THE MONTHLY REVIEW, For JANUARY, 1770. ART. I. An Enquiry into the prefent State of the Septuagint Verfion of the Old Teftament. By the Rev. Dr. Henry Owen, Rector of St. Olave, Hartstreet, and Fellow of the Royal Society. 8vo. 3 s. fewed. White, &c. 1769... IT T is with much pleasure that we behold fuch a manly and liberal spirit prevailing among a confiderable number of the clergy, as prevents their being afraid either of admitting the truth, however contrary to the prejudices of mankind, or of communicating it openly to the world. An inftance of this ingenuous temper is difplayed by the learned performance before us; in which Dr. Owen hath freely expofed the corruptions. that have been introduced, whether defignedly or otherwife, into the Septuagint translation of the Old Teftament. With regard to the Jews, whatever we may think of their boafted veneration for the facred text, our Author obferves, that it never seems to have been strong enough to withhold them from tampering with it, when it could be brought thereby to make either for the support of their caufe, or the honour of their nation. Nor is this peculiar to the Jews; "Iliaces intra muros peccatur et extra :" Chriftians have been guilty of the like frauds; and, to ferve a turn, have daringly interpolated, altered, or expunged, as beft fuited their purpofcs. A remarkable fact of this fort is exhibited, from the Alexandrian copy, with respect to Ezekiel, ch. xvi. ver. 4. and it is a clear proof, among feveral others, that if the violent malice of the Jews did much harm to the Septuagint verfion, the indifcreet zeal of Chriftians did it likewife no fmall damage. From this reprefentation of things, fays Dr. Owen, 1 may fall perhaps, under the cenfure of many, as if I endeavoured to fubvert the foundation of religion, and to render revelation uncertain and precarious. But my real intentions juft the reverfe. The purport of my defign is, to convince the world of VOL. XIII. the the corrupt ftate of the Septuagint verfion, as it ftands in all the printed editions ;-and confequently, to convince the world of the neceffity of collating all the MS. copies of it that are now to be found, and of bringing their variations under one view. Such a collation of the Greek MSS.-efpecially when preceded by an accurate one of the Hebrew-would be fo far from fhaking, as fome apprehend, the foundation of religion, that it would contribute, in a fignal and eminent degree, to "fettle, ftrengthen, and stablish it." And how comfortable, how benefic, would be the refult! We fhould then proceed on furer grounds and, being more able to afcertain the true text, might comment upon it with greater certainty, precifion, and judgment whereas, in the fituation we are now in, we unwarily undertake to write comments on we know not what; and, while we mean to illuftrate the truths of scripture, are often defending the errors of transcribers.' The Enquiry is introduced with fome account, principally taken from Dr. Hody, of the tranflation of the Seventy; from which it appears, that this verfion of the Old Teftament was compofed with all the care, diligence, and fidelity, that a work of fuch importance required: and though, as it came from different hands fome parts of it might be executed better than others; yet there is great reafon to believe, that every part of it was as accurately done as the judgment of the translators, and the reading of their copies, enabled them to do it: and, confequently, that the whole was in the main agreeable to the Hebrew text, as it ftood in those days. • This, continues our learned Author, we might infer from the common property of translations in general, which are always fuppofed to agree with the originals from whence they are made. But with refpect to this particular tranflation before us, we have the unanimous fuffrage of the ancient Jews, the moft competent judges, to affure us, that it actually did agree with the facred text, and juftly exprefs the meaning of the Hebrew for they not only extolled it as a true, faithful, and accurate verfion, but received it on that footing into the fynagogue fervice, and publicly read it in their religious affemblies, with the greatest refpect and reverence. Now this procedure of the Jews we are here concerned to regard the more, because they feem to have acted therein with great care, prudence, and caution. For, by the accounts delivered to us of this matter, it appears, that the tranflation of the LAW was critically examined, and compared with the original, before it was admitted into their fynagogues :-and that, when it was approved and admitted, proper care was taken by them that it might afterwards be preferved in its genuine ftate, free from errors and alterations. But, if they proceeded thus with regard to the LAW, LAW, we may farther conclude, by parity of reafon, that they ftill employed the fame care when they afterwards admitted the verfion of the PROPHETS-and fo again, when they adopted the tranflation of the OTHER books. Now if this be allowed, -and this, I think, we muft allow for the fecurity and protection of the genuine reading, which the Jews were then folicitous to preferve,-it will neceffarily follow, that the whole verfion retained its true, original integrity, fo long as the Jews retained a regard and value for it-and fince no occurrence appears to have happened for a length of time, that could induce them either to remit their care, or to make alterations in this verfion, we may reasonably conclude, that it continued in a pure, uncorrupted state, and in general agreement with the Hebrew original, from which it was derived, quite down to the days of our Saviour.' Thus far the ftate of the times operated kindly in favour of the Septuagint; but when Christianity began to fpread in the world, feveral circumftances confpired to leffen the credit of this verfion among the Jews. The apoftles and first preachers of the gofpel referred their hearers to it, confirmed the truth of the doctrines they taught, by quotations from it, and then recommended the public ufe of it to all the churches they planted. When it came thus to be used by Chriftians, the Jew's immediately took offence, and began to traduce and defame it. They were, however, ftill neceffarily obliged to retain it till another verfion was prepared that could fupply its place. But, in the mean time, how did they retain it? not in its pure and genuine ftate, but altered and corrupted in numberless places, as the nature of the opinions they held, and the controverfies they maintained with Chriftians, fuggefted to them. This, fays Dr. Owen, is a heavy charge; but