SECT. I.

ON THE SYRIAC AND THE SEPTUAGINT VERSIONS.

THE Syriac Version of the Old Testament is considered by critics as of an antiquity prior to the Christian era,* as having been made directly from the Hebrew text, and as bearing the marks of superior ability and faithfulness. What peculiar readings it has presented in the preceding analysis of passages, have been carefully noted. It is a strict version; and it is remarkably clear and strong in those passages which attribute characters of Deity to the Messiah.

There can be no reasonable doubt that the Septuagint Translation was made at different times, by different persons, and with very various degrees of merit. Its unsupported testimony is not of much weight, in any instance of doubtful criticism: and its character is particularly low in relation to those parts of scripture which have been the

* The arguments prefixed to the Psalms indicate a Christian composer, and were probably added long after the version was made.

+ See Note [A] at the end of this Section.

principal objects of our attention. In all those cases, however, where its variations are of the smallest importance, they have been carefully noted. As far as I can form a general opinion from so imperfect materials, it is this; that those translators had faint ideas of the doctrine and promise of a Messiah. The Alexandrian Jews, living out of Palestine, having disused the Hebrew language, being immersed in worldly pursuits, and daily associating with their heathen neighbours, were more likely than the Jews of Judea, to be come indifferent to "the hope of Israel."

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE

то

SECT. I.

Note [A] p. 396.

"The books of Moses are more consonant to the Hebrew than the other books are." Hieronym. Proæm. Quæst. Hebr. in Gen. in Op. tom i. p. 378. ed. Colon. 1616. "The churches of Christ do not read the prophet Daniel according to the Lxx. but use the version of Theodotion. What was the reason I know not: this only I can affirm, that it widely departs from the truth, and was set aside on good grounds." Ejusd. in Dan. Præf. "The translation of Ezekiel closely adheres to the Hebrew. Whence it appears to me unaccountable, supposing the same persons to have translated all the books, that some parts of their work should have been so extremely different from others." Ejusd. in Ezech. Præf. "Isaiah has had the hard fate to meet with a translator altogether unworthy of him, there being hardly any book of the Old Testament so ill rendered in that version as this of Isaiah. Add to this, that the version of Isaiah as well as other parts of the Greek version, is come down to us in a bad condition, incorrect, and with frequent omissions and interpolations." Bishop Lowth's Prelim. Diss. to Isaiah, p. 66.

The very learned Hugh Broughton conceived that he had discovered, in the longer books of the Lxx., internal marks of a change in the translator at the close of portions averaging each about fourteen chapters of the present division." They were

not all," he says, "equally competent. The translators of the Pentateuch have shewn much ability; though he who rendered the words of God to Cain (Gen. iv. 7.) either intentionally concealed their meaning, or was a mere child in Hebrew. The translators of the Historical Books were very able; as also those of the Proverbs and Psalms. The translator of Job was a reader of the Greek poets, and was more careful to employ classical idioms than to produce an uniformly exact version. The translator of Ecclesiastes understood Greek better than Hebrew. The translator of Amos was the best of all: of Ezekiel, very learned. They often abridge rather than translate; as in Esther and in many places of the Prophets." Letter to the Nobility, &c. of England.

SECT. II.

ON THE CHALDEE TARGUMS, AND THEIR USE OF THE

PHRASE, The Word of Jah.

ABOUT Seventy passages in the Old Testament are applied by the writers of the ancient Chaldee Paraphrases to the Messiah, in the most express manner. Every instance that appeared of sufficient importance in relation to the texts brought under consideration, has been presented in the preceding pages. Though the number of such is not great, they have sufficiently shewn that the writers did not refrain from ascribing to the Messiah the titles and attributes of the Supreme God.

It has been often remarked that, in instances innumerable, those writers translate the Hebrew JEHOVAH by the expression The Word of the LORD.* On this circumstance much argument has been built. Some have maintained, that it supplies an indubitable ascription of personal existence to the Word, in some sense distinct from the personal existence of the Supreme Father; that this Word is the Logos of the New Testament; and conse† John i. 1.

*

.the Memra of Jah מימרא דיי