the Jews, as well as to help believers in their study of the Old Testament, Origen undertook first the work called theTetrapla(Greek,fourfold), which was followed by theHexapla(Greek,sixfold). To prepare himself he spent twenty-eight years, travelling extensively and collecting materials. In the Tetrapla, the text of the Septuagint (corrected by manuscripts of itself), and those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus were arranged side by side infourparallel columns. In the Hexapla there weresixcolumns—(1) the Hebrew in Hebrew characters; (2) the Hebrew expressed in Greek letters; (3) Aquila; (4) Symmachus; (5) the Septuagint; (6) Theodotion. See Davidson's Bib. Crit., 1, p. 203; Smith's Bib. Diet., 2, p. 1202. In some books he used two other Greek versions, and occasionally even a third, giving in the first caseeight, in the second,ninecolumns.
"The great work," says Davidson, "consisting of nearly fifty volumes; on which he had spent the best years of his life, does not seem to have been transcribed—probably in consequence of its magnitude and the great expense necessarily attending a transcript. It lay unused as a whole fifty years after it was finished, till Eusebius and Pamphilus drew it forth from its concealment in Tyre, and placed it in the library of the latter in Cæsarea. It is thought to have perished there when Cæsarea was taken and plundered by the Saracens, A.D. 653." Bib. Criticism, 1, p. 206. Well did Origen merit by his vast researches and labors the epithetAdamantinus[Adamantine] bestowed on him by the ancients. Fragments of the Hexapla, consisting of extracts made from it by the ancients, have been collected and published in two folio volumes by Montfauçon, Paris, 1713, and reprinted by Bahrdt in two volumes octavo, Leipzig and Lubeck, 1769, 1770. It is the hope of biblical scholars that these may be enriched from the Nitrian manuscripts. See further, Chap. 28, No. 8.
"The great work," says Davidson, "consisting of nearly fifty volumes; on which he had spent the best years of his life, does not seem to have been transcribed—probably in consequence of its magnitude and the great expense necessarily attending a transcript. It lay unused as a whole fifty years after it was finished, till Eusebius and Pamphilus drew it forth from its concealment in Tyre, and placed it in the library of the latter in Cæsarea. It is thought to have perished there when Cæsarea was taken and plundered by the Saracens, A.D. 653." Bib. Criticism, 1, p. 206. Well did Origen merit by his vast researches and labors the epithetAdamantinus[Adamantine] bestowed on him by the ancients. Fragments of the Hexapla, consisting of extracts made from it by the ancients, have been collected and published in two folio volumes by Montfauçon, Paris, 1713, and reprinted by Bahrdt in two volumes octavo, Leipzig and Lubeck, 1769, 1770. It is the hope of biblical scholars that these may be enriched from the Nitrian manuscripts. See further, Chap. 28, No. 8.
For the four "Standard Text Editions" of the Septuagint Greek version, with the principal editions founded on them, the reader may consult the Bibliographical List appended to the fourth volume of Home's Introduction, edition of 1860.
13. The Chaldee wordTargummeansinterpretation, and is applied to the translations or paraphrases of the Old Testament in the Chaldee language. When, after the captivity, the Chaldee had supplanted the Hebrew as the language of common life, it was natural that the Jews should desire to have their sacred writings in the language which was to them vernacular. Thus we account, in a natural way, for the origin of these Targums, of which there is a considerable number now extant differing widely in age as well as character. No one of them extends to the whole Old Testament.
The question has been raised whether the Targums have for their authors single individuals, or are the embodiment of traditional interpretations collected and revised by one or more persons. Many biblical scholars of the present day incline strongly to the latter view, which is not in itself improbable. But the decision of the question, in the case of each Targum, rests not on theory, but on the character of its contents, as ascertained by careful examination.
The question has been raised whether the Targums have for their authors single individuals, or are the embodiment of traditional interpretations collected and revised by one or more persons. Many biblical scholars of the present day incline strongly to the latter view, which is not in itself improbable. But the decision of the question, in the case of each Targum, rests not on theory, but on the character of its contents, as ascertained by careful examination.
