« EdellinenJatka »
ft could not have much weight in deciding the contested point. The object with which Āquila, Symmachus, and Theototion, those Hebrew apostates, in whose society our author is ever proud to be found, formed their versions is notorious *. To expect any application of this passage to the Messiah, from
them, seems to be just as wise as to imagine it would receive
a direct application to our Lord, by the chief Rabbi, who now
reuniting the disjointed members of the prophet, they directly
evince the violence which is done to the passage in his transla-
* S. Hier. Praef. in Job. Tom. I. col. 798. ed. Bened. “ Quod si apud Graecos, post LXX editionem, jam Christi Evangelio coruscante, Judaeus Aquila, Symmachus et Theodotio, Judaizantes harreteci sunt recepti, qui multa mysteria Salvatoris subdola intergo celarunt,” &c. Conf. S. Iren. adv. Haer. Lib. III. cap. xxi. p. 215. ~
+ %. the accuracy with which the fixous spsz of the Prophetical writings was preserved: vid. S. Hier. Praef. in Lam. Hierem. d
- z 2 - Ant
And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,
The mouns are here maturally put in apposition; a change, in the construction being properly introduced by a change in the . verse. And this assumption is supported by the authority of every version of the disputed passage; whether made by heterodox or orthodox, by Christian, or Jew *. However they vary in translating the terms man os, they never render them in regimen, but in apposition. But to support our author's predilection for the former construction, rvy, which closes one verse must be forced down into another to govern hial *s. Nor is this all; but admitting that these terms occurred in the same verse, his notion that elow hu. Ty as, and man his rvy are similar phrases is a false assumption. For his is not only disjointed from the antecedent opy by an attraction to the subsequent on a with which it unquestionably agrees; but so closely are the terms tow it, and Ty as connected, that they are generally united by the tie Maccaph; the latter even written in many manuscripts as one word. As the authorised version is the more matural, and is supPorted by the context, and as it is consequently that which would most obviously strike a translator, it is confirmed by the best authorities. Not only the Chaldee Paraphrase, but the vulgar text of the Greek, Latin, and Syriack versions:#, correspond with the common translation. These authorities are of the greatest weight, as they were not merely made from the original Hebrew, but all, excepting the Latin Vulgate, made by the Jews. The Septuagint is indeed challenged by our author, as not merely neutral, but opposed to the authorised text. Had he known, however, any thing more of Father Montfaucon’s Hexapla, than the solitary verse which he has quoted; he would not have left us to inform him that there were several
* Vid. Montf. Hexapl. Orig. in loc. cit. Tom. II. p. 105.
phrases, which correspond with our authorised version, in understanding the disputed text of the Divinity of the Messiah.
editions of the Septuagint; and that the passage on which he,
1518. Cyr. Alex. Com. in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 964, ed. Par. 1638;
Constitutions, and interpolated epistles of St. Ignatius *, which were sophisticated, when the Byzantine text was in use. Now, when it is remembered, that the Palestine text was revised by Eusebius, and that the disputed passage, as applying the term Father to the Son, afforded some countenance to the Sabellians who confounded the Persons; it may be possibly suspected that the immediate author of this variation in that edition was the Palestine reviser, who was the avowed adversary of the Sabellians F. Thus also we directly account for the peculiar readings' of the Philoxenian Syriac, of the Roman Arabic, and of one of St. Jerome's Latin versions, which differ from our authorised text f: for these versions were not only made from the Greek, but from that edition, which was revised by Eusebius; and are thus not entitled to the smallest attention. * . . . . These considerations will, we trust, leave our author very little reason to triumph in the result of his appeal to the testimony of the antient versions; as leaving us in full possession of the vulgar edition of the Septuagint. With respect to his fortunate guess that the received interpretation was unknown to the Primitive Fathers; it evinces his very accurate acquaintance with their writings. It not only occurs in St. Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, the Apostolical Constitutions, and revised Epistles of St. Ignatius $; but is expressly appealed to by Eusebius, and Jerome, by Théodorit and Procopius Gazaeus ||. These, it must be confessed, are exquisite specimens of that accuracy of research, by which our author has undertaken to overturn the common testimony of the early ecclesiastical writers. ‘. Let us even admit that the reading which he gratuitously bestows on the Septuagintos, exclusively belonged to that text; we might even thence derive an indirect yet decisive argument in favour of the authorised version. It must be obvious to any
observer, that the former translation deviates considerably from the Hebrew original; the authors of the paraphrase, as St. Jerome has justly observed, having a specific object in concealing the true signification. Now there is no conceivable sense which can be forced upon the disputed passage, which can at all justify the suppression of the true meaning, but that of the authorised version. “And of all the significations which can be annexed to the text, that of our author is the most difficult to reconcile with such a supposition. Had the translators understood the Fo as meaning, “the counsellor of the mighty God, the
ather of the future age,” there could be no possible objection to setting it literally down. Aud admitting them to have understood it in the sense of, “Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty
God, and everlasting Father;” there are no terms in which they .
could have so properly paraphrased it, as “ the Angel or Messenger of the great Design.” It was well known to both Jews and Christians “, that “the Angel of the Covenant" was “ the Mighty God;” and we accordingly find, that some of the fathers, who certainly knew nothing of the Hebrew, and proba
bly very little of the Greek, have absolutely deduced the true
meaning of the original from the latter paraphrastic translation +. *. - We have dwelt thus particularly on this text, not so much with a view to remove any objection to which it may be exposed from our author's remarks, as to counteract the tendency of that mistaken liberality, which has induced some good natured divines to give up certain texts to their adversaries, because they do not deem them apposite, or find them necessary to the support of the orthodox cause. Our author has favoured us with no other direct observation on the prophetical writings which merits remark. A side wind is indeed directed to blast
the credit of the celebrated text which asserts the Incarnation;
Is. vii. 14. “Behold a virgin shall conceive,” &c. but we are sadly deceived, if it porteud any good to himself.
“Of the primary application of these words, to Hezekiah,” says our author, “no doubt can be entertained.” P. 132.
Little consequence as our “ ardent and patient enquirer” annexes to ‘f the authority of the learned,” he would have but
" * Philo. Jud. Tom. I. p. 463. 640, ed. Mang. Just. Mart. Dial.
Conf. S. Basil. ub. supr. D. Bull. Apost. Trad. de Jes. Christ. Div.
cap. vi, § 8, p. 389. Nares on Unit. Vers. p. 222. ed., 1810.