have been less polite for suppose it ever so imperfect it had been kept in the Kings Library not altogether unknown to the King with thousands of other Books I pass by other remarks of learned Men especially Joseph Scaliger's of this Suppositious Aristaeus which Gerard Vossius well versed in this matter says are very weighty from whence it may be conjectured Aristaeus to have writ this History perhaps to the Idaea of a pious and a good moral'd Prince and this History ought not to be look'd upon otherwise wherefore the Author of these Fables mistrusting his Cause as being improbable adds farther I believe says he my Readers will suspect my credit but truly as it is not lawful to relate any Vntruth which hath been received so it would be a Crime to be silent in this Affair but as they have been acted so I have related them that I might avoid all Vntruths and for that reason I have endeavoured to receive the Truth from those who were privy to the Kings Affairs Truly he leaves nothing out that may corroborate his Testimony which he feared would be suspected by all But the Authority of the Fathers and other Writers of good Note and Credit who have inserted in their Works the History of Aristaeus as true doth make for it and it will be thought rashness to defend the contrary but we are not to consider what the Fathers have said so much as the reasons of their opinion for in things purely critical Reasons are of more moment than Authorities It is evident the Fathers were moved by the bare Authority of Aristaus or Philo and Josephus who writ from him but they had no reason to examin critieally the History of Aristaeus whether true Seing the Septuagint Translation which at that time the Church used against the Jews who had recourse to the Hebrew in their Disputations with the Christians did greatly support their Cause The Fathers had been ill advised if they had laid by that Translation which the Jews could not totally reject St. Jerom Jerom. a man well versed in all Learning and had studyed this Criticism for this reason contrary to the common Opinion of the Fathers did confute the Cels of the 70. Interpreters I know not says he who first invented the Story of the 70. Cells and then laughs at Justin Martyr who affirmed he saw them and looks upon him as a simple Man easily induced to believe the Jews Stories In like manner he differed in opinion from the Fathers for from the Authority of Aristaeus himself and Josephus he asserts the 70. Interpreters to have conferr'd and not to have prophesyed For says he it is one thing to be a Prophet another to be an Interpreter the first foretels things to come the other from his Knowledg afterwards and Eloquence Translates Neither doth he esteem them more than Tully who translated with a Rhetorical not a Prophetick Spirit Xenophon's Oeconomy Plato's Protagoras and Demosthenes's Oration for Ctesiphen neither was St. Jerom ever of any other Opinion although he may sometimes say they were inspired and that the Learn'd Man did judge this to be taken in an Oeconomical Sense may appear by several Places For the like reason although St. Jerom did seem to be of the same Opinion with Aristaeus Josephus and the Jews of his time that the 70. Interpreters did translate Books of the Law only yet in his Commentaries upon the other Books of Scripture he speaks of them no otherwise than as the Translators of these and this because he would not seem to differ from the common Opinion although in his Judgment less probable But some one will say if Aristaeus's History of the 70 should be look'd upon as a Fable what Foundation had it For certainly the first Author could not invent it without some ground when even the Fables of the Poets carry something of Truth in them The Original of Aristeus's Book Heins Arist sa Exod. 24. Heinsius thinks this Story of the 70. to have its rise from the xxiv chap. of Exodus where we find that Moses Aaron and the 70. Elders went up unto the Lord and from the words which in the Latin Translation are nec super eos qui procul recesserant de filiis Israel misit manum suam the Greek electorum Israel neque unus dissensit Heinsius thinks that number of the Translators and their miraculous Agreement to have risen hence but whatever Heinsius thinks I am of the Opinion that the Interpretors were rather Jews of Alexandria than Hierusalem for there are to this day some Egyptian Words as Abrec Remphan and others and because it was of so great a consequence it is very likely it was approved of by the Sanhedrim and there called the Septuagint Translation from the 70 Elders or Senators of the Great Council for which reason the place of the Talmud otherwise very difficult where the Greek Translation is ascribed only to five may easily be reconciled with the common opinion of 72. by the same Authority it is made authentick to all the Jews especially the Hellenists as the Fathers of the Western Church in the Council of Trent have made their Translation Authentick for as the Ignorance of the Christians in the Greek caus'd