SUBSIDIARY NOTE ON EXERCITATION V. BY THE EDITOR.
Dr OWEN is anxious to make it appear that “very few’’ of the quotations from the Old Testament in this Epistle agree with the Septuagint, and that in those instances where an agreement obtains between them, the Greek renderings of Paul in the Epistle may haye been subsequently inserted in copies of that version. In neither of these conclusions is he sustained by the voice of modern criticism. As the subject is of some importance, we submit the views of three modern writers, who have devoted special attention to it.
Stuart classifies the quotations of the Epistle under the following divisions :—
“J. There are many exact coincidences between the Septuagint and Hebrew and the quotations in our Epistle, in almost every minute word.” Of this class he gives fourteen instances :—Heb. i. 5; i. 10, seg.; 1.123 ii. 6, seg.3 ii. 123 ii. 18; ii. 7, seg.5 Ui. 15; iv. 3; iv. 7; v.5; v. 6; vii. 17, 21; xiii, 6.
«2. In a considerable number of cases there is nearly an exact coincidence with the Septuagint and Hebrew, yet with some slight verbal differences.” Ofthis class he gives seven instances :—Heb. i. 6; iv. 4; viii. 5; viii. 8; ix. 20; x. 16,17; x. 37, 38.
«3. There is a number of cases in which there is a little discrepancy in diction from the Septuagint, where it agrees with the Hebrew.” Of this class he gives six in- stances :—Heb. i, 7; 1.8, 9; xii. 26; vi. 14; xii. 20; xii. 21.
“4. There is an accordance in several cases with the Septuagint, where it differs from the Hebrew,”—«. g., Heb. x. 5, seg.; xi. 21; xii. 6; xiii, 5.
Tholuck remarks of this Epistle, that ‘its citations are unequally close, and in the longer passages agree quite verbally with the Septuagint. The citation in chap. x. 30 is the only one that forms an exception. Our Epistle, also, in two important passages, eh. x. 5 and ch. ii, 7, has followed the Greek version closely, although, according to our existing text, it is essentially defective; as similar errors of translation may be also addueed, ch. xi. 21,3 ial <6 axpov rus patdon, and ch. xiii. 15, xaproy siAtov. We cannot admit, what Tholuck asserts, that the author of our Epistle has been led either to an erroneous translation, or to an application not corresponding to the Old Testament text. Tholuck himself acknowledges the substantial accuracy of the readings in ch. x. 5 and ch, xiii, 15, It is questionable if the last instance is a quotation at all. It is held by some to be taken from Hosea xiv. 3, by reading "5 instead of 5p, “fruit” instead of “calves.” But if it be derived from any souree, it is as probable: that Prov. xviii. 20, *» "75, supplied the matrix of the expression. In regard to ch, ii, 7, the clause in which it follows the Septuagint, in opposition to the Hebrew, is now omitted, on such critical authority as Griesbach, Scholz, Knapp, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, Nor is Tholuck warranted to speak of the phrase in ch, xi. 21 as a mistranslation borrowed from the Septuagint. The question depends upon the vowel-pointing of the He-
118 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. [ EXERC. VI.
brew in Gen. xlvii. 81, whether it should be Swen, “staff,” or mwen, “bed.” Stuart
has no hesitation in preferring the former, in which case there would be no mistransla- tion; and it is more reasonable to suppose an error in punctuation, which might be a mistake of the transcriber, than an error of translation in an inspired epistle.
Davidson thus expresses himself on the subject of these citations :—“ In the Epistle to the Hebrews the Septuagint is everywhere quoted, irrespective of the fact whether the version gives the sense or not. Departures from the Greek are trifling. ...In short, the writer never consulted the Hebrew. ‘There is but one exception to this, namely, ch. x. 80..... It must be maintained that in ch. x. 80 the writer of the present Epistle goes to the Hebrew, departing from the Septuagint.”
The citation in ch. x. 30 really suggests the most decisive results. The passage isin harmony with the Hebrew; it varies completely from the Septuagint. Moreover, on comparison with Rom. xii. 19, where the same quotation from Deut. xxxii. 35, 36, occurs, the same translation which is given in ch, x. 380 is found, with the important addition in both instances of Aéys: Képios. The epistles in which a translation so curi- ously identical occurs must have emanated from the same author. Moreover, he must haye availed himself of the Greek version already in existence as freely as he could, since the Hebrew original was comparatively of limited circulation in his day, and only de- parted from it under the pressure of an absolute necessity. The inspiration that guided him to this course ratified the propriety of translating the Scriptures into all the vernacular tongues of the world.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE, ON THE QUESTION TO WHOM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS WAS WRITTEN.
No better place than the present occurs for reference to this point, on which there has been considerable discussion since the days of Owen. ‘The various opinions respecting it may be reduced to four:—1. That it was written to Gentile Christians; 2. To Jewish believers out of Palestine; 3. To Jewish believers in Palestine; and, 4. To Jewish believers in Palestine, but more especially in Jerusalem or Czesarea.