9. _Aquila_ is 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 it _the 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. _Theodotion_ was, according to Irenaeus, 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 subst.i.tuted 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 h.e.l.lenistic, 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 the _Tetrapla_ (Greek, _fourfold_), which was followed by the _Hexapla_ (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 ma.n.u.scripts of itself), and those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus were arranged side by side in _four_ parallel columns. In the Hexapla there were _six_ columns--(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 case _eight_, in the second, _nine_ columns.

"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 Caesarea. It is thought to have perished there when Caesarea 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 epithet _Adamantinus_ [_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 Montfaucon, 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 ma.n.u.scripts. See further, Chap. 28, No. 8.

For the four "Standard Text Editions" of the Septuagint Greek version, with the princ.i.p.al editions founded on them, the reader may consult the Bibliographical List appended to the fourth volume of Home's Introduction, edition of 1860.

III. THE CHALDEE TARGUMS.

13. The Chaldee word _Targum_ means _interpretation_, 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.

14. The first place in worth, and probably in time also, belongs to the _Targum on the Pentateuch_ which bears the name of _Onkelos_. It is a literal and, upon the whole, an able and faithful version (not paraphrase) of the Hebrew text, written in good Aramaean, and approaching in style to the Chaldee parts of Daniel and Ezra. In those pa.s.sages which describe G.o.d in language borrowed from human attributes (_anthropomorphic_, _describing G.o.d in human forms_, as having eyes, hands, etc.; _anthropopathic_, _ascribing to G.o.d 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 discreditable to the ancient patriarchs are softened, as: "Rachel _took_" instead of "Rachel _stole_." Gen. 31:19. In the poetical pa.s.sages, 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 t.i.tus, 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 respecting _Onkelos_ relates, by a confusion of persons, to _Aquila_ (Chaldee _Akilas_), 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 a.s.signed to a later date than the close of the second century.

15. Next in age and value is the _Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel_ on the _Prophets_; that is, according to the Jewish cla.s.sification (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.

16. There are two other Targums on the Pentateuch, one of them commonly known as the _Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan_ (because falsely ascribed to the author of the preceding Targum) and the _Jerusalem Targum_. The latter is of a fragmentary character; and its agreement with the corresponding pa.s.sages 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 a.s.signed to the seventh century. Keil, Introduc. to Old Testament, -- 189.

17. The Targums on the Hagiographa are all of late date. There is one on _Psalms_, _Job_, and _Proverbs_, the last tolerably accurate and free from legendary and paraphrastic additions; one on the _five rolls_--Ruth, Esther, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Canticles; which is not a translation, but rather a commentary in the Talmudic style; two on _Esther_, one on _Chronicles_.

In the present connection, though not belonging properly to the Targums, may be named the _Samaritan 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 cla.s.s of variations from the letter of the original.

IV. THE SYRIAC PEs.h.i.tO.

18. This is the oldest version made by Christians from the original Hebrew. The word _Pes.h.i.to_ signifies _simple_, 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 Pes.h.i.to 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 Pes.h.i.to, it may be placed not far from the close of the second century.

The _Old Latin_, and in connection with this, the _Vulgate_ of Jerome, with some other ancient versions of the Old Testament, will be considered in connection with the New Testament.

CHAPTER XVII.

CRITICISM OF THE SACRED TEXT.

1. The only _legitimate criticism_ of 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. Here _ancient ma.n.u.scripts_ hold the first place. It is obvious, however, that in settling the true reading of a given pa.s.sage we cannot look simply to the number of ma.n.u.script testimonies. The _quality_ of the ma.n.u.scripts 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 ma.n.u.script, 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 ma.n.u.scripts. We may have a group of ma.n.u.scripts 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 ma.n.u.script 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 most naturally 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 subst.i.tuted 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 ma.n.u.scripts 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 ma.n.u.scripts 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 come _ancient 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 ma.n.u.script 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 ma.n.u.scripts; 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 also _primary-printed editions_ of the Hebrew Bible--those printed from Hebrew ma.n.u.scripts, which the reader may see noticed in Horne's Bibliographical List, Appendix to vol. 4. The critical authority of these depends on that of the ma.n.u.scripts used, which were all of the Masoretic recension.

5. _Parallel pa.s.sages_--parallel in a _critical_ and not simply in a _historical_ respect--are pa.s.sages 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 repet.i.tions possess for every biblical student a high interest. But in the _critical_ use 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 pa.s.sages, they manifestly have the same author, the inquiry still remains _how_ the 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 circ.u.mstances of his own day. The gift of inspiration made the later writer, in this respect, coordinate in authority with the earlier.

_Historical_ parallelism, 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. The _quotations_ from the Old Testament _in the New_ have for every believer the highest authority; more, however, in a _hermeneutical_ than a _critical_ respect. 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. _Quotations_ from the Old Testament in the _Talmud_ and _later rabbinical writers_ are another source of sacred criticism. The Talmud, embodying the ecclesiastical and civil law of the Jews according to their traditions, consists of two parts, the _Mishna_, or text, generally referred to the last half of the second century, and the _Gemara_, or _commentary_ on the Mishna. The Mishna is one; but connected with this are two Gemaras of later origin; the more copious _Babylonian_, and the briefer _Jerusalem_ Gemara; 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 of _critical 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d. 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 remark_ on 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d." 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 a.s.surance that G.o.d, 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.