Translations into the other Tongues and these Translations became Authentick to the Churches by their use in like manner the Jews Ignorance of the Hebrew Tongue did move the Jews of Alexandria to translate the Bible into Greek for their use which Translation was afterwards read in their Synagogues and Schools and because as very probable it was approved of by the Sanhedrim at Hierusalem upon whom at that time the whole Nation of the Jews had a dependance it hath acquired the Name of the Septuagint Yet I think there is no necessity to have recourse to the Senators of the great Synagogue that the number of the 72. Interpreters to whom that Translation is commonly ascribed may be the better made out but we are only to consider the Form of Speech familiar to the Jews by which they attribute every thing of moment to those 70. Senators that the things thereby may acquire the greater Authority For this reason they ascribe the Vowel Points Accents and many other things of the like nature to the Sanhedrim not so much from the reality of the thing as from that Form of Speech so that it is difficult to distinguish when they speak plain and when allegorically This way of speaking hath led many men and those Learned into various Errors when in reading the Jews Books they consider more what they write than the manner and causes of their so writing We may bring for Example what occur in the Rabbins about the Title of Holy Writ the Keris and Cetibs or various Readings entire defective redundant and six hundred of the like nature All these most of the Jews ascribe either to Moses in Mount Sinai or to the Synagogue or Senate assembled under Esdras all
fully expressed the Hebrew Context whom for this reason he doth often reprove in his Commentaries I pass by to avoid prolixity those mistakes of the 70 many of which are taken notice of by the Commentators of the Bible and to make up the Catalogue the obscure places of the Greek ought to be compared with the Hebrew context for they having not followed chiefly in these places the sence of the Original have variously and at large digressed I cannot but praise the industrious and learned Is Vossius in that he endeavoured to vindicate in all that Greek Translation in his opinion Divine Masius prof to Josb but the unbyassed Masius seems far more able to judge of that Translation a Man of an acute Wit and sharp Judgment and well known in the Hebrew Greek and Syriac Copies Wherefore what we should judge of the 70 may be I think far better learnt from Masius than from Vossius The Learned Man gives this Judgment of them Whosoever says he will but consider the Books of Scripture will find the Translation of them the Law of Moses excepted ascribed to the 72 Interpreters that it will not seem probable that the 72 Doctors sent to Ptolemy by the High Priest were so unapt so unskilful so uncapable of Translating and absurd that they could commit such gross mistakes for there are not only great verbal errors arising from literal mistakes when they Interpret one thing for another but and that not seldom even in long Periods Thus this Learned Doctor defends the opinion of St. Jerom Jeroms pref upon the Heb. Transl Messius who thinks that the Translation of the Pentateuch and of the other Books of Scripture were not done by the same Hands the same Masius a little farther explaining himself more clearly subjoys what is worth observation Neither truly do I calculate the above mentioned errors by the Hebrew context now in use that the novelty of points errors interpoints and the addition of Vowels and Accents which the Authors of the Masoreth are said to have invented or the unfaithfulness of some Transcribers whom I do not approve as if they had designedly corrupted the Hebrew Context in many places may not be any excuse the very things treated of do often sufficiently manifest the Absurdity and Incongruity of Words and Phrases which the Translators have used and presently concludes the whole matter thus If my opinion should be asked I must confess that the Translation is Divine and seems to be penned rather by Prophets than by their Interpreters in some places in others silly nor at all agreeable to the Learning of so great Doctors and because I met with these difficulties not only in the other Books altho in them the errors are more gross and confounding but also in Moses Pentateuch as we call it and because the Story of Ptolomy and the Intepreters related by so many can't be without some ground I am apt to believe their opinion to be most likely who say that not only the Law of Moses but also the other Historical and Prophetical Books were Translated by those Jews at the desire of Ptolomy Thus far Masius whose words I have been the longer upon because they very much Illustrate the Argument in Hand At first this Learned man well read in the Hebrew Chaldee Syriac and Greek dares not ascribe the Greek Translation the Peutateuch excepted to the LXX it was so full of gross errors and because he hath perceived many faults also in the Pentateuch he