« EdellinenJatka »
It could not have much weight in deciding the contested point. The object with which Aquila, Symmachus; and Theodotion, 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 presides in the London Synagogue of Polish Jews. Of the Fersion of the Septuagint we shall give a good account : on ascending from Father Montfaucon's edition of the Hexapla, to his authorities, it will probably lead us to a conclusion, of which his learned transcriber is little aware. And if our perspicacious commentator had but looked to the context of the prophet, it would possibly have shaken his confidence in the justuess of his translation, as fully as it does outs. Is. ib. 7. • Of the in crease of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even for ever." These perplexing words, we conceive, form rather a better comment upon the disputed terms; ' the mighty God and everlasting Father,' than upon his improvement, Father of the future age;" and they directly apply those solemn titles, not to God the Father but to God the Son. But our cause admits of being placed in a different posture of defence.
From the regular order in which our critic has distributed the several commas of his version, it would appear that he had religiously adhered + to the sigcouetgia of the sacred text. * But the reverse of this supposition is precisely the fact. And on reuniting the disjointed members of the prophet; they directly evince the violence which is done to the passage in his translation; and demonstrate that the common version is both natural and true. We subjoin the original according to the revisal of Dr. Kennicot; together with the accurate version of Bishop Lowth.
* S. Hier. Præf. in Job. Tom. I. col. 798. ed. Bened. si apud Græcos, post LXX editionem, jam Christi Evangelio coruscante, Judæus Aquila, Symmachus et Theodotio, Judaizantes hæreteci sunt recepti, qui multa mysteria Salvatoris subdola interpretatione celarunt,” &c. Conf. S. Iren. adv. Hær. Lib. III.
сар. xxi. p. 215.
+ On the accuracy with which the stgometpice of the Prophetical writings was preserved: vid. S. Hier. Præf. in Lam. Hierem.
And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,
Prince of Peace.
-are simi יועץ אל גבור and ,אבי עד שר שלום his notion that
The nouns are here naturally put in apposition; a change in the construction being properly introduced by a change in the
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 7100 buy they never render them in regimen, but in apposition. But to support our author's predilection for the former construction, ryt which closes one verse must be forced down into another to govern 9112 58. Nor is this all; but admitting that these terms occurred in the same verse,
, lar phrases is a false assumption. For so is not only disjointed from the antecedent run by an attraction to the subsequent 929 with which it unquestionably agrees ; but so closely are the terms Disw 'yw, and 7 98 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 natural, 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 t, correspond with the common translation. These authorities are of the greatesť weight, as they were not merely made from the original Hebrew, but all, excepting the Latin Vulgate, nade 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.
+ Vid Walt. Polygl, in loc. cit. We add the particular phrases, which correspond with our authorised version, in understanding the disputed text of the Divinity of the Messiah.
. Jonath. 2 . nomen ejus-Deus fortis, permanens in æternum. Vers. Vulg. Syr. ? ;
oba wgello. Et vocatum est nomen mejús--Deus seculorum fortissimus. Vers, Vulg. Græc. xj xaneiras To oropece attē.Oeds iozupós. Vers. Vulg. Lat. " Et vocabitur noe men ejus,-- Deus, fortis.
editions of the Septuagint; and that the passage on which he has blundered is nothing more than an extract from the printed Septuagint of Sixtus V.
Though the pure text of that primitive version, is conceived to exist in no manuscript which is now extant; the reading of the disputed passage is preserved by Eusebius and Procopius. As ill fortune would have it, they, however, agree in representa ing the reading, which our “ ardent and patient enquirer" has, with equal learning and modesty, rejected as "absurd, false, and an egregious misrepresentation," the identical reading of the version to which he appeals * True it is, that Eusebius states that a variation existed in the text + of the Septuagint; and one of the readings which he mentions is accordingly found in the Vatican MS., the other in the Complutensian Codex. But when we refer these texts to their proper authors, this difficulty directly disappears.
