*

been long separated from their mother country. Besides, the frequent journies to Jerusalem, which the Jews scattered in foreign countries were obliged to make in obedience to their religious precepts, and the intercourse which they maintained with the inhabitants of Palestine (Acts 18: 21), must have had no little influence upon the continuance of the Aramaean language among them. And although their mother tongue might become somewhat corrupted in a foreign land, yet it could not be diffi- ' cult for them to understand the Palestine Jews; and the public services in Aramaean of the synagogues in Palestine could not be so unintelligible to them, as to render it necessary that they should have Greek synagogues of their own. There is therefore no ground for supposing, that the synagogues of the Libertines, (i. e. of Jews who had been made slaves by the Romans and afterwards set free,) of the Cyrenians, Alexandrians, etc. mentioned in Acts 6: 9, were at all distinguished from the other synagogues at Jerusalem by the use of the Greek language.

3. The assertion, that there were synagogues in Palestine in which the version of the Seventy was publicly read instead of

de Vita contemplat. init. The passage where he relates (Lib. in Flacc. p. 970. ed. Frft.) that the common people at Alexandria named king Agrippa in derision Maoiv (7), and then proceeds thus : Οὕτως δέ φασιν τὸν Κύριον ὀνομάζεσθαι παρὰ Σύροις, cannot be brought as proof of the contrary; for Philo might very well know what signified in general, without at the same time knowing that it was employed as an honorary title of the king, tou Kupiov. [This solution however is evidently lame; and the more general opinion is that Philo was unacquainted with Hebrew or Aramaean. ED.]

* The Egyptian Jews also frequently made pilgrimages to Jerusalem, in order to offer sacrifices and prayers. Philo himself was once sent thither, in order to offer sacrifices in the temple in the name of his brethren in Egypt; Opp. Tom. II. p. 646. ed. Mangey. Even the common Jews of Egypt must also have gone in troops to the high festivals at Jerusalem; for among the multitude of foreign Jews, who had assembled to celebrate the passover at Jerusalem, and were compelled to remain through the investment of the city by Titus, there were not a few from Alexandria, who distinguished themselves by their brave defence against besiegers; Joseph. B. J. V. 6. 6. It would seem therefore, that the EgyptianJewish temple at Leontopolis, either never obtained any high degree of consideration, or at least did not long maintain it.

No. II.

46

the Hebrew text, must simply on this account be regarded as improbable, because the supporters of this opinion have not as yet sufficiently proved, what seems so easy to be proved, that it was generally the custom even in the synagogues of the Jews who lived out of Palestine and among the Greeks, to use the Septuagint in their public religious services. Justin,* whose testimony is quoted for this purpose, says nothing more than that the Jews preserved copies of the Septuagint in the libraries of their celebrated synagogues. From this circumstance we can draw no conclusion as to the public use of them in the synagogues; for the Jews had in like manner in these librariest translations of some of the historical books of the New Testament.-Tertullian,‡ who is also adduced as a witness, expresses himself so ambiguously, that his words may just as well be understood of the Hebrew text.-The Talmud nowhere speaks of the use of the Old Testament in the synagogues in the Greek language. The only passages which is supposed to allude to it, simply treats, as both Lightfoot and Hody have already remarked, of the audible recitation of the form of prayer », which is taken from Deut. 6: 4-9. 9: 13-21. Num. 15: 37 -41, and was well known among all Jews, because it stood upon the Tephillin; see Buxtorf. Lex. Rab. Chald. Talm. sub voce. If now the stricter Rabbins were dissatisfied, when in Cesarea, a city inhabited by Jews, Syrians, and Greeks, this form of prayer, which according to an ancient prescript|| might be recited in any language, was thus repeated aloud in the Greek language; much more may we suppose that they would have been displeased, had the text of the Old Testament been publicly read in Greek.-Finally, from the praises which Philo and Josephus bestow upon the Alexandrine version, and the use which both of them make of it in their writings, there follows

* Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 298, and in other passages quoted in H. Hody de Bibliorum textibus origin. Lib. IV. Oxon. 1704. p. 224. + Epiphanii Opp. ed. Petav. Tom. II. p. 127. Comp. p. 342 above. Apolog. c. 18.

§ R. Levi ivit Caesaream, audiensque eos recitantes to Hellenistice, voluit eos impedire. Talm. Hieros. Sota c. 7. See Buxtorf. Lex. Chald. p. 104.

|| Lingua quacunque proferri possunt sectio de muliere adulterii suspecta, confessio decimorum, lectio audi ( Mischnae c. 7. p. 656. ed. Wagenseil.

), etc. Sota.

1

nothing more, than that they both considered it as a faithful version, and worthy to be recommended to those who were not Jews, although it was only a private version.

4. That the version of the Seventy was of any public authority in the synagogues of Palestine, is nothing more than a hypothesis occasioned by the ambiguous word Hellenist; but which is founded on no one authentic historical fact, that may not be explained without this hypothesis. And it is so much the less to be regarded, because it is sufficiently refuted, partly by the grounds which may be adduced to shew the general use of the Targums among the Palestine Jews (p. 336 above); and partly by the express testimony of Epiphanius,* who was familiar both with the Hebrew and Aramaean languages, and with the usages of the Jews of Palestine.

18

ART. V. INTERPRETATION OF ROM. VIII. 18-25.