hath embraced yet somewhat doubtfully the common opinion of these 70 Translators neither doth he spare to call those whom he acknowledges from a prejudice the chief among the Jews of that age absurd silly and illiterate and he seems to be introduced thereunto by the Authority of St. Jerom and the truth of the thing it self afterwards as it were correcting himself he acknowledges some of the Translation to be Divine and Dictated by Prophets rather than Interpreters and what is chiefly to be considered he declares he did not reprehend the Greek from the modern Copies of the Jews which it is evident are degenerated from the antient purity in many places in fine he censures the generality of Divines who take upon them Magisteriously to judge of the matter in hand of which they are ignorant and do bring in strange fancies into the Church as that the Hebrew context is designedly corrupted by the Jews as is asserted by some that the Greek is to be preferred before the Hebrew with some others of the same nature which come from those who have more zeal then knowledge if the Learned Masius was now alive he would wonder that any Protestant and Isaac Vosius the first should have the same opinion of the Greek and Hebrew Copies with those divines he reprehends Masius had been wholy of our Opinion if he had not given so much credit to the Story of Aristaeus which he saw was confirm'd by a Cloud of Witnesses he should rather have considered Reason than plurality of Voices neither truly will he judge otherwise of the Greek Translation who shall critically Examine it by the Hebrew Originals And this is the Opinion of all the Critic Expositors of the Scripture For if at any time they have used the Hebrew and Greek for illustrating the Context sometimes they scrupie not to Correct the Hebrew by the Greek but much more often the Hebrew is preferred before the Greek Augustin of Engubio to pass by others in his review of the old Testament to the Hebrew verity having compared the various Editions accuses the Greek Interpreters sometimes of ignorance This Greek Translation says he whether the 70. Interpreters were perfect Masters of the Greek whether they used other Copies than could be had in St. Jeroms or our time or whether they did designedly so Translate differs very much from the Hebrew verity Some places do shew a manifest unskilfulness of the Greek and others a great ignorance of the Hebrew Tongue Augustine himself is not always infallible as for Example when he condems them for Traslating in Chap. 19. Genes place instead of banquet but he observes not that in the Greek corrupt Venetian it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 place for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 banquet as is truly read in the Roman Edition The same Augustine makes himself ridiculous when he condemns their Translation in Chap. 27. Genes of the Hebrew word naphal by the Latine word manere whereas it should have been Translated by the word cadere fall whence he takes occasion to defend the vulgar Translation which has it obiit but the Greek Translation of the 70. is the best the Hebrew ought not to be otherwise Translated if we consider the sence for the death of Ishmael is not there spoke of but the Land wherein he dwelt as appears by what goes before Wherefore we are â—ot to â—â—â—ken to Augustine always when he condemns the Greek Translators altho he hath truly marked many of
their Errors CHAP. XVI A more particular Examination of the Greek Septuagint Translation Philo 2. Book of the life of Moses THat the Greek Translation of the 70. was had in great esteem and received with a great deal of joy by all the ancient Jews may appear from Philo who reckons them among the Prophets There is says he an annual solemnity in the Isle of Pharos to which place not the Jews only but many others do Ferry over honoring the place where this Translation received its birth and returning thanks to God for his renewing his wonted mercies to them after Prayers and Thanksgiving some pitching their Tents upon the Shoar others sitting in the open Air upon the Sands feast and make merry with their Relations and Friends at this time they prefer their Tents and the open Fields far beyond their sumptuous Palaces It is evident that this Translation was received by most Jews in their Synagogues and Schools The rejection of 70. by the Jews and that many thereby have been Converted to Christianity But the frequent disputes between the Christians and Jews about the Explanation of the Scriptures caused the Jews to study the Hebrew more than before they had done Upon the destruction of the Jews and the Jewish Nation scattered by the Romans the Authority of the great Council was almost totally Ecclipsed but there were a few Masters left who taught the Hebrew Tongue in the Schools Then did the Jews first especially they of Palestine who had still some influence upon the other Jews through their hatred to Christianity cry down the 70 the ample testimony of the Fathers and of Justinâ— Martyr who