INTEGRITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES.

II. Integrity of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Hebrew Text. The scrupulous care taken by Ezra, and those who followed him, to preserve the text of the Old Testament, after its Canon was completed, is sufficiently evident from the zealous accuracy with which all the discrepancies in the text of parallel passages have been preserved, instead of assimilating them. This is more conspicuous in some Psalms, of which two distinct copies occur, containing in some instances as many as sixty variations in the text of the two copies. The ancient Hebrew, in which it was written, was, after the Captivity, superseded by the Aramaic (a mixture of Chaldee with Hebrew). For a time the former was retained as the sacred, while the latter was the vernacular, language: but shortly before the Christian era, portions of the Scriptures were written in Aramaic. In the time of Ezra, it is evident, that an Aramaic version followed the reading of the Hebrew original in the synagogues (Neh. viii. 8). These Aramaic interpretations, called "Targums," are valuable, as affording proofs of the correct versions of ancient MSS. of the Old Testament, and also of the precise meaning of obscure words.

Of these "Targums" ten have come down to us, all giving a complete interpretation of the whole books, except Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah (which were probably written mainly in Chaldee). The earliest are those of Jonathan (on the Prophets) and Onkelos (on the Pentateuch): the former is a paraphrase, the latter a literal translation, word for word, from the Hebrew; the former was written shortly before the Christian era, while Onkelos was contemporary with Christ, and a pupil of Gamaliel.

The Hebrew MSS. consist of the Synagogue Rolls, and copies for private reading. The former are the more important, and were written, as Josephus tells us, on fine skins (some of which, found in the Crimea, and therefore possibly belonging to the Jews of the Dispersion, are still preserved in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg). The care with which they were transcribed is evident from the rules laid down in the Talmud. One scribe copied the consonants, another inserted the vowel-points and accents in a fainter ink, a third revised the copy, and a fourth wrote in the Masorah. These rolls consisted of, first, the Pentateuch (or Law); second, the Haphtaroth (dismissals); and third, Megilloth (rolls). It is from these and the Greek translations, made by the Alexandrian Jews, compared together, that a correct copy of the Scriptures must be derived, and the English A.V. was formed from the best recensions then known.

Although the various "different readings" in the MSS. and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible are very numerous, being estimated at 30,000, and by some scholars at 200,000, these are very unimportant. The Hebrew Bible of the present day is substantially the same as the recension made by Ezra and others, and was the "Textus Receptus" of our Lord's time. In it, however, the old phraseology has been sometimes modernised, obscure expressions explained by glosses, and the chronologies and genealogies have suffered, especially through the errors of transcribers. Thus there are many alterations in the language, yet none in the meaning of the original writers. We have no autographs and no perfect MSS. of either Hebrew or Greek Scriptures, neither have we of any Greek or Latin classic author; on the contrary, there is no ancient book (sacred or secular) of which the text is not somewhat imperfect. In this respect the Hebrew Scriptures stand in the same position as all other writings of antiquity. Dr. Bentley thus sums up the case:—"It is a fact undeniable, that the sacred books have suffered no more alterations than common or classic authors, and have no more variations than what must necessarily have happened from the nature of things; and it has been the common sense of men of letters, that numbers of MSS. do not make a text precarious, but are useful, nay necessary, to its establishment and certainty."

The Talmudists undertook a very critical collation of many different texts, which, however, they interpreted by a great mass of traditional commentary; but they collected together all that was known and approved of (both written and oral) respecting the sacred books, rejecting what was not supported by considerable weight of testimony. In the sixth century A.D., a school of Jewish Doctors at Tiberias, known as the "Masoretes," extracted from the Talmud the traditional comments ("Masorah") of criticism and grammatical emendations, in order to establish the genuine text of Hebrew Scriptures. The text, as so fixed by them, became the standard, from which others were multiplied. In the eleventh century a collation was made of the Masoretic text of Tiberias, known as the Palestine Codex, with the Babylonian text, between which there were found to be 800 different readings, none of them in any way affecting the sense of the subject-matter.

The Samaritan Pentateuch must belong to a date earlier than the Captivity of Judah, as the Samaritans had no intercourse with the Jews subsequently; but it is highly probable that it was prior to the separation of the two kingdoms. A careful comparison, in modern times, of its text

NOTES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT.

with that of the Hebrew ("Textus Receptus"), has shewn that they agree in every material point, the differences being merely verbal.

Greek Versions. 1. Of these the Septuagint occupies the highest rank. According to tradition, it was translated from the Hebrew by seventy-two Jews, each of whom, in a separate cell, made a complete translation of the entire Old Testament, and when compared, these seventy-two copies were so identical, that they were deemed to be inspired. Jerome disbelieves this story; and the inequality of the rendering of different portions seems to afford convincing proof that they were the work of different persons and of different times. More probably it was begun in the time of Ptolemy Lagos, and finished in that of his successor Ptolemy Philadelphus (B.C. 285}. It would seem to be the only Scripture with which the Alexandrian Jews and the early Christian writers were familiar. It is not accurately translated from the Hebrew, the text having many important variations, both in words and phrases, as well as some additions to the Hebrew; and it contains many Coptic words. The Pentateuch possesses the highest literary merit, the Book of Proverbs ranks next, and Ecclesiastes occupies the lowest place; the Prophets, Psalms, and other books are poor productions, while the Book of Daniel was so incorrect as to be disused by the early Christian Church.

2. Aquila, at the instigation of the Alexandrian Jews, sought in the second century A.D. to correct the inaccuracy of the LXX. by a new translation, which was so literal as to be sometimes unintelligible; it was highly esteemed by the Jews, and is quoted in the Talmud, but is discredited by early Christian writers.

