St. Paul, Acts xxvii. 28, have pointed out the fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah vi. 9, 10, the words of the New Testament have been transferred into the text of the LXX., which is so much the more remarkable, because, by no possibility of legitimate construction, can the present text of the LXX. be reconciled with the literal translation of the Hebrew text. 3. Again, in Psalm xvi. 11, the LXX. text follows the New Testament in Acts ii. 28: Εγνώρισάς μοι ὁδοὺς ζωῆς, πληρώσεις με εὐφρο σύνης μετὰ τοῦ προσώπου σου; but the present text of the LXX. can, by no possibility of construction, be reconciled with the literal translation of the Hebrew. 4. Again, in Isaiah xl. 3—5, the LXX. exhibits a close conformity with the text of the New Testament, Luke iii. 4, 5, and more especially in its close: καὶ ὄψεται πᾶσα σὰρξ τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ : in which words, as has been before pointed out, the calling of the Gentiles is expressly foretold; and the LXX. Version, at the same time that it forsakes the Hebrew text, does it in a manner which is entirely inconsistent with an uninspired translator. For we must remember that there was no opinion so strongly opposed to the Jewish prejudices as the calling of the Gentiles to be the peculiar people of God. 5. Another example is found in Psalm xl. 6, σwμа de κатηρтíσw μoι, as the present text of the LXX. expresses the meaning of the original. But by no process of legitimate construction can it be reconciled with the Hebrew text,, Mine ears hast thou opened; where the Hebrew text is supported by the Chaldaic, Syriac, and probably by the Vulgate. This passage has been considered before, and it has been shewn to be an eminent prophecy of our Saviour: and if the apostle, in Heb. x. 5, 7, be considered as pointing out the fulfilment of the prophecy, it affords another remarkable instance of the interpolation of the LXX. from the New Testament in passages which point out the fulfilment of prophecy. 6. The passage in Heb. x. 37, 38, is commonly regarded as a quotation from Hab. ii. 3, 4; and it is so regarded by Bishop Pearson, who argues, at some length, in support of that opinion; and that the apostle has adopted the translation of the LXX. Version. But the subject of the prophecy is the vision of which the prophet is speaking: "For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him but the just shall live by his faith;" which is thus trans δε e Compare the valuable note of Dr. Hammond on this passage. e; lated according to the present text of the LXX.: Sióti eti ὅρασις εἰς καιρὸν, καὶ ἀνατελεῖ εἰς πέρας, καὶ οὐκ εἰς κενόν· ἐὰν ὑστερήση, ὑπόμεινον αὐτὸν, ὅτι ἐρχόμενος ἥξει, καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ. Ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν ἀντῷ· ὁ δε δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται. Now the translation of the LXX. has reference, in the beginning of the passage, to the vision, and so far exhibits the true meaning of the Hebrew text: but in the rest of the passage it adopts the masculine gender, and is incapable of any legitimate application to the vision, which is the real subject of the prophecy. The Hebrew text is supported by the Chaldaic, Syriac, and Vulgate; and it is probable that the LXX. text has in this, as in the other instances, been interpolated from the New Testament. The real quotation is found in Heb. x. 38: ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται; and is most consistently applied to this passage of Habakkuk. Now let us compare with these examples of the interpolation of the LXX. text from the New Testament, the evidence which has been brought forward in a preceding chapter of the corruption and interpolation of the LXX. text by Christian copyists; and all the evidence, taken together, will form a considerable argument that many of the examples of agreement between the present text of the LXX. with the New Testament, are to be ascribed to the same source, their insertion from the New Testament. However, when we consider the undoubted evidence of the familiarity of the sacred writers of the New Testament with the Septuagint Version; and the fact, that the theological language adopted in the LXX., is applied to the corresponding doctrines and practices connected with the Christian dispensation; it should make us cautious in attempting to define, accurately, the extent to which the sacred writers adopted the language of the Septuagint Version. And, perhaps, most persons will be of opinion that Ernesti goes too far, when he says, all the examples of agreement between the LXX. and the New Testament are to be ascribed to their interpolation from the New Testament." 9 See the passages quoted by Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i., chap. v., sect. 4. His words are: "Sunt loca in N. T. e vetere commemorata, quæ iisdem verbis sunt in Græcis O. T. exemplis. Ergo Spiritus S. ista sumpsit è versione illa Græca. Bellissima conclusio! Enimvero, si quis summâ locorum omnium detrahat primúm ea, quæ sunt diversa, et vel pressius ad Hebraicum exemplum expressa, quod maxime fit in libris eorum qui inter Græcos non sunt versati, ut Joannis, vel ab utrisque exemplis Hebraicis Græcisque diversa, deinde quæ ad verbum Hebraica exprimunt, in quibus vertendis quisque suâ sponte consentiat cum versione Alexandrina, etiam nunquam lecta aut inspecta, parva reliqua fuerint: et his ipsis restat dubitare annon exempla Tŵv ó subinde ad N. T. lectionem conformata à librariis Christianis inter describendum fuerint, quod nullo modo abhorret." It is an additional argument against the assertion, that the sacred writers of the New Testament generally quoted from the Septuagint Version, that such an opinion is opposed to the judgment of some of the most eminent of the Christian Fathers." The conclusions arising from this portion of our examination of the quotations in the New Testament are very important, as far as they are connected with the criticism of the Old Testament; because we derive from it a conclusive argument, that inasmuch as these quotations are for the most part neither literal, nor intended to be so, but, on the contrary, often point out the fulfilment of prophecy, they cannot be legitimately employed to prove the corruption of the Hebrew text. But they will often be found to contain incidental evidence of great value in support of the general integrity of the Hebrew text; which rests on its own proper foundation,-on MSS. which carry it up to an early period, on the Masora, which effectually guarded it from any extensive corruption,-on the collations of