complained often of its rejection do confirm the Truth of it The Jews endeavoured what they could to asperse that Interpretation used by all the Christian Churches hence it was that they ordered a Fast and feigned that the Earth was covered with darkness for three days because the Law had been Translated into Greek By this Tale they would divert the more simple from reading the Greek Translation of the 70 when they took it ill that it was read in many Synagogues especially in the Synagogues of the Hellenist Jews principally from this time it was neglected and disesteemed by the Jews And if it had not been well received by the Church to which it had past from the Synagogue it had been utterly useless but because the Greek of that Translation is not so pure it hath as I may so say many Hebraisms and Syriasms which I take to be the Reason that it could not well be preserved in its integrity whilst every one would under take to correct what he understood not For the present I say nothing of the Hellenist commonly thought the Tongue of the 70. Translation The tongue of the Greek Translat I very much wonder that the Learned should contend so long whether there be any other Hellenist Tongue distinct from the Greek for the Hellenist is no other then the Greek Tongue which hath acquired something of the Hebrew and Syriac from the Jews and this hath not only hapned to the Greek but to all the Tongues which the Jews have made use of in their Translation of the Holy Scripture The Arabic Spanish and Persian Translations are scarce understood by the Arabians Spaniards and Persians unless they also understood the Hebrew Tongue We may well call this Tongue of the Jews the Tongue of the Synagogue because it hath its original thence and is adapted to it The Greek of the New Testament is the very same for it is taken from the 70. the words of the Old and New Testament are all of them Greek a few excepted but the Jews according to the occasion do sometimes enlarge and sometimes restrain their significations according to the propriety of their Tongue for which Reason the ancient Latine Interpreter who Translated the Greek into Latine for the benefit of the Church very often mistakes in some places he hath not at all exprest the sence of the 70. As for example whereas in Chap. 49. Genes in the Greek we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Author of the Ancient vulgar hath translated it tentatio tentabit euâ— but St. Jerom has much better translated it from the Original Gad latranculus latrocinabitur eum Jerom hath learnedly Corrected may Errors of the like nature in that ancient Translation and there are many more yet to be corrected which have escaped him The Greek Trans false That Greek Translation was so corrupt in Jeroms time that the learned Father had rather make a new Translation from the Original than correct the old One the Greek as well as the Latin was so faulty some are of opinion that there are no remains of that old Edition but the Works of the Greek and Latin Fathers do prove that it hath been preserved to our time although very imperfect and defective in whose Works we have a great part inserted as it is in the Greek Copies which go under the Name of the LXX and those who have no more Hebrew than what they have receiv'd from the Modern Grammars and Lexicons can't judge rightly of it And although I willingly acknowledge with St. Jerom those Translators to have erred in many places yet I am of the opinion that they are very often unjustly censured by him and later Translators Pierson in his Preface to the LXX published at Cambridge 1655 hath learnedly shewn that Jerom hath often overshot in his Animadversions I will bring other examples by which it will appear that the modern Translators have not done the LXX Justice in many places the 4th Verse of the 109 Psalm is thus rendred by the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tuâ—es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec which Translation Jerom keeps in his Latin Translation of the Psalter from the Greek But Grotius and many others think this place very ill rendred Grot. upon 109. Psalm Our Text says he hath it secundum constitutionem meam o Rex mi Juste Grotius and the rest are very much to blame that for so small a cause they dare dissent from the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews they thought the Greek Interpreters did not read in their Copies Diorothi with a jod as it is in the Modern but Dioroth without the jod but there was no need they should have recourse to the different readings whereas the Greek Translation might have been maintained by the Figure Paragoge which they are forced to admit of in other places The Letter jod at the end of this word doth express the antient Vowel E or our modern Scheva which is necessarily pronounced at the end of every word as also now at the end of the Imperatives fac dic c. among the Latins the Letter is hard in the pronunciation which Ennius Plautus and other ancient Authors express Whereas we read in the present Text quis mecum 2d of K's 9 Chap. the LXX