14. The first place in worth, and probably in time also, belongs to theTargum on the Pentateuchwhich bears the name ofOnkelos. It is a literal and, upon the whole, an able and faithful version (not paraphrase) of the Hebrew text, written in good Aramæan, and approaching in style to the Chaldee parts of Daniel and Ezra. In those passages which describe God in language borrowed from human attributes (anthropomorphic,describing God in human forms, as having eyes, hands, etc.;anthropopathic,ascribing to God human affections, as repenting, grieving, etc.), the author is inclined to use paraphrases; thus: "And Jehovah smelled a sweet savor" (Gen. 8:21) becomes in this Targum: "And Jehovah received the sacrifice with favor;" and "Jehovah went down to see" (Gen. 11:5), "Jehovah revealed himself." So also strong expressions discreditableto the ancient patriarchs are softened, as: "Racheltook" instead of "Rachelstole." Gen. 31:19. In the poetical passages, moreover, the Targum allows itself more liberty, and is consequently less satisfactory.
According to a Jewish tradition, Onkelos was a proselyte and nephew of the emperor Titus, so that he must have flourished about the time of the destruction of the second temple. But all the notices we have of his person are very uncertain. There is even ground for the suspicion that the above tradition respectingOnkelosrelates, by a confusion of persons, toAquila(ChaldeeAkilas), the author of the Greek version already considered. In this case the real author of the Targum is unknown, and we can only say that it should not probably be assigned to a later date than the close of the second century.
According to a Jewish tradition, Onkelos was a proselyte and nephew of the emperor Titus, so that he must have flourished about the time of the destruction of the second temple. But all the notices we have of his person are very uncertain. There is even ground for the suspicion that the above tradition respectingOnkelosrelates, by a confusion of persons, toAquila(ChaldeeAkilas), the author of the Greek version already considered. In this case the real author of the Targum is unknown, and we can only say that it should not probably be assigned to a later date than the close of the second century.
15. Next in age and value is theTargum of Jonathan Ben Uzzielon theProphets; that is, according to the Jewish classification (Chap. 13, No. 4), Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets. In the historical books, this Targum is in the main literal; but in the prophets (in the stricter sense of the term) paraphrastic and allegorical.
The Jewish tradition represents that Jonathan wrote the paraphrase of the prophets from the mouth of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi; a mere fable. Who was the real author cannot be determined with certainty, only that he lived after the so-called Onkelos.
The Jewish tradition represents that Jonathan wrote the paraphrase of the prophets from the mouth of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi; a mere fable. Who was the real author cannot be determined with certainty, only that he lived after the so-called Onkelos.
16. There are two other Targums on the Pentateuch, one of them commonly known as theTargum of the Pseudo-Jonathan(because falsely ascribed to the author of the preceding Targum) and theJerusalem Targum. The latter is of a fragmentary character; and its agreement with the corresponding passages of the former is so remarkable that it is generally considered as consisting of extracts taken from it with free variations. But according to Davidson (in Alexander's Kitto): "The Jerusalem Targum formed the basis of that of Jonathan; and its own basis was that of Onkelos. Jonathan used both his predecessors' paraphrases; the author of the Jerusalem Targum that of Onkelos alone." The style of Pseudo-Jonathan is barbarous,abounding in foreign words, with the introduction of many legends, fables, and ideas of a later age. He is assigned to the seventh century. Keil, Introduc. to Old Testament, § 189.
17. The Targums on the Hagiographa are all of late date. There is one onPsalms,Job, andProverbs, the last tolerably accurate and free from legendary and paraphrastic additions; one on thefive rolls—Ruth, Esther, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Canticles; which is not a translation, but rather a commentary in the Talmudic style; two onEsther, one onChronicles.
In the present connection, though not belonging properly to the Targums, may be named theSamaritan version of the Samaritan Pentateuch, printed with the originals in the Paris and London Polyglotts. It is a literal translation executed in the spirit of the Targum of Onkelos, and admitting the same class of variations from the letter of the original.
18. This is the oldest version made by Christians from the original Hebrew. The wordPeshitosignifiessimple, indicating that it gives the simple meaning of the original, without paraphrastic and allegorical additions. It is upon the whole an able and faithful version. It often exhibits a resemblance to the Alexandrine version. We may readily suppose that the translator, though rendering from the original Hebrew, was familiar with the Septuagint, and that this exerted upon his work a certain degree of influence. The Peshito was the standard version for the Syriac Christians, being used alike by all parties; a fact which is naturally explained by its high antiquity. If it be of the same date as the New Testament Peshito, it may be placed not far from the close of the second century.
TheOld Latin, and in connection with this, theVulgateof Jerome, with some other ancient versions of the Old Testament, will be considered in connection with the New Testament.
1. The onlylegitimate criticismof the sacred text is that which has for its object to restore it, as far as possible, to its primitive form. Had we the autograph of Moses in the exact form in which he deposited it in the sanctuary (Deut. 31:26), this would be a perfect text; and so of any other book of the Old Testament. In the absence of the autographs, which have all perished, we are still able to establish the form of their text with a reasonable degree of certainty for all purposes of faith and practice. The means of accomplishing this are now to be considered.