the Eastern and Western Jews, which prevented any great liberties being taken with it,—on the evidence of the versions which bear a remarkable evidence to it, and especially the fragments of Aquila, which contain an evidence extending as high as the first century; on the Targums; and, last of all, the Septuagint Version itself, which extends to nearly three centuries before the coming of our Saviour. These supply an evidence, which cannot be shaken, of the general integrity of the Hebrew text. G. P. DID THE JEWS USE GLASS-WINDOWS? In the Authorized Version of the Scriptures we find the word window, both singular and plural, very frequently. Now those who are unacquainted with the original might imagine that a glass-window is to be understood by the term, as the English word window always means glass in a frame, generally intended for an opening in the wall of a house, etc. It is the object of h On this subject compare Hody, De Bibliorum Textibus, lect. iii., pars. i., cap. ii., pp. 243, etc. And especially Jerome, in his Commentary on Malachi iii. 1, has the following remarks: "Ex quo perspicuum est, apostolos, et evangelistas, et ipsum Dominum Salvatorem, non LXX interpretum auctoritatem sequi, quâ, Hebrææ linguæ habentes scientiam, non indigent, sed ex Hebræa transferre quod legerint, non curantes de syllabis punctisque verborum, dummodo sententiarum veritas transferatur." the present article to shew that not only the Jews but also other ancient nations never used such windows, at least to any extent, and that, consequently, the word window ought not to occur in any new translation of the Scriptures which may be published by authority or otherwise. The categorical or simple question, Did any of the ancient nations use glass-windows? is one that can receive a categorical or simple answer. This, at least, is the opinion of all those who have answered the question either in the affirmative or the negative; they do not even leave it an open question, or consider it one to which they are totally unable to give a decided answer. We of course cannot be expected to differ in opinion on this point from scholars and antiquarians of great learning and ability; the question, therefore, shall also receive a decided answer in the present article. The Egyptians, Jews, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans, are generally considered to be the most civilized of those ancient nations who have left footprints on the sand of time, "Remnants of things that have passed away, Fragments of stone reared by creatures of clay." These five nations are then to be considered as the only nations to which our remarks can apply. It is generally admitted that in many of the arts the ancient Egyptians far excelled the ancient and modern nations; for instance, in chemistry and glass staining, we are only now beginning to do what they did with ease and great success; the justly celebrated modern glass makers of Venice and Bohemia are still unable to introduce numerous colours into the same glass vase; this the ancient Egyptians could do, and thus they must be considered as the first who nearly carried the art of glass making to the greatest perfection. Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, in his account of the ancient Egyptians, asserts and proves the correctness of his assertion by facts, that the Egyptians used glass for more purposes than we do, and is of opinion that Winckelmann is perfectly right in maintaining that the ancients carried the art of glass making to a higher degree of perfection. Now we do not call in question the correctness of Sir G. Wilkinson's statements, on the contrary, it is our opinion that he has clearly proved them to be correct and consistent with the knowledge obtained from specimens, etc., found by him and others in Egypt; but we also agree with him in asserting that for one purpose, at least, the Egyptians did not use glass, and that was for windows; "the inconvenience of which in the hot sun of Egypt," says Wilkinson, "would have been unbearable." season. Now this opinion is untenable, because in British India, a much warmer country than Egypt, glass-windows are considered by Europeans to be excellent and admirably adapted for the climate. "Glass is considered," says Dr. Tennant, "by Europeans as an indispensable requisite in the construction of every bungalow at the upper stations; they have even introduced the use of it into the camp. Several officers carry, on the march, a frame of glass, which they fix in the windward door of their tents during the hot winds, should the service call them into the field at that "a An ancient Egyptian house had windows, understanding of course by that term, square holes; those nearest the roof had cross-bars or trellis-work, and the rest had none; wooden painted shutters were also used, it is not certain for what purpose, but probably for to keep robbers, insects, and other animals out of the rooms during the absence for a time of the owner or inhabitant. "The openings," says Wilkinson, "were small, because where little light is admitted little heat penetrates; coolness was the great requisite, and in the cloudless sky of Egypt there was no want of light. The apartments were not large, being only 14 feet long by 12 feet 8 inches in breadth, and 13 feet 6 inches in height; the walls being five to six feet thick, were a protection against the heat, and currents of air circulated freely through them from opposite windows." The Egyptians spent most of the day in the open air, and seldom entered their houses before the evening; consequently glasswindows, if they could make them, could never be of any great use. We will now consider the question, Did the Jews and Assyrians use glass-windows? Moses, the great leader of the Jews, was a man acquainted with the arts as known to the Egyptians; it is therefore highly probable that this nation brought the knowledge of glass making with them when they left Egypt. That they were well acquainted with glass is certain; but we do not think that they made it to the same extent as the Egyptians; Solomon, who had a great import trade with Egypt, very likely purchased most of the glass from the inhabitants, as the Romans did in a later age. The specific word for glass, in the Hebrew language, is from a verb meaning to be clear, and occurs in the 17th verse of the 28th chapter of Job; the A. V. translates it crystal, Luther adamant (demant), De Wette, Allioli, and the Vulgate, glass (vitrum), the LXX. has vaλos, anything transparent. In a Indian Recreations, i., 325. Quoted in Mill and Wilson's History of British India, vol. ii., p. 32. |