of Egypt long before the Arabian which were taken from them The word Coptus or Cophtus seems to derive it's Original from a City of the same Name which was heretofore the Metropolis of Thebais of which both Strabo and Plutarch make mention And very probable it is that that same Coptic Language was the ancient Language of the Egyptians not pure but having some mixture of the Greek especially from the time that they were under the Dominion of the Macedonians so that they chang'd the ancient Characters of their Language into the Greek which they partly retain to this day But in regard that Language surceas'd by degrees to become familiar and only remain'd among those who had something of Learning and Education the Egyptian Rabbies added to those Books which were then read in their Churches in the Coptic Language the Arabic Explanation after they became subject to the Saracens They have also Lexicons and Grammars for that Coptic Language which Kircher publish'd in Print by which we find that the Ancient Coptic Tongue besides the Greek words which it had learnt under the Graecian Princes retain'd also something of the Arabic But no man ought to doubt but that the Coptic Version was taken from the Greek Translation of the 70 Interpreters in regard that the Jews of old some of the Syrian Churches excepted always read the Hebrew Text or Versions taken from thence The Ethiopic Versions As to the Ethiopic Version of the Bible written in the Ethiopic Language we shall make some few observations This Version as all other Books which are read in the Ethiopic Churches was Translated out of the Coptic into the Ethiopic Tongue Therefore the Ethiopic Bibles are the same with the Coptic render'd only into Ethiopic Neither do the Ethiopians acknowledge any other Patriarch but only him who assumes the Title of Patriarch of Alexandria being an Egyptian and the Ceremonies of their Church are borrow'd from the Egyptians or Coptics But the ancient Ethiopic Language wherein their Bible is written has something of mixture both of Hebrew Arabic and Chaldee Especially of the Chaldee so that the Ethiopians call their Language Chaldaic or Babylonian as if it were the same with the pure an ancient Babylonic from which however it differs very much But the modern Ethiopic now familiar among the Ethiopians differs little from it Nevertheless they do not use any Points like Hebrews Chaldeans Syrians and Arabians but every Letter makes a Consonant and a Vowel which is peculiar to that Nation The Persian Veâ—sions There seems to be nothing at all at present remaining of that same ancient Persian Version which beyond all Controversie was taken from the Greek Translation of the Seventy The ancient Persian Language also has admitted much of mixture by reason of it's being jumbl'd with the Arabic from whence it has borrow'd all it's terms of Arts and Sciences together with the Arabic Characters the ancient Persian Letters being lost and no where to be seen but in some Antique Copies But as for that same Version of some part of the Sacred Scripture publish'd in our Age it does not seem worthy of any great esteem as being but of late years The Armeniâ—n Translation If we will believe the Armenian Doctors the Version of the Bible which they now read in their Churches in the Armenian Language was not made by John Chrysostome as some believe out of the Greek into the Armenian but by some Doctors of their own Nation who studied the Greek Language more especially by one Moses Sirnam'd the Grammarian and one David vulgarly call'd the Philosopher and this happen'd to be much about John Chrysostomes time The Armenians also deny that John Chrysostome was the Inventor of the Armenian Characters which they attribute to a certain Hermite whose name was Mescop who invented them in the City of Balu not far from Euphrates who also liv'd much about the time that Chrysostome flourish'd But because there were hardly any Exemplars of those Bibles to be found entire and those very dear to boot in our Age Jacob Caractri Patriarch of the Armenians sent into Europe Vschan Yuschuavanchi a Bishop that by his care and industry the Ancient Bible might be printed Whereupon the Old and New Testament was Printed in the Armenian Language and Character at Amsterdam anno 1664. But certain it is that this Armenian Translation and I had it from the mouth of the Bishop himself was taken from the Greek Version of the 70 Interpreters The Versions of the Muscovites Georgians and other people Lastly the Muscovites Iberians or Georgians a people inhabiting the Regions of Câ—olchis have also their Translations of the Holy Scripture and it is not long since that the Bible was printed in the Muscovitic Language and Character But there is no question to be made but that they were all taken from the Greek in regard those Nations deriv'd their Christian Faith and their Ecclesiastic Ceremonies from the Greeks And thus much concerning the Bibles made use of by the Eastern Nations CHAP. XXII