2. Hereancient manuscriptshold the first place. It is obvious, however, that in settling the true reading of a given passage we cannot look simply to the number of manuscript testimonies. Thequalityof the manuscripts must also be taken into account. Here age is of primary importance. Other things being equal, the oldest are the most worthy of credence, as being nearest to the original sources. But, in estimating the testimony of a manuscript, there are other qualities besides age that must be carefully considered—the care of the transcriber; its freedom from interpolations by later hands (which can, however, as a general rule, be easily detected); and especially its independence, that is, its independence as compared with other manuscripts. We may have a group of manuscripts whose peculiar readings mark them as having come from a single source. Properly speaking, their testimony is valid only for the text of their source. The authority of a single independent manuscript may be equal in weight to their combined testimony. Then, again, the character of the different readings must be considered. The easiest reading—that which mostnaturally suggests itself to the scribe—has less presumption in its favor than a more difficult reading; and that on the simple ground that it is more likely that an easy should have been substituted for a difficult reading than the reverse. There are many other points which would need discussion in a work designed for biblical critics; but for the purposes of this work the above brief hints are sufficient.
The Masoretic manuscripts have a great degree of uniformity, and are all comparatively recent. Chap. 14, No. 7. We have reason to believe that the Hebrew text which they exhibit has a good degree of purity. But we cannot consider these manuscripts as so many independent witnesses. The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch is independent of the Masoretic text. Could we believe that we possess it in a tolerably pure form, its critical value would be very great. But, according to the judgment of the best biblical scholars, it has been subjected to so many alterations, that its critical authority is of small account.
The Masoretic manuscripts have a great degree of uniformity, and are all comparatively recent. Chap. 14, No. 7. We have reason to believe that the Hebrew text which they exhibit has a good degree of purity. But we cannot consider these manuscripts as so many independent witnesses. The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch is independent of the Masoretic text. Could we believe that we possess it in a tolerably pure form, its critical value would be very great. But, according to the judgment of the best biblical scholars, it has been subjected to so many alterations, that its critical authority is of small account.
3. Next in order comeancient versions, the value of which for critical purposes depends on their character as literal or free, and also upon the state of their text as we possess it. Other things being equal, the authority of a version is manifestly inferior to that of a manuscript of the original. But a version may have been made from a more ancient form of the original text than any which we have in existing manuscripts; and thus it may be indirectly a witness of great value. The extremely literal version of Aquila (Chap. 16, No. 9) was made in the second century. Could we recover it, its testimony to the Hebrew text, as it then existed, would be of great value. The Septuagint version was made (at least begun) in the third century before Christ. But its free character diminishes, and the impure state of its text greatly injures its critical authority. Of the Targums, those of Onkelos and Jonathan alone are capable of rendering any service in the line of sacred criticism, and this is not of much account.
4. We have alsoprimary-printed editionsof the Hebrew Bible—those printed from Hebrew manuscripts, which the reader may see noticed in Horne's Bibliographical List, Appendixto vol. 4. The critical authority of these depends on that of the manuscripts used, which were all of the Masoretic recension.
5.Parallel passages—parallel in acriticaland not simply in ahistoricalrespect—are passages which profess not merely to give an account of the same transaction, but to repeat the same text. Well known examples are: the song of David recorded in the twenty-second chapter of the second book of Samuel, and repeated as the eighteenth psalm; the fourteenth and fifty-third psalms, etc. Such repetitions possess for every biblical student a high interest. But in thecriticaluse of them great caution is necessary. It must be ascertained, first of all, whether they proceed from the same, or from a different writer. In the latter case they are only historical imitations. If, as in the case of the above-named passages, they manifestly have the same author, the inquiry still remainshowthe differences arose. They may be different recensions of the same writer (in this case, of David himself), or of another inspired writer, who thus sought to adapt them more perfectly—the fifty-third psalm, for example—to the circumstances of his own day. The gift of inspiration made the later writer, in this respect, coördinate in authority with the earlier.
Historicalparallelism, such as those in the books of Chronicles, as compared with the earlier historical books, do not properly belong here. Yet these also sometimes furnish critical help, especially in respect to names and dates.
Historicalparallelism, such as those in the books of Chronicles, as compared with the earlier historical books, do not properly belong here. Yet these also sometimes furnish critical help, especially in respect to names and dates.
