'>7 t/Ax i5^{> 9^ <: ^;i_.£_ (y-^^-i^^^L^ Oi^t^ C4^ '0 THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION IN ENGLISH. \ \ s«; '1 J I I '^' \ \ . -i t\ > — V \ I VJ I I . THE SEPTUAGINT YERSION OF \^ .— — £ * ,-i.^ < THE OLD TESTAMENT, ,^^ v^f.^l^^, ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN TEXT, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH THE PRINCIPAL VARIOUS READINGS OF THE ALEXANDRINE COPY, A TABLE OF COMPAKATIVE CHRONOLOGY. Sir LANCELOT CHARLES LEE BRENTON, Bart. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. I. LONDON: SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, WARKHOUSE FOR. BIBLES, NEW TESTAMENTS, PRAYER-BOOKS, LEXICONS, GRAMMARS, CONCORDANCES, AND PSALTERS, IN ANCIENT AND MODERN LANGUAGES; 15, PATERNOSTER ROW. M.DCCC.XUV. ORDER OF BOOKS. GENESIS . EXODUS .... LEVITICUS . NUMBERS DEUTERONOMY JOSHUA . . . . JUDGES RUTH . . . . KINGS I. (1 Samuel) KINGS n. (2 Samuel) . KINGS m. (1 Kings) KINGS IV. (2 Kings) . CHRONICLES L CHRONICLES II. . ESDRAS NEEMIAS ESTHER JOB PSALMS PROVERBS THE PREACHER THE SONG . TENESIS ES0A02 . . AEYITIKON . APIGMOI . . AEYTEPONOMION IH20YS NAYH . . KPITAI .... poYe . BA2IAEIQN A' . BASIAEIQN B' . . BA2IAEIi2N P' BA2IAEIQN A' . . HAPAAEinOMENQN A' nAPAAEinOMENGN B' . E2APA2 NEEMIA2 . . E2eHP lOB .... . ■4'AAMOI HAPOIMIAI . EKKAH2IA2TH2 . A2MA CHAPS. PAOE. 50 . . 1 40 58 27 . . 104 36 . 140 34 . . 189 24 . 231 21 . . 258 4 . 287 31 . . 291 24 . 328 22 . . 360 2^ . 399 29 . . 435 36 . 466 10 . . 507 13 , 518 10 . . 534 42 . 546 150 . . 576 29 . 646 12 . . 671 8 . 679 ORDER OF BOOKS. ESAIAS JEREMIAS LAMENTATIONS JEZEKIEL DANIEL OSEE . JOEL . AMOS OBDIAS JONAS . MICHiEAS . NAUM AMBACUM . SOPHONIAS . AGGiEUS . ZACIIARIAS . MALACHIAS CHAPS. FADE. H2AIAS 66 . .684 lEPEMIAS .... 52 .738 ePHNOI 5 . .795 IE2EKIHA .... 48 .801 AANIHA 12 . .858 G2HE 14 .875 IGHA 3 . .884 AMQ2 9 . 887 OBAIOY 1 . .894 IQNAS 4 . 895 MIXAIA2 7 . .897 NAOYM 3 . 903 AMBAKOYM 3 . .906 20$0NIA2 ... 3 . 909 ArrAI02 2 . .912 ZAXAPIA2 .... 14 .914 MAAAXIA2 4 . .924 PREFACE. Some introduction may be necessary to a work like the present, to explain its nature and establish its utility. To translate a translation when both the original and a direct version of that are in our hands appears a thankless task, and yet it may not be difficult to show that so peculiar is the case of the Septuagint as to vindicate a process which if adopted with regard to any other work would be comparatively useless. There '^^ is little doubt that part of this Version was made towards the com- mencement of the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus about the year b.c. 280. The Jews of Alexandria whether by his command or of their own accord translated a portion of the Scriptures into Greek. The popular story of the seventy-two Inter- preters, attributed to Aristseas, may be dismissed as a fabulous legend; though we have internal evidence from the very words of the version that the writers belonged to Alexandria or at least to Egypt. This portion when completed was referred to the Jewish Sanhedrim at Alex- andria, and revised and approved by them, which circumstance was probably the real origin of the name Septuagint. The remaining part of the Translation was executed at different periods, and, as the wide diversity of style would lead us to suppose, by different hands. We proceed to notice the principal advantages to be derived from the study of this ancient version, on which of course the utility of any translation made from it must depend. The Septuagint either agrees with the Hebrew, or it differs from it. If it agrees, the manifest coincidence of the oldest version extant will form an interesting evidence of the purity of the original text, — of the fidelity of the version, and also, — of the correctness of our own translation, the authorised English Bible. On the other hand, if the Septuagint does not agree Avith the Hebrew, many considerations naturally occur to om- minds, involving questions of greater or less magnitude, but of deep interest to such as prize the integrity and inspiration of Scripture. Such are — the purity of the Hebrew text — the correctness of our English Translation — the value, antiquity and genuineness of the Hebrew points — the degree of sanction given by the Apostles to the Septuagint by their quotations from it in the New Testament, especially where those quotations are accompanied with variations from the Hebrew— the effects which such discrepancies should have upon our minds with regard to the extent of inspiration. Happily for the Church of God, the grand questions of the Inspiration of Scripture, of the Purity of the sacred text, and the Correctness of the English Version do not remain to be settled. Nor if they did would the writer of these pages venture to discuss them. Here he may safely assume that they are settled. All that he has to do is to notice the bearing which a comparison of the Septuagint with the Hebrew has upon the subjects above referred to. It cannot be denied that there are cases in which the Septuagint appears as a Avitness in favour of the unpointed text. Remove the points and the Hebrew is * See Preface to Lambert Bos's edition of tlie LXX. PREFACE. found on some occasions to speak the language of the New Testament. Perhaps we can hardly select a more striking instance of this than is afforded by Gen. xlvii. 