Of the later Versions of the Bible and first of all of Latin Versions done by Catholick Divines The Bibles of Cardinal Ximenius THOUGH Francis Ximenius of Seneros Cardinal and Arch-Bishop of Toledo has given us no other Latin Version of the Hebrew Text in his Complutensian Bible than the vulgar or that of St. Jerom yet he may be deservedly rank'd amongst the Catholic Interpreters of the Holy Scriptures For first of all he publish'd in that excellent work the Chaldee Paraphrase upon the five Books of Moses with a verbal Version into Latin as also the Seventies Greek Version of all the Books of the Old Testament with an interlineary Latin Translation In the year 1515. And because every one has not the perusal of the Complutensian Bibles it may not be improper in this place to give some account of the design of that learned Cardinal in this new Edition of the Bible He affirms in his proaemium to Leo the tenth that every Language has it's peculiar Idioms and Properties of expression which the most accurate Translation is not able to render and especially the Hebrew and a little after subjoins these words †In his Prologue to Leo the tenth Moreover wheresoever the Latin Translators differ or a reading is suspected to be corrupt we must have recourse to the Original in which the Scriptures were writ as St. Jerom and Austin and other Ecclesiastical Writers direct so that the sincerity of the Versions of the Old Testament must be examin'd by the Hebrew and the New by the Greek Copies But who would believe that this Cardinal who speaks so great things of the Hebrew should by and by in another Epistle to his Readers so basely detract from it so that we have reason to suspect these passages were foisted in by others We have plac'd says the Cardinal The same Cardinal in his Prologue to the Reader the Latin
by the assistance of the most Ancient Interpreters seeing in things of lesser consequence the Manuscripts may help For the mistakes are very ancient but the Written Copies of a later age and reformed according to the rule of the Masora So that although as well in the Manuscripts as in the printed Copies the 13. verse of the 145. Psalm be wanting it might be easily supplyed out of the Ancient Interpreters which have it in their translations It is not to be doubted says Grotius Grot. in Psal 145. but that this verse was lost out of the Hebrew Copies through the negligence of the Transcribers for there wants a verse which should begin with the letter Nun. And soon after he adds How will they answer this who would have us stand to all the decrees of the Masorites In which words he aims at our Masora worshippers by whom the Hebrew Text is lookt upon to be the same with what it was in the times of the Prophets So obstinate are they in the defence of their Masora But in these and the like defects the versions of the Ancient Interpreters as well Greek as Latin supply the place of the Hebrew Exemplar Nor is it unusual for the Criticks who Translate Greek or Latin into any other Language to have recourse to more Ancient Translations to Illustrate the Lections of those books which they translate Which was successfully observed by some in the Translation of the N. Testament who called the Latin Interp. to their ash stance Lastly That the plenty of Jewish Exemplars of the Hebrew context fell very short toward the assistance of the Jews of Tyberias is prov'd not only by the Testimonies of R. R. Judas Jonas Aben Esra Kimchi and others who sometimes quote the Manuscript Copies and those the most corrected but also by the Annotations of Ben Hajim who first collected into one Body the dispers'd parts of the Masora and set them forth in Print For he has added other Lections besides the Masoretick to the Margent of the Venetian Bible which he assures us he had gathered from most approved Manuscripts Thus upon the word Chesoos as a crane Isaiah 38.14 He has made this extraordinary annotation in the margent In some Copies it is written ch'sis with a Jod and the notes direct it to be read Ch'soos but I found not this in the Catalogue of those words which having Jod in the middle are to be read with the Letter Vau. In like manner the same Rabbi upon the word ch' Ari makes this observation which egregiously confirms the Translations of the Greeks and St. Jerome of the 22. Psal v. 13. In some corrected Copies I have seen the word spelt with a Vau with a note in the Margent that it was to be read with a Jod I search'd the Catologue of words which are written with a Vau at the end and read with a Jod but I could not find this word in the Number nor in the Catalogue of different Writings between the Eastern and the Western Copies Genebrard Comment in Psal 22. Therefore Genebrard mistook in this place who attributes this Critical Animadversion of R. Jacob Hajim restorer of the Masora to the Authors of the great or final Masora There are also many other Examples of such like Discrepancies which that Rabbi produces out of several approv'd Copies of the Bible which were never taken notice of by the Masorites I will here only add to make the business more plain what offer'd it self to his observation in perusing the Manuscripts concerning the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille or He. Now the Criticks of Tyberias were very accurate in their observations how many times and in what places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Feminine Gender was made use of instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Masculine But that laborious toil seem'd to be very unprofitable seeing that the Manuscript Copies so frequently differ from the Printed in that particular no less than the Antient Interpreters of Sacred Writ Thus Judges 14.