Of the different texts which existed in Eusebius's age, the principal were the Byzantine and Palestine editions ; but it is easy to prove that the reading of the Complutensian Codex belongs to the former, and that of the Roman edition to the latter. For (1.) The reading of the Ronian edition occurs in the Codex Marchalianus, which certainly retains the Palestine text. (2.) It is adopted, not only by Eusebius in his Commentary on Isaiah, but by S. Basil, and S. Cyril, who certainly followed the Palestine edition g. On the other hand, (1.) the reading of the Complutensian Codex occurs in the greater number of MSS. and is loose and paraphrastic, which are sure indications of the vulgar or Byzantine text. (2.) It occurs in the Apostolical
* Euseb. Dem. Evang. Lib. VII. cap. i. p. 336. čvojice bivai ai. γεται, κατα μέν της Εβδομήκοντα, Μεγάλης βελής "Afγελος και ώς τινα των αντιγράφων έχει: « θαυμαςός Σύμβαλος, Θεός ισχυρός. Procopin Is. p. 149. d. ed. Curter. Par. 1580. ovu wwws yag námes, to taga τοίς εβδομήκοντα • Θεός', έδωκαν ισχυρός' που δε εβδομήκοντα τους θεοπρεπώς περί αυτ8 λεγομένοις ένατενίσαντες, το παρα τους Εβραιούς ΗΛ,ΘΕΟΝ ερμηνευσαν. .
+ Vid. Supr. n. *
s Vid. Euseb. in Is. ap. Montfauc. Nov. Collect. Patr. Tom. II. p. 390. e. Ş. Basil. adv. Eun. Lib. I. Tom. II. p. 56. d. ed. Par, 1518. Cyr. Alex. Com. in Joan. Tom. IV. 964. ed. Par. 1638, Conf. Griesb. Proleg. in Nov. Test. p. Ixxiv.
|| Schol. in Septuag. Sixt. V. p. 600. ed. Rom. " In plerisque vero libris post Μεγάλης βολής "AFγελος, haec sequuntur θαυμασός ΣύμRoutes ses loxugós. Conf. Griesb. Præf. in Nov, Test, p. lxxv.
Constitutions, and interpolated epistles of St. Ignatius *, which were sophisticated, when the Byzantine text was in use. 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 Sabelljans + 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 $; 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. Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, the Apostolical Constitutions, and revised Epistles of St. Ignatius g; but is expressly appealed to by Eusebitis, and Jerome, by Theodorit and Procopius Gazæus ||. These, it must Þe confessed, are exquisite specimens of that accuracy of re. şearch, by whịch 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 Septuagint , 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
* Constit. Apost. Lib. V. cap. xyi. Ignat. Epist. interp. ap: Patr. Apost. Tom. II. pp. 105. 134. 151. 324.
Vid. Brit. Crit. Vol. I. p. 191. sqq. New Series.
Vid. Septuag. Sixt. V. ubi. supr. conf. 8. Hier. in Is, Tom. IV. p. 34. ed. Vict. ģVid. supr. n. *. conf. S. Iren, adv. Här. Lib. IV.
xxxii. $11. p.: 273. Clem. Alex. Pæd. Lib. I. cap. v. p. 112. I. 14.
Vid. Euseb. et Procop. ub. supr. p. 341. n. Conf. Theod. in Is. Tom. II. p. 44. a. b. ed. Par. 1642. S. Hier: în Is. Tom. IV. p. 34. g.
Η Και καλείται το όνομα αυτά μεγάλης βελής άγγελος, άξω γαρ ειρήνης for tes agxorlees vej ugístav aútã. e. Cod. Vat
. The latter part of this version is obviously not adopted from the Hebrew isu-gw Prin
; nipra cujus pax multiplicabitur super nos in diebus ejus.
לשלמא יסגי עלנא ceps pacis
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 passage as meaning, "the counsellor of the mighty God, the Father of the future age," there could be no possible objection to setting it literally down. And 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 Desigu.' It was well known to both Jews and Christians *, that “thie Angel of the Covenant" was Mighty God;" and we accordingly find, that some of the fa. thers, who certainly knew nothing of the Hebrew, and probably very little of the Greek, have absolutely deduced the true meaning of the original from the latter paraphrastic transla
We have dwelt thus particularly on this text, not so much with a view to remove any objection to which it may posed from our author's remarks, as to counteract the tendency of that mistaken liberality, which has induced some good na. tured divipes 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 whịch asserts the Incarnation 2; 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 of the authority of the learned," he would have but
* Philo. Jud. Tom. I. p. 463. 640, ed. Mang. Just. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 356. b.
+ S. Hilar, de Trin. Lib. IV. cap. xxiii. col. 841. C. ed. Bened, Conf. S. Basil. ub. supr. D. Bull. Apost. Trad. de Jes. Christ. Div. cap. vi. 8. p. 339. Nares on Unit. Vers. p. 222. ed, 1810.