3. Theodotion, about the same time, revised the LXX., merely correcting its inaccuracies, and his translation of Daniel superseded that of the LXX.

4. Symmachus (cir. A.D. 200) gives his name to a new translation, which is paraphrastic, like the LXX., but displays more purity and elegance of language. It proceeded from the Ebionites, a sect of Christian heretics, who did not admit the divinity of Christ.

Three later versions (in Origen's Hexapla) probably emanated from the Ebionites; but little is known of them.

Syriac. The Peshito version, made at Edessa (in Mesopotamia) at the close of the first century A.D., is the most ancient copy of the whole Bible, containing all the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, as well as those of the New (except the latest, viz. the II. and III. Epistles of John, II. Peter, and that of Jude, and the Revelation). It was a "Simple" (Peshito) translation into Syriac from the Hebrew, and has been always accepted by all sections of the Syrian Church as authentic, and from it several Arabic translations have been made. Besides these, there are several other versions of various dates, such as the Ethiopic, Philoxenian, and Egyptian.

Latin Versions. Fragments of an ancient Latin Version of the African Church, translated from the LXX., of about the second century A.D., are found in ancient Christian writers.

The Vulgate, A.D. 382. Jerome translated the New Testament into Latin, and also the Old Testament from the Hebrew, for the purpose of making which he took up his residence at Bethlehem, and was occupied upon it for twenty-one years. Although at first the reverence for the LXX. militated against its reception, from the time of Gregory the Great it became the authorised version of the Western Church. This was gradually corrupted by intermixture with other Latin versions, till it was condemned as inaccurate by the Council of Trent. Several new revisions were issued in the sixteenth century, each authenticated by the reigning Pope, till in 1593 A.D. the present standard edition was issued by Clement VIII.

The above versions of the Bible, written at different times, and in countries widely separated one from another, are for the most part independent testimonies, and are not mere copies of some one common original, as their verbal differences sufficiently attest; but their complete agreement in all essential points demonstrates the care with which these various books have been preserved, while it establishes their authenticity far more satisfactorily than that of any other ancient book.

English Versions. A.D. 1290. A manuscript translation, of which three copies still exist.

1380. Wycliffe's translation from the Latin Vulgate, in manuscript, edited by Forshall and Madden for the Clarendon Press, 1850.

1527. Tyndale's New Testament, printed at Antwerp, which was publicly burnt by order of the Bishop of London.

1535. Miles Coverdale translated the whole Bible from the Latin Vulgate and the German. This was the first English version of the whole Bible, and was published by royal command.

1537. Matthew's Bible. A fusion of the two translations of Tyndale and Coverdale by John Rogers, published abroad under a fictitious name. 2,500 copies were burnt, by order of the Inquisition, at Paris.

1539. The Great Bible. A new edition of Matthew's Bible, revised, and compared with the Hebrew, by Coverdale and others, published in England under the sanction of Cranmer.

1539. Taverner's, an expurgated edition of Matthew's Bible, edited by Taverner at the instigation of the ecclesiastical authorities.

1560. The Geneva Bible. Published by the refugee reformers at Geneva.

1562. Parker's Bible was a revision of the Great Bible, made under the direction of Archbishop Parker.

1568. The Bishops' Bible. Another edition of the same, revised by fifteen theologians, eight of whom were Bishops.

1572. Matthew Parker's Bible. A corrected edition of the former.

1611. The Authorised Version, translated from the Hebrew and Greek (by order of James I.) by forty-seven divines, each taking a portion, which was revised by the whole body. This version, from its great excellence, superseded all preceding ones.

1881. The Authorised Version of the New Testament, Compared with the most ancient authorities and Revised. Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

I.—THE PENTATEUCH, or five books, is ascribed to Moses by all tradition. Jewish and heathen; and is quoted as such by nearly all the sacred writers, and by our Lord and His Apostles (Matt. v. 17, 18; xv. 3, 4).

In the Old Testament history, whenever mentioned, it is treated as one book, and as an original book of Moses, under the various titles,—"The Law of Moses" (Ezra vii. 6), "The Book of the Law of Moses" (Neh. viii. 1), "The Book of Moses" (Ezra vi. 18), "The Book of the Law of Jehovah by the hand of Moses" (2 Chron. xxxiv. 14), "The Book of the Covenant" (2 Chron. xxxiv. 30), "A Book of the Law of Jehovah" (2 Chron, xvii.

AUTHENTICTY OF THE PENTATEUCH.

9). This designation extends from the days of Jehoshaphat (B.C. 915) to the time of Jesus the son of Sirach (B.C. cir. 250—200). There can be little doubt that the book so styled is virtually the same as our Pentateuch, and identical with the "Book of the Law" placed by Moses in the ark (Deut. xxxi. 26).

The Creation. There is no conflict between the Mosaic account of creation and geology. As regards the formation of the material globe, it is merely stated, in general terms, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The distinction must be carefully observed between the words "created" and "made" throughout chap. i. The six days' work relates entirely to the Divine action on the earth's surface, and the objects visible from it, at the beginning of the present epoch of humanity: thus:—

A change from darkness to light.
The separation of waters above and below by the intervention of a firmament.
A further division of the waters below into seas and earth, followed by growth of vegetable life.
The appearance of sun, moon, and stars, visible from the earth's surface.
The production of living creatures out of the water and in the air.
The production of animals, including man, from the material earth.

The summary account of the Creation in Commandment IV. (Exod. xx.) refers, in general terms, only to the appearance under the Divine hand of visible phenomena above the earth's surface; but in neither of these accounts is there any allusion to the mode by which formations below the crust of the earth were made.