the order in the Authorized English Version. This, as is well known, is the order neither in the Hebrew Canon, nor in the Septuagint Version. It is undoubtedly convenient to the English reader for reference, but we are not aware of any ancient authority for the transposition. So, again, the Apocryphal books have been separated from the text of the Septuagint where they are found, some of them, intermingled with the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, but their order, in Mr. Field's edition, is not the same as in the English Version. There are some valuable remarks, in Mr. Field's prolegomena on the subject of orthography, &c., but his text seems hardly to have enough of authority for critical purposes. Indeed, his edition does not profess to be a critical one. V. CONCLUSION.-What, then, are the general conclusions to which the foregoing observations seem to guide us? If we had the original translation, just as it came from the translators' hands, it would be difficult, indeed, to over-estimate its value. We all feel the influence which our own Authorized Version (in spite of certain defects) has exercised upon our own branch of the Church. If, by the lapse of time, that version had become interpolated or corrupted, we should be most thankful if any one were able to restore to us that original version which (thank God) we possess in its integrity. In like manner, if we consider the influence which the Septuagint Version exercised, first upon the scattered members of the Jewish religion for two centuries before the coming of our Lord, then for about four centuries afterwards upon the Christian Church, either immediately, or mediately through other derived versions; it must be confessed that the possession of the Septuagint text, as it existed in the earliest times, would be a most valuable addition to our theological stores. But we have not that original text. It had become much altered in the time of Origen; his well-intended and most laborious efforts only ended in making matters worse. The two principal uncial MS. copies of the Septuagint Text, which we possess, are one of the fourth, the other of the fifth, century. The other uncial MSS. are extremely fragmentary. The current text is not framed on a comparison of the MSS. which we have, but represents very imperfectly one MS., and others, some of which are hardly known. It may be premature to attempt a restoration of the original text at present; but this we might do: we might verify our existing evidence from MSS., from versions, and from citations in other works; we might increase that evidence and arrange it: we might thus prepare the work for our successors, as the labours of Holmes, Parsons, Baber, and Mai have helped to smooth the way for us. Such a work might worthily engage the attention of Hellenistic and Semitic scholars; it would, if well performed, be a great help to Biblical criticism, and reflect credit upon both our Universities. One end, however, such labourers should keep in view, namely, to approximate to the original translation, regardless of whether it agrees in all points with the present Hebrew text. What is wanted is the original independent witness of the LXX. translators, so far as authentic documents enable us to approximate to it not an artificial version, manufactured to fit close to the Masoretic text.1 : It may be asked, If the present Septuagint text cannot be regarded as authoritative, is it worth while to devote much attention to it? We think there are weighty reasons to show that it is extremely worthy of our study. Even on mere philological grounds, it is a matter of great interest to trace the rise of the ἡ κοινὴ or ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος (based on the Attic dialect) in the written style of the Greek language after the time of Alexander the Great and his successors; and the vestiges that remain to us of that fusion of dialects in the spoken Greek of the same period, the source, perhaps, of some peculiarities in the style of the writers of the Septuagint and New Testament. Specially worthy of notice is the action of Oriental thought and of Oriental diction upon the language of Greece, and the changes brought about in that language by Egyptian and Syrian influences. But there are higher grounds than these. For, first the LXX. version does, even in its present state, preserve to us the substance of the Old Testament. Next, it is undoubtedly quoted by the writers of the New Testament, sometimes in cases where it differs from the Hebrew. But, chiefly, the Septuagint version is that by which God prepared the Greek language to stereotype the truth of the Gospel, till 'tongues shall cease." And it is still the great magazine from which the language of the New Testament can be illustrated. Whatever may be the dislocation which particular parts of the Septuagint may have sustained; however difficult, if not impossible, it may be to construe many of its renderings; however obscure some of its terminology remains; yet, on the other hand, it cannot be denied, that terms and constructions occur throughout the text in such abundance that their genuineness cannot be doubted; that words of peculiar theological import occur whose meaning can be ascertained on sound critical methods, and that these words are also used by the New Testament writers in the same sense. 1 An edition of the Sixtine text, with readings, in foot-notes, from the principal Uncials, would be a good first step, and would not be very laborious. We respectfully offer this suggestion to the Delegates of the Oxford University Press. For instance, the titles of κύριος, χριστὸς, παντοκράτωρ, ὕψιστος, αἰώνιος, μονογενὴς, ἀγαπητὸς, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, The words σάρξ, ψυχὴ, ξύλον, ᾅδης, μεσίτης, ἐκκλησία, συναγωγὴ, διάβολος, The doctrinal notions, the central points of which are ἱλασμὸς, ἄφεσις, λύτρωσις, πίστις, μετάνοια, δικαιοσύνη, δικαιόω, ἁγιασμὸς, receive, more or less, their illustration from the Septuaginti Some of these particulars we may hereafter attempt to elucidate. For the present we take our leave of the subject, satisfied if our remarks have tended to convince our readers that the Septuagint possesses definite claims on the attention of all those who wish to become proficient in Biblical criticism. 