31, compared with Hebrews xi. 21. We will give the quotation at full length that our readers may understand both the difficulty and the solution. In the English version of Heb. xi. 21, Jacob is said to have worshipped, leaning on the top of his staflF: (according to the Roman versions, worshipped the top of his staff). The following is a literal quotation from the Septuagint of Genesis Avith which the English version is at variance : Gr. ■KpocTfK.vvqaev iin to ciKpov rrfs pd^8ov avrov. Eng. Ver. bowed himself upon the bed's head. The difference is occasioned by the punctuation of the Hebrew, the Septuagint Translators reading ntDO matte, staff, the English Translators n;2p mittah, bed. The -writer believes this instance to be one of the strongest, if not the very strongest that can be adduced in favour of the unpointed Hebrew text, as far as the Septuagint is concerned. Closely connected with the subject of the Hebrew points is that interesting question, How are we to reconcile the apparent discrepancies between the Apostolic quotations in the New Testament and the Hebrew original ? (/. e. in those cases where neither the change nor obliteration of the points would help us.) For the apparent mistranslations are quoted by the inspired writers. One or two instances will suffice. The Septuagint rendering of Psalm iv. 4, is 'Opyl^arde koi p.rj ufiapTaviTe, Be ye angry and sin not. These words are quoted by St. Paul Eph. iv. 26. The meaning of the Hebrew (according to the English Version) is, Stand in awe and sin not. Again, the literal rendering of the Hebrew in Prov. xi. 31, is, Behold the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth, much more the Avicked and the sinner. But the Septuagint version of the words is, 'Et 6 p.ev hUaios fioKis (Tw^tTat, 6 d(Tfj3fjs koi afiapraiXos nov (pavelrai ; If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear ? This passage is familiar to our readers as part of the first Epistle of Peter, iv. 18. Now allowing that the first instance is a more literal rendering of the original than the common one, it will hardly be said that the verse in Proverbs is more than a paraphrase of the Hebrew.* The question, we must remember, has been throughout, not are such citations consistent with the general tenor of Scripture truth ? but do they interfere with or destroy the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration ? Tlie writer believes they do not, and (to present the argument in as condensed a form as possible) chiefly for this reason, that what was uninspired before quotation becomes inspired after ; or rather quotation by the Holy Ghost is the very stamp and seal of inspiration affixed to the words at the moment He condescends to use them. If God can employ human means, including human words and phrases too, not the pure tongue of Paradise, but language in itself (till purged by Him) Avitnessing to the pollution of man's sinful lips, may not tlae Heavenly Dove light upon truth, Avhich has been ignorantly perhaps, foolishly, perversely uttered, and yet truth, and therefore infinitely precious, because of its capacity to minister to the spiritual Avants of the children of God? If any think this language too strong let them refer to Tit. i. 12, 13, Avhere Ave have the testimony of inspiration itself to assure * In accounting for St. Paul's quotation of what was not exactly the Old Testament we may gain some assistance hy refernnK.to (luotations which were not made from Scripture at all. In Acts 17. 2«, we find " As certam also of your own poets have said, ' For we are also his offspring.' " But it is ohicctcd, There Paul introduces the quotation hv an appro- priate description, " As certain of your own poets liave said.'* Let us then take another instance, 1 Cor. 15. :«, " Kvil communications corrupt good manners." This is (juoted without any introiluction at all. But a more formidahle ohjcction remains behind. There was no danger, it might be said, of the rest of Menander's works being mistaken for inspiration, because of a solitary ijuotation from them, there in danger of the whole of the Septuagint being considered an inspired work, if St. Paul quotes any part of it. But docs this consequence necessarily follow? Let us imagine a parallel case with the circumstances slightly varied. Sujipose Paul an inspired writer or preacher in this countrv at the present time. Is it inconsistent with the idea of plenary verbal insjiiration to conceive that he could (juote Sternhold an