« AnteriorContinuar »
cumstances clearly ascertained-that there was no Greek version before that called the SEVENTY-that the version so denominated, was made at the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 280 years before Christ, and that the version, then made, was only of the Pentateuch.
"The learned Dr. Hody, who seems to have studied the origin of the Greek version more fully than any critic before him, has established the three preceding points, in his book (De Biblior. textibus orig. & versionibus) pages 570, 91, and 159. He seems also to have labored very successfully, in detecting the false story of Aristeas; which is that the Greek version was made by SEVENTY Two Jewish elders, at the command of Ptolemy: pages 1-110. He proves (p. 97.) that this version was made by the Jews living at Alexandria, for the use of themselves, and the many thousands of their brethren, who were then settled in Egypt; and who, living amongst Greeks, generally used the Greek language. And lastly he proves, that the whole Hebrew Bible was not translated into Greek, at once; but that different parts were translated at different times-that the Pentateuch was translated first, about 285 years before Christ-that only the Pentateuch was read in the synagogues, till about 170 years before Christ; when Antiochus Epiphanes, their cruel persecutor, forbad them to recite any part of the Law-that, soon after this prohibition, the Jews translated into Greek Isaiah and the following prophets, for the use of the temple at Heliopolis and the Alexandrian synagogues-and that the other books were translated afterwards, with different degrees of skill and care, at various times, and by various persons. See pages 175, 190, 203."
He adds, page 211.-" Dr. Hody, who seems to have given the most rational account of the origin of the sev
eral parts of the Greek version, tells us (page 188.) that Jeremiah was translated into Greek, about 130 or 140 years before Christ."
It is not necessary for me to spend a moment in discussing whether this version was made all at once, or at different times; nor even whether it was made at the precise time here specified. A few years, one way or another, does not affect the remarks I am about to make. One thing will be allowed by all, without a single word of controversy, that this version was made sometime between the days of Malachi and the coming of John the Baptist. Keeping this one fact in view I notice
2d, That Dr. Campbell declares the word Gehenna is not found in the Septuagint version. He says, as quoted before, page 92.-" Accordingly, the word Gehenna does not occur in the Septuagint. It is not a Greek word, and consequently not to be found in the Grecian classics." That this word is not found in the Septuagint, being only a translation, need not surprise us, for Dr. Campbell, in the sentence preceding the one just quoted, says concerning Gehenna as a place of future punishment-"In the Old Testament we do not find this place in the same manner mentioned." Keeping these facts and statements in our view, permit me to make a very few remarks on them, relative to the subject of the present inquiry.
1st, Whoever were the authors of the Greek version, or at whatever period it was made, it is a certain case, that in translating the Old Testament, they did not find that it contained any thing about Gehenna's being a place of endless misery for the wicked. Had they perceived any thing like this, we should have found some intimation of it in this translation. Had the Hebrew of the Old Testament warranted such a thing, no doubt but it would have been transfused into this version. We have then
the testimony of all the translators of the Greck version, that they did not find that the spirit of God had ever used the term Gehenna in the sense it is commonly used by Christians in the present day. This we think a fact which will not for a moment be disputed. If they did not find it in the Old Testament, how came it to pass that the writers of the Targums could find it? We have never understood that the Targums are worthy of more regard than the Greek version.
2d, if Gehenna, at the time this version was made, had begun to be used in the sense of a place of future misery, it is evident that this sense received no countenance from them as translators. It was not by them begun nor does their translation in any way tend to transmit such an opinion to posterity. We cannot even learn from it that such a sense was then given to the word Gehenna by any persons, far less that it was founded on divine authority. If Gehenna then had begun to assume this new sense, which Dr. Campbell says is always and indisputably its sense in the New Testament, how is it accounted for that they take no notice of it? If this was its sense when the Greek translation was made, had not they as good a right to give it this sense as our English translators, when they made our present English version? If the original and scriptural meaning of the word was to be laid aside in translating, and an assumed sense of it on man's authority adopted by the latter, why not also by the former? Should it be said, "the Greek version is only of the Old Testament and it is in the New that Gehenna always and indisputably signifies a place of endless misery for the wicked;" we reply to this by asking how the New Testament sense of Gehenna comes to be so different from that of the Old? And we ask, further, why Whitby and Parkhurst, quoted before, refer us to the Targums and not to
the Old Testament for this new sense given to Gehenna? We ask still further, how this new sense of this word is ever to be reconciled with the facts we have stated, or can be made to agree with the contexts of the passages, in which it occurs? Besides, had men never heard of the Targums and had only consulted their Bibles to learn what was the scripture usage of this word, would they ever give it such a meaning? But what ought to set this matter at rest is, that neither the writers of the Apocrypha nor the authors of the Greek version used Gehenna in this new sense, and even the very writers of the Targums, we are referred to in proof of this sense, are allowed to have given us fables and false glosses of their own. Yea, in the very passages in the Old Testament, where these glosses about Gehenna are given, no rational man would say that any thing in the passages warranted them.
3d, To whatever source then, this change in the sense of Gehenna is referred, which Dr. Campbell says was gradual, it cannot be ascribed in any degree to the authors of the Greek version. Seeing then that they, as well as the authors of the Apocrypha, cannot be quoted as authorities for it, to what other source are we to be referred for this new sense of Gehenna? We do not see that it can be traced to any other source but the Targums. Should it then be found that it is used there in this sense frequently and explicitly, what would be the conclusion which any rational man would draw from this? Would he conclude that Gehenna is a place of endless misery? No; he would conclude that this is something which the writers of the Targums have added as a gloss of their own to the text of the Old Testament, for the authors of the Greek version found no such thing in the Old Testament when their version was made, nor did they think themselves warranted in adding any such glosses of their own.
Either, then, the authors of the Greek version did wrong in not finding this sense of Gehenna in the Old Testament, when they made their version, or the Targums are not to be regarded in having made this addition to the oracles of God. If we are to receive this addition of theirs, why not all their other additions, until the word of God is made by us as it was by the Jews, of none effect through their traditions?
To conclude this long and irksome discussion about the Apocrypha and Targums. Let any one substitute the word heaven for the word Gehenna or hell throughout the Bible. Let him suppose that eternal happiness in heaven rested on the same grounds as eternal misery in hell or Gehenna. Or, in other words, just reverse this subject. Supposing any one to go over similar ground with the word heaven as I have done with the word hell. Allowing then that the word heaven did not occur in the Old Testament in the sense of a place of eternal blessedness, but was applied to a place of temporal prosperity. And that by the prophet Jeremiah it was made an emblem of great temporal prosperity to the Jews as a nation. That in the New Testament it occurred twelve times, and in one of these places, Matth. xxiii. 33. the context clearly showed, that not of eternal happiness in heaven, but in the sense of the prophet Jeremiah, it was there used. Suppose further that in all the other places where it occurred, it was used in reference to the same temporal prosperity. Yea, suppose that a number of facts were also adduced confirming this view of the word heaven as used in the New Testament. Let it then be also supposed, that some writers come forward and tell us that the word heaven does not occur in the sense of a place of endless blessedness in the Old Testament, but that in process of time it came to be used in this sense