1 Again, observe how an appeal to the Septuagint will sometimes determine a rendering : e. g. In Mat. ii. 1, μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν. This plural form is constant in the Septuagint sometimes with ἡλίου. Is. xi. 14. θάλασσαν ἅμα προνομεύσουσι, καὶ τοὺς ἀφ ̓ ἡλίου ἀνατολῶν. But in the next verse S. Mat. has, τὸν ἀστέρα ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῆ. Meyer quotes Hammond, Paulus, Fritzsche, Glockl, Ebrard, Wiseler, Langes, Ewald, &c. for translating im Aufgehen,' in its rising; and declares in their favour on the ground that ' im Oriente 'would require ἐν ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς. Alford (4th ed. 1859) renders in the East referring to verse 9. But the point is made certain by Neh. iii. 29, φύλαξ τῆς πύλης τῆς ἀνατολῆς, for Add Jer. xxxviii. (LXX.) [= 31 Heb.] 40, ἕως γωνίας πύλης ἵππων ἀνατολῆς: 3 Kings, vii. 25 καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ἐπιβλέποντες ἀνατολήν. Rev. xvi. 12 (Β. C.) ανατολης ηλιου and Rev. xxi. 13 (Α) απο ανατολης πυλωνες τρεις : this is also the reading in Stephens' text. 316 ART. III. Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature. Second Series. Vol. VII. Part 1. 6 THERE was once a time when the battle-cry, 'S. George for merrie England!' roused up the soldier's courage, in somewhat a like manner that Nelson's famous signal stimulated the British sailor to fight for the honour and glory of his country. Though that war-cry is no longer heard, still there waves over England's army the blood-red cross of S. George, and still her noblest sons deem it the highest honour to be enrolled among the knights of S. George; still does the garter, with its quaint legend, Honi soit qui mal y pense,' surround the royal arms of our monarch; and still does S. George's Chapel, at Windsor, recall the mighty memories of past glory, and proclaim that yet, amid the change of opinion, the revolutions of government, the march of intellect, S. George remains our patron saint, and holds his honoured place in the mightiest empire of the world. Still is the Chapter of that noble order held on S. George's Day (Ap. 23) in S. George's Chapel, with all its ancient ceremonies; still is the Bishop of Winchester Prelate of the order, the Bishop of Oxford Chancellor, and the Dean of Windsor Dean, and the Heir of England has just been married in S. George's Chapel, habited in the robes of a Knight of the Garter. Still have we 162 of the old parish churches dedicated to his memory, and many also in later times-two to SS. Mary and George, one to SS. George and Laurence, one to SS. George and Edmund. 1 No doubt much of this is owing to that strong conservative spirit, which so characterises our countrymen, which induces them to keep up ancient customs and ancient traditions, not always because they are good and useful, but because they are old and belong to their forefathers a disposition which often makes them cling to abuses, and unreasoningly oppose real improvement. - It is not to be expected that, amid the changes and revolutions that took place in the sixteenth century-when almost everything that was old and venerable was called in question, and what was not in the Bible was denounced as superstitious, and men confounded the lawful use of a thing with its abusethat S. George's claim to be the patron saint of England should pass unchallenged. The first that attempted to cast a slur on the memory of S. George was that learned, but highly prejudiced, pope of the Reformed community of Geneva, John Calvin. He says, Nil eos Christo reliquum facere qui pro nihilo ducunt 6 1 The Bishop of Salisbury was ex officio Chancellor: but in the recent redistribution of dioceses, Berkshire was transferred from Salisbury to Oxford. ' ejus intercessionem, nisi accedant Georgius aut Hippolitus, aut 'similes larvæ." Calvin was followed by Dr. Reynolds, in his work, De Idolatria Ecclesiæ Romanæ,' in which-unable to get over the fact that S. George is spoken of by so many ancient writers as a real person, yet unwilling to lose the opportunity of a blow at the Roman Church-he contents himself by asserting that the S. George honoured by the Medieval Church, made the patron saint of England, was that Arian Bishop set up by the heretical faction at Alexandria to supplant S. Athanasius-an assertion equally dishonourable both to the memory of S. George, and to the English empire, with the more sweeping statement of Calvin, that he was a nonentity. These slanders, cast upon our patron saint, roused up the learned Dr. Heylyn to investigate the true history of S. George; which he did with his usual diligence and accuracy: his 'Historie of that most famous Saint and Soldier of Christ Jesus, S. George of Cappadocia; asserted from the Fictions of the Middle Ages of the Church, and opposition of the present,' passed through two editions; the second, published in 1633, was dedicated to King Charles I., and contains an appendix on the Order of S. George, called the Garter.' This work amply fulfils its promise, and ought to have set the question at rest for ever; but errors, like weeds, grow again after being plucked up; for we find Dr. John Pettingal, in a work On the Original of the Equestrian Figure of S. George, and of the Garter,' published in 1753, and dedicated to George II., saying, 'Whether our S. George was an Arian, or whether he was a real person or not, 'is a matter not settled among the learned.' He, in turn, was answered by Dr. Samuel Pegge, in 1777, who read a paper before the Society of Antiquarians, proving that S. George was not a fictitious character in it he also points out the entire hollowness of the ingenious conjecture of Mr. Byrom, that George' is a mistake for 'Gregory' the Great, whose claim to be the patron saint of England he supports; while, incidentally, he repeats the old assertion that George the Arian is our : 1 Cal. Instit. lib. iii. cap. xx. § 27. The word 'larva' has given rise to some dispute in the translation by Norton (1585) it is rendered 'visors.' Heylyn gives 'counterfeits.' The word seems to be derived from the old Etruscan word Lar,' or 'Lars,' king or chief; from whence came Lares,' the presiding genii of a household or family. These were, apparently, the ghosts of the founders of the family, or some renowned ancestor whom the family deified. Thus 'Lavati' were men possessed by demons. Festus describes them as furiosi, et mente moti, quasi larvis exterriti.' Plautus, (Captiv. act iii. sc. iv. v. 65.) 'Jam deliramenta loquitur; larvæ simulant virum.' Amphit. act ii. sc. ii. v. 144, 'Larvarum pleni. From this it appears that a 'larva' is the ghost of some one departed, and supposed to possess some one living: a belief existing to this day among certain magicians (Aissoua) in North Africa, who, after certain incantations, imagine themselves to be possessed by the spirit of a deceased marabout. |