The Arkansaw traveler., 1884-04-26

afford the answers Nor have dilIgent students been wanting. Only the spirit m which the work was done was not al- ways of the right kind. Most of the ex. l aminers started with ar apologetic bias, some were hypercriucal. Few, only. de voted special works to the subject. Fewer still attempted 10 go over the whole ground. And the requirements of the i general public, in oontrads,inciion to ] those of the learned, have hitherto been totally ignored None of the publ a,iors m this field, from DIusils parallela Sacra.' which appeared three centuries ago, to Bohls Die ai,:estamentlichen Citate i'm neren te '.. .nent, published in fS78, presents general view of the texts with precise comparisons.
 Ths Professor Toy does in the work before Is, in winch he proposed 10 him self to discuss all the quotations in the new testament. 10 give the orig inal texts with English translation. and as exact an explanation is poss blc oi the vArioas passages. so that the precise thought of the old testament may be set alongside of the use made of It In the new testament. and the reader thus have all the material before hlm. and be able to draw his own conclusions And this task he has eXees;rd with equal dil,- gence. erudi;fon, and rood ser.st. Every sentence ei'ed ire.n lhe eid te=tament ls presented nrss- for the rse of the general readeF-in Enghsh u4nsla,ions of the Hebrew r.g.nal. of the Septuagint yer sion. and of the quotation as II appears Tn the best Greek texts af the nee testa- men; Then follow for the more le med or In4uisiiive fac literal wo'GS af all three texts n Hebrew and Greek. and explanatory remarks, cxegeiit al and crit icai, drawn tom the vast range of ex- pos'torai ana kindred literature The iranslatlens tfe the authors own. with frequent elevations both from tie au- ,harized version and the revised. bat with !ne regard n l!.-rzlaess and the results of the lates. research The critical re- marks are generally suceine,. ana always equally frank and remote ffor1 ,rfever- ence The same An be said of the ex- tenslve introduction, Tn which the author sums up Inc results of the comprehensive iFquiry as io the formal principles of new testament quotation" the ," her Ineneuiieai principles and the eharae- ltrs ot he quotations IF vne several new testament books. This portion of the book IS especially valuable. presenting a, !, does both tke vartou, questions as to sources, manner of siI,ns, etc. and the solu'ioos reached by the younger and ireer school of critics. to which the att thor belongs. and whose views he lays before the public. He asks "a careful eHamSnattpn of the grounds on whieh h they are based. offering ail Inc material by which they can and mus; be judged. he leading conclusions we Canno; re- irAn rom placing here with some ofthe argument. m condensed form before our readers, deeming them well sup ported, and n part fully established. by intrinsic evidence and @eisht of author liy.
 1 The quotations from the old testa- ment are never made from ihe original. but always from the Greek version. or an Araml,c. as Is amply proved by the irequen, deyia,ions from the Heb!ew. and by the general agyeenen, with the Septuagin,. l, is go, ltkeiv that the new testament. writers. except he learned Paul, knew Hebrew, which was a dead language ln iheir time: Paul's citations are uniformly rom the Greek Where freedom of quotation does not explain devia,ions from the Sep,uasini. the cita- tons may properly be referred 10 an Ar lmaic version as the direct source That version, or AIre aD' was probably oral as were the rendcrngs then generally employed in the ,gogues-but well impressed upon the public mind by con stant use on public occasions Written tafgums seem ,o have first made the,r appearance about a century after the composition of the olde-; gospel. the tar. gum of Dnselos on the pcn.a,euch heinea the earliest. The written version of the septaaslnt was, Tn it's earlier parts. four or hve ccnturies older. When Paul be- gan to write his Lpistles. the Sep.uagint had long been the author.r ed version of the Jewish world. including Palestine though Aramaic was there the vernacu- lar. The text If tha, version which evan gelists and apostles used differed very ht,le from the bes, recent texts. based on the Vatican manuscript (of ,he middle of the fourth century of OUT era) This man userpt shows no traces of ,or.up,ion, such as other copies largely underwear, at the hands of scrlbes bent on harmonizing the sacred teN.s. by conforming the Se2;na- slnt 10 the Hebrew of the old testament or to the Greek of the ne~ The Eeyp- tan translA;ors of the old testament. whose version Is thus accurately pre- served, had evidently before them a He
 brew text independent, of our Masore.ic, and. on the whole. inferior 10 il, nor did they always understand their Hebre. oTlginal. Bu: they did their work con- selenciocsly. and in minority of cases m which ,he;r readings differ from the Masorenc do theirs deserve preference
 To ;he Septuagin,'s deviations from the better Hebrew texts. as used in Palestine. and at much later age colla,ed and perpe.uaied by the Masoretes. he writers oi the nes ees,ament added nex nosln cations. some unintentional. "as would Dc natural in quoting from memory" and others intentional There are nu- Fletous instances of abridgment and con deasA,'on, oi expansion and co,nb,n at.on 0. passages.
 The attitude of the nes,es,amen,