DID OUR LORD QUOTE FROM THE SEPTUAGINT?
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.") SIE,—Affirming that our Lord quoted the LXX., you last week drew the fair conclusion that " where the LXX. differs from the original Hebrew, it is impossible to maintain that the former can have represented the Books of Moses more accurately than the original Hebrew ;" and hence you affirm that there is " demonstration that our Lord did not command supernaturally the whole field of Hebrew literature." The issue thus raised is of such vast import that I ask you to permit a rejoinder, with sincere respect for your general critical power and transparent candour always.
(1.) Your whole position hangs upon the supposition that the LXX. does differ from the Hebrew. If not, cadit gutestio. That there are verbal differences and various readings in both texts is undeniable; but after a renewed and careful examina- tion of all the Gospel texts—some thirty-four quotations—I venture to hold that there is not one substantial variation or difference in the words spoken by our Lord, as you assumed.
(2.) In these texts the close agreement of the Greek with the Hebrew is almost an unbroken rule, and where slight variations occur, the Greek, not seldom, is nearer to the Hebrew than to the LXX.,—e.g., S. Matt. xv., 8-9, where the Hebrew is more closely followed, in letter and sense, than the LXX. Sometimes the Gospel texts vary both from the Hebrew and the LXX.,—e.g. S. Matt. iv., 6 ; xi., 10. (3.) The remarkable intertwining of the Syriac with the New Testament Greek is also a striking fact, and this con- cord of the version in our Lord's native tongue does not favour his quoting from the LXX., for the Syriac gives his quota- tions in Syriac, and is exact with the Hebrew.
(4.) Still, there remains the fact of frequent quotations, seemingly verbatim, of the LXX. in the Gospels. Grinfield gives ten such instances, but in every one the Hebrew is exactly as the LXX.
(5.) How came the fact of the Gospel use of the LXX. and its ipsissima verba ; and what proof is this that our Lord either spake Greek or specially quoted from the LXX ?
The problem is intricate. The Gospels are not contem- poraneous " reports " from our Lord's lips. They were written by men, not Greeks, but writing in Greek many years after his words were spoken, and recording his well-remembered words of reference to the Old Testament,—men, moreover, to whom the LXX. is allowed to have been well known, being read in many synagogues. Under these circumstances, it was natural that, writing in Greek, the Evangelists should use the Greek version of His spoken words, and the written texts, to which he undoubtedly referred, were, in the LXX. a handy help to their memories, though sometimes a quotation, not being literally exact with either the LXX. or the Hebrew, seems to be from memory only, but it is an undeniable fact that there
is not a single quotation in the Gospels that might not have been actually spoken by our Lord in Hebrew or Syriac ; and we do not really know that he ever spake Greek, whilst we have some words recorded as actually spoken by him in his native tongue, e.g., S. Luke viii., 54; S. Matt. xxvii., 46.
I hold, then, that, as we have no evidence or assurance that our Lord ever spake Greek, we may not assume that he ever quoted direct from the LXX., and I think you will allow that it is an enormous a priori improbability that he preferred, in his speech to the common people, to quote from "another tongue," rather than from their and his native speech.—I am, Sir, &c., Temple Ewell, Dover, June ith. W. F. HOBSON.
[Our correspondent appears to know much more on the subject than we do. We assumed, perhaps mistakenly, what various learned authorities have assumed before us, that our Lord's quotations were frequently from the Septuagint, and not exact translations from the Hebrew. Mr. Howorth also made that assumption.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