he fhews that the proofs of it are clear and weighty-delivered by perfons who lived near the times, examined the facts, and were competent judges of the matter: and then he proceeds to enquire more particularly by what motives the Jews were led to attempt, and by what means they were enabled to conduct and carry on, fo foul and iniquitous a practice. They faw, at the beginning of the fecond century, a large number of quotations, which had been drawn by the writers of the New Teftament out of the Septuagint verfion, in favour of the Chriftian caufe; and by thefe they were forely preffed. They were alfo preffed, in the difputes they held with the Chriftians of that time, by the additional weight of many fresh quotations brought againft them from the fame tranflation. In this fituation, they had no other way to defend themfelves, and to elude the force of the teftimonies alledged, but by declaring the version inaccurate and faulty, and tranflating the paffages in a different manner :-both which they accordingly practifed. To fupport the project of altering the Septuagint, and vindicate themfelves in the execution of it, the Jews affirmed, that the Hebrew was the true text, and that all appeals fhould be made to that text, and not to a faulty verfion. This was their plea, and upon this they confulted their Hebrew copies : which copies, notwithstanding the errors that had crept into them by the injuries of time and the careleffness of transcribers, they ftill confidently took for genuine, and then corrected the Greek verfion by them. Here, then, we may look for the first fource of the differences or variations that are obferved to occur between the prefent copies of the Septuagint, and those that were extant in the days of the apoftles, and from which they drew their quotations. But THIS was only the firft: for the Jews advanced another ftep, and needlefly altered the Septuagint verfion-the better, as they pretended, to exprefs the original, even in places where the ancient and prefent copies read alike in the Hebrew. Of fuch alterations there are many inftances to be met with, and they were evidently made with an ill defign-with a view to pervert the meaning of fcripture. But others there are of a more innocent nature, grounded chiefly on the different idioms of different countries, which feem to have owed their origin to the laudable intention of rendering the fcripture more plain and intelligible. Our Author has produced particular proofs of all these feveral affertions; after which he goes on to fhew, that when the Jews began to cenfure and condemn the Septuagint version, there is reafon to fufpect, that, in fome remarkable places, where a word, 'by fimilarity of letters, was capable of being read differently, they changed the Greek to the worse reading, in order both to pervert the fenfe, and to bring contempt on the old tranflators. When this artifice could not fo conveniently be put in practice, the Jews had frequent recourfe to another. They inferted occafionally a word or two in the Greek version, on purpofe either to darken the fentence, or elfe to turn it to a wrong meaning. Two glaring inftances of this fort are alledged by Dr. Owen, and then he comes to his capital point, which is, to prove that, when other methods failed, the Jews confidently tranfpofed fome paffages, and expunged others, as best anfwered their particular purpote. This point the learned Doctor hath infifted upon at large, and hath appealed to a number of places which they ftruck out of the Septuagint, with a view to ferve the credit of their nation, to deftroy the arguments of Chriftians, and efpecially to invalidate the evidence of the prophecies relating to our Saviour, and to the calling of the Gentiles. It appears, likewife, in the course of the En quiry, that, as the Jews did certainly employ many and various artifices to difparage the Septuagint, and ward off the arguments which Chriftians produced against them for it, there is great reafon to fufpect that they practifed the like on their own books, to favour themfelves and the opinions they maintained. I know very well, fays our Author, how expofitors contend that the evangelifts might have quoted in the manner they have done, though the text had been originally as it now ftands: because "it was a common practice among them to change cafes, perfons, numbers, gender, tenfes, and affixed pronouns-and also to add a word or two, in order to bring the paffage they quoted to answer their purpofe the better." But then I know likewife that this affertion, though generally adopted, is in reality as diftant from truth, as it is from common honesty. Chriftianity ftood in no need of fuch mean arts to fupport it: and the first teachers of it were too fincere, too upright, to use them. They had more regard to the credit of the gospel, greater attention to the genius of their adverfaries, and higher notions of the understanding of mankind, than to think of impofing fuch proofs upon them. The quotations they produced were full to the point, and always expreffed, as to the firefs of the argument, in the words of the authors quoted.' As the pofitions advanced by Dr. Owen are liable to several objections, he endeavours particularly to anticipate and remove them and having fhewn, at large, upon what grounds, and by what artifices, the Jews made many alterations in the Septuagint verfion, and not a few in their own books, he proceeds to enquire at what time these alterations were made, how they increased, and by what means they were propagated? Thefe queftions are not easy to be determined; but it may be observed, that as Christianity got footing firft in Judea, and was fupported there by the gospel of St. MATTHEW-which gospel contains no less than forty quotations, all taken, as it fhould feem, originally from the Septuagint verfion-fo it is not unlikely that the Jews, who lived in that country, and ufed the Hebrew fcriptures in their fynagogues, were the first that objected to the faithfulness and propriety of this verfion; as being the first that were concerned in examining the paffages quoted from it. Nothing, continues the Doctor, could be more offenfive to the Jews, as nothing could be more prejudicial to their caufe, than the gospel now mentioned: it was therefore, by all means, to be oppofed; but fince the facts it contained could not be difproved, they had nothing left but to invalidate the quotations; and therefore, to fecure their point this way, they ftruck fome paffages out of the Septuagint- altered others as they judged expedi.nt, and diftorted the reft to a different meaning.' B 3 • After |