| 486 The church has ever been willing and anxious that this translation should be critically compared with other translations
as also we learn, that his Hebrew copy considerably differed from ours."
Dupin says in his "Complete History of the Canon and writers of the Books of the Old and New Testament:"-
"St. Jerome, in his commentary upon the fortieth chapter of Ezekiel says: 'When we translate the Hebrew words into Latin, we are sometimes guided by conjecture.'"
Again he says: "When Origen observed that there was less in the Greek than in the Hebrew, he did supply it from the version of Theodotion, and put an asterisk or star to it, to signify that this was to illustrate what was obscure. St. Jerome makes frequent mention of the additions, corrections, and SUBSTRACTIONS made in the versions of the Septuagint, by Origen. . . . St. Jerome says in the preface to his commentary on Daniel, that in all both the Greek and Latin churches, both in those in Syria and in Egypt, the edition of Origen is made use of."
Again, Dupin says: "By the carelessness of the transcribers, and sometimes of those who set them at work, the asterisks being either misunderstood, or entirely left out in some places, the addition of Theodotion were CONFOUNDED with the version of the Septuagint, which perhaps moved St. Jerome to say that Origen had corrupted and confounded the version of the Septuagint."
Dupin continues: "In short we must confess that there are many differences betwixt the Hebrew test and the version of the Septuagint, which arise from the corruption and confusion that are in the Greek version we now have. It is certain that it hath been revised divers times, and that several authors have taken liberty to add thereunto, to RETRENCH and correct divers things. That in the first centuries there were different editions, and that corrections have been inserted from the versions of Theodotion and others, which made St. Jerome say with reason, that in his time the version of the Septuagint was nowhere to be found in its purity. . . . It is mere superstition to assert, as some authors do, that the Hebrew text which we have at present is not corrupted in any place, and that there is no fault, nor any thing left out, and that we must indisputably follow it at all times. This is not only to speak without all evidence, and contrary to all probability, but we have very good proof to the contrary, for in the first place there are differences betwixt the oldest of the Hebrew copies which the Massorites have observed, by that which they called Keri and Ketib, and putting one of the readings in the text and the other in the margin, we have the different readings of the Jews of the East and the Jews of the West, of the Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, and the manuscript copies of the Bible are not always alike."
This "Complete History of the Canon," etc., says: "The Council of Trent, (held in 1540,) when it declared the vulgar version authentic, did not thereby declare it as done by divine inspiration, neither as a piece conformable in all respects to the original texts, or free from all errors. . . . Notwithstanding the care and precaution of the Massorites and Jews who have wrote or printed the Hebrew Bibles, there are still a great many differences between the manuscripts and printed Bibles, as Buxtorfe has observed in his Rabbinical Library, and Capelle after him. There are differences in the punctuation about the consonants, and whole words and verses which shows that let them be never so diligent, it is impossible but some faults will slip in, either in the copying or printing of a work. . . . Nor can it be said for certain that all those books which are cited in the Holy Scriptures were of divine inspiration.
(page 486) |