6. Thequotationsfrom the Old Testamentin the Newhave for every believer the highest authority; more, however, in ahermeneuticalthan acriticalrespect. For, as already remarked (Chap. 16, No. 6), the New Testament writers quote mostly from the Septuagint, and in a very free way. The whole subject of these quotations will come up hereafter under the head of Biblical Interpretation.
7.Quotationsfrom the Old Testament in theTalmudandlater rabbinical writersare another source of sacred criticism.The Talmud, embodying the ecclesiastical and civil law of the Jews according to their traditions, consists of two parts, theMishna, or text, generally referred to the last half of the second century, and theGemara, orcommentaryon the Mishna. The Mishna is one; but connected with this are two Gemaras of later origin; the more copiousBabylonian, and the brieferJerusalemGemara; whence the distinction of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud. Whether because the Hebrew text was rigidly settled in its present form in the days of the Talmudists, or because their quotations have been made to agree with the Masorah, an examination of the Talmud furnishes few various readings that are of any importance. Most of them relate to trifling particulars. The quotations of later rabbinical writers are of small account in a critical respect.
8. It remains to speak ofcritical conjecture. Of this a wise and reverent scholar will make a very cautious use. He will content himself with offering to the public his suggestions, without venturing to incorporate them into the text itself. The recklessness of some modern critics, who make an abundance of conjectural emendations, and then embody them in their versions, with only a brief note, deserves severe condemnation. Had the ancient critics generally adopted this uncritical method, the sacred text would long ago have fallen into irretrievable confusion.
We add an example where critical conjecture is in place, though it may not venture to alter the established reading. In Psalm 42, the last clause of verse 6 and the beginning of verse 7, written continuously without a division of words (Chap. 13, No. 5), would read thus:[Hebrew: ky'od'odnu'sho'tpnyu'lhy'lynpshytshtvhh]With the present division of words:[Hebrew: ky 'od 'odnu 'sho't pnyu 'lhy 'ly npshy tshtvhh]the clauses are to be translated, as in our version:For I shall yet praise him[for]the salvation of his countenance. O my God, my soul is cast down within me.Divided as follows (by the transfer of a single letter to the following word).[Hebrew: ky 'od 'odnu 'sho't pny u'lhy 'ly npshy tshtvhh]the rendering would be:For I shall yet praise him, [who is]the salvation of my countenance and my God. My soul is cast down within me.Thus the refrain would agree exactly with the two that follow (ver. 11 and 43:5). Yet this conjecture, however plausible, is uncertain, since we do not know that the sacred writer sought exact uniformity in the three refrains.
We add an example where critical conjecture is in place, though it may not venture to alter the established reading. In Psalm 42, the last clause of verse 6 and the beginning of verse 7, written continuously without a division of words (Chap. 13, No. 5), would read thus:
[Hebrew: ky'od'odnu'sho'tpnyu'lhy'lynpshytshtvhh]
With the present division of words:
[Hebrew: ky 'od 'odnu 'sho't pnyu 'lhy 'ly npshy tshtvhh]
the clauses are to be translated, as in our version:
For I shall yet praise him[for]the salvation of his countenance. O my God, my soul is cast down within me.
Divided as follows (by the transfer of a single letter to the following word).
[Hebrew: ky 'od 'odnu 'sho't pny u'lhy 'ly npshy tshtvhh]
the rendering would be:
For I shall yet praise him, [who is]the salvation of my countenance and my God. My soul is cast down within me.
Thus the refrain would agree exactly with the two that follow (ver. 11 and 43:5). Yet this conjecture, however plausible, is uncertain, since we do not know that the sacred writer sought exact uniformity in the three refrains.
9.General remarkon the various readings of the sacred text. As a general rule, the various readings with which textual criticism is occupied have respect to minor points—for the most part points of a trivial nature; and even where the variations are of more importance, they are not of such a character as to obscure, much less change, the truths of revelation in any essential respect. Biblical critics tell us, for example, that the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the Septuagint version in more than a thousand places where they differ from the Masoretic Hebrew text. Chap. 16, No. 7. Yet these three texts all exhibit the same God, and the same system of doctrines and duties. Revelation does not lie in letters and syllables and grammatical forms, but in the deep and pure and strong and broad current of truth "given by inspiration of God." Reverence for the inspired word makes us anxious to possess the sacred text in all possible purity. Yet if we cannot attain to absolute perfection in this respect, we have reasonable assurance that God, who gave the revelation contained in the Old Testament, has preserved it to us unchanged in any essential particular. The point on which most obscurity and uncertainty rests is that of scriptural chronology; and this is not one that affects Christian faith or practice.