20. First, Whereas the reasons of the apostle for his application of the testimonies used by him in his words and expressions are evi- dent, as shall in particular be made to appear; so no reason can be assigned why the LXX. (if any such LXX. there were) who trans- lated the Old Testament, or any other translators of it, should so render the words of the Hebrew text. Neither various lections, nor ambiguity of signification in the words of the original, can in most of them be pleaded. For instance, the apostle, in applying those words of the psalmist, Ps. xl. 7, » ny OS, unto the human nature and body of Christ, wherein he did the will of God, did certainly express the design and intention of the Holy Ghost in them; but who can imagine what should move the LXX. to render j!§, a word of a known signification and univocal, by oda, when they had translated it a hundred and fifty times, that is constantly elsewhere, by od¢ and @riov, an “ear,” which alone it signifies? or what should move them to render 722 by xarupriZw, to “prepare,” when the word signifies to “dig” or to “bore,” and is always so rendered elsewhere by them-
116 CITATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT [ EXERC. V.
selves?’ Neither did any such thing come into their minds in the translation of those places Y whence this expression seems to be bor- rowed, Exod. xxi. 6, Deut. xv. 17. When any man, then, can give a tolerable conjecture why the LXX. should be inclined thus to trans- late these words, I shall consider it. In the meantime, I judge there is much more ground to suppose that the apostle’s expressions, which he had weighty cause to use, were by some person inserted into the Greek text of the Old Testament, than that a translation which those that made it had no cause so to do, evidently forsaking the proper meaning of very obvious words, and their sense, known to them- selves, should be taken up and used by the apostle unto his purpose.
21. Secondly, It is certain that some words, used by the apostle, have been inserted into some copies of the Greek Bible, which, being single words, and of little importance, prevailed not in them all; as may be seen in sundry of the foregoing instances. And why may we not think that some whole sentences might, on the same account, be inserted in some of them, which, being of more importance, found & more general acceptance? And how by other means also that translation was variously changed and corrupted of old, and that before the days of Jerome, learned men do know and confess.
22. It is further evident that one place, at least, in this Epistle, which, it may be, some could not conjecture from whence it should be taken, yet finding it urged by the apostle as a testimony out of the Old Testament, is inserted in another place of the text than that from which the apostle took it, and that where there is not the least colour for its insertion. This is the testimony out of Ps. xevii. 7, which the apostle cites, chap, i. 6,in words much differing from those where- with the original is rendered by the LXX. This some of the tran- scribers of the Bible, not knowing well where to find, have inserted, in the very syllables of the apostle’s expression, into Deut. xxxii. 43 ; where it yet abides, though originally it had no place there, as we shall, in the exposition of the words, sufficiently manifest. The same and no other is the cause why 9 is rendered s&€do¢, Gen. xlvii. 31. And may we not as well think, nay, is it not more likely, that they would insert his words into the places from whence they knew his testimonies were taken, with a very little alteration of the ancient reading, than that they would wholly inérude them into the places from whence they were not taken by him, which yet undeniably hath been done, and that with success? Nay, we find that many things out of the New Testament are translated into the apocryphal books themselves; as, for instance, Ecclus. xxiv. 3, we have these words in the Latin copies, “ Ex ore Altissimi prodii primogenita ante omnem creaturam ;” which are cited by Bellarmine and others in the confir- mation of the deity of Christ, whereas they are taken from Col. i. 15; and are in no Greek copies of that book, [Ecclesiasticus. ]
SECT. 21-23. ] SUBSIDIARY NOTE. 117
23. Upon these reasons, then,—which may yet be rendered more cogent by many other instances, but that we confine ourselves to this Epistle,—I suppose I may conclude that it is more probable, at least, that the apostle’s interpretations of the testimonies used by him, all agreeably unto the mind of the Holy Ghost, were by some of old in- serted into the vulgar copies of the Greek translation of the Old Testa- ment, and therein prevailed unto common acceptation, than that he himself followed, in the citation of them, a translation departing with- out reason from the original text, and diverting unto such senses as its authors knew not to he contained in them, which must needs give offence unto them with whom he had to do. It appears, then, that from hence no light can be given unto our inquiry after the lan- guage wherein this Epistle was originally written, though it be clear enough upon other considerations.