By M. Stuart, Prof. of Sac. Lit. in the Theol. Sem. Andover.

Λογίζομαι γὰρ, ὅτι οὐκ ἄξια τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν και ροῦ πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς. 19 ̔Η γὰρ ἀποκαραδοκία τῆς κτίσεως τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν 20 υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἀπεκδέχεται. Τῇ γὰρ ματαιότητι ἡ κτίσις 21 ὑπετάγη, (οὐχ ἑκοῦσα, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα,) ἐπ ̓ ἐλπίδι, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς δου λείας τῆς φθορᾶς εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων 22 τοῦ Θεοῦ. Οἴδαμεν γὰρ, ὅτι πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ 23 συνωδίνει ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν. Οὐ μόνον δὲ, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχοντες, καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυ τοῖς στενάζομεν, υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν 24 τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν. Τῇ γὰρ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν. ̓Ελπὶς δὲ

Opp. ed. Petav. T. I. p. 122. ̔Εβραϊκὴν δὲ διάλεκτον ἀκρι βῶς εἰσὶν ἠσκήμενοι (sc. Nazareni), παρ' αὐτοῖς γὰρ πᾶς ὁ νόμος, καὶ οἱ προφῆται, καὶ τὰ γραφεῖα λεγόμενα Εβραϊκῶς ἀναγι νώσκεται, ὥσπερ ἀμέλει καὶ παρὰ Ιουδαίοις. “The Nazarenes are accurately skilled in the Hebrew dialect; for with them the whole law and the prophets and hagiographia-are publicly read in Hebrew, just as also among the Jews.'

βλεπομένη, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλπὶς· ὃ γὰρ βλέπει τὶς, τί καὶ ἐλπίζει ; 25 Εἰ δὲ ὃ οὐ βλέπομεν, ἐλπίζομεν, δι ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα.

18

Moreover, I count not the sufferings of the present time as worthy of comparison with the glory which is to be revealed 19 to us. For the earnest expectation of the creature is wait

ing for the manifestation [of this glory] of the children of 20 God. For the creature was made subject to frailty, (not of 21 its own choice, but by him who put it in subjection,) in hope

that this same creature may be freed from the bondage of a perishing state, and [brought] into the glorious liber22 ty of the children of God. For we know that all creatures sigh together and are in anguish, even to the present 23 time. And not only so, but we who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even ve ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for [our] adoption as children, the redemption of 24 our bodies. For even we are saved [only] in hope. Now hope which is seen, is not hope; for what a man seeth, 25 how doth he still hope for it? But if we hope for that which we do not see, we patiently wait for it.

EVERY reader, in any good degree acquainted with either the history or the practice of sacred criticism, well knows the difficulty of satisfactorily explaining this passage. It is one of those paragraphs, which have been technically named loci vexatissimi, i. e. a passage often made the subject of attempt at illustration, but which has not been explained in such a manner as to give general satisfaction.

I am almost afraid that the experienced critic will regard it as a kind of presumption in me, to make a new attempt upon the verses before us. It would seem as if the ingenuity of criticism had been already exercised to the ne plus ultra upon it; and as satisfaction that is general has not been attained, it may seem to be hardly congruous with becoming diffidence to expect it. Still, it is easy to go too far and to argue wrongly in this way; and this we do, when we endeavour to excuse ourselves from all effort, because we distrust our own strength, and have great

confidence in the gigantic powers of those who have preceded us. "Every little helps," says the homely but sensible proverb. If giants have preceded us, and aimed to take off the load of obscurity which rests on the passage under consideration, but without success; it will not certainly follow that those who come after them, although of inferior strength, may not take the advantage of some lever which their predecessors overlooked, and with less strength be able to raise the weight that had not before been moved. Or to use another figure; if we who are but dwarfs, do but stand upon the giant's shoulders, it surely is not impossible that our prospect, in some cases, may be more extensive than theirs.

The deeply interesting chapter, from which the passage is selected for interpretation, renders it very desirable that we should, if possible, attain to right views of the whole. That those which I am now about to exhibit, are of this nature, I would not be understood to affirm. The most which I wish to be understood as saying, is, that they seem to me to deserve a preference to other views which are examined in the sequel, and which have been entertained by more or less of those who have written on the passage under review. All will acknowledge that a serious attempt to explain a portion of Scripture so difficult as this, if made in a becoming manner and with due diligence, deserves encouragement.

The critical reader of the Bible will often find occasion to remark, that the general meaning of a passage, i. e. the general design and object which the writer had in view, may be quite plain and obvious, while, at the same time, the adequate and satisfactory illustration of the particular phraseology which it exhibits, may be a matter of great difficulty, and perhaps even critically impossible. For example; in John 1: 12 the writer says, that the privileges of children are conferred on believers in Christ; and in verse 13 he asserts, that no kind of natural generation or descent entitles them to these privileges, but that their filiation is supernatural and divine, i. e. it is of God. It is very plain here, that he means to gainsay what the Jews maintained respecting rights and privileges of a spiritual nature, to which they considered themselves entitled, because they were the natural descendants of Abraham. But when we come to explain the meaning of each phrase by itself, viz. the expressions, of oux ἐξ αἱμάτων, and οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός, and οὐδὲ ἐκ θελή paros avdoos, we find that they lie, as yet, beyond the reach of any criticism which is entirely satisfactory.