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was of the Lord is read in the Text without any Marginal Note of the Masorites yet in one Spanish Copy it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the 21th chap. of the same Book the Masoretick Editions constantly read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any Marginal Annotation yet in one Manuscript it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like manner Dan. 2. one Manuscript Copy reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas in the Printed Exemplars it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now if these things and many others of the same nature which at present I pass by had been rightly known to most of the Protestants they had not blamâ—d the Latine Interpreter whom we have read for these many Ages rendring the words in Gen. 5.15 She shall bruise thy head for that only reason because the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sixtim Anam in Antibarb Here saith Sixtinus Amama it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor is the place corrected by the Masora as if the Masorites had examin'd all the Copies in the World The Masoretick Lection seems so much the more probable indeed because that in many Copies of the Latine Interpreter and those in good esteem in other places we find Ipse He and not Ipsa She as in the modern version So that that version Ipsa She was not presently to be condemned because it differ'd from the Masoretick context For it might be that the Latin Interpreter found it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his own Copy for that in the writing of this Pronoun the Transcribers might easily mistake is apparent from the Manuscript Exemplars Now from what has been produc'd concerning the Masoretick Exemplars there is no man but will easily determine what judgment to pass of the Hebrew Bible now so generally made use of by the Christians as well as Jews But here it may not be improper to add a few words more concerning the most select Editions of those Bibles The Hebrew Bibles The most Select Editions of the Hebrew Bibles whose Editions were over-lookt by the Jews are far more corrected than those which were publish'd by the Christians Wherefore Elias Levita rejected the Bible which was set forth by Bomberg in Folio at Venice Anno 1518. Felix Pratensis leading the way as not being well corrected especially in the Masora which Pratensis seems not to have well understood Therefore that Bible was of much more credit which was publish'd by R. Jacob Hajim Restorer of the Masora at the cost and charges of the same Bomberg For in this there is not only Printed the Hebrew Text but the Targum or Chaldee Paraphrase with Commentaries of the most Learned Jews both upon the Scripture and both the Masora's as well the larger as the less The same Bibles were again Printed at Venice
Anno 1618. But this Edition was much inferiour to the rest there being many things reform'd and amended or rather spoil'd by the Inquisitors especially in the Commentaries of the Rabbins Another Bible was also set forth at Venice by Daniel Bomberg but less exact Nevertheless those are not to be contemn'd which the Jews caus'd to be put forth for their own use at Pisaurum Sabionesa Mantua Frankfort and other places Buxtorf also publish'd a new Edition of Bomberg's Bible which was overlook'd by R. Jacob Ben Hajim which he believes to be corrected in many things by himself especially in reference to the Tittl'd Vowel of the Chaldee Text. But as for the Edition Printed at Basil 1608. it seems much inferiour to that of Bomberg out of which it was taken and is contemn'd by the Jews Imperfect also are the Bibles Printed by Robert Stephens in Quarto and Decimo Sexto and by Plantin in Quarto and in other Volumes compar'd with that which R. Menasseh Ben Israel and other Jews caus'd to be Printed at Amsterdam in Quarto 1635. and in Octavo 1661. Moreover the Jews especially they who inhabit the Eastern parts highly commend an Edition set forth at Venice in Quarto in a large Paper by Lombrosus which contains the Literal Notes The Rabbi also himself explains the most difficult places of the Text in the Spanish Tongue To these might be added other Editions of the Bible and those a great many publish'd by the Jews not only in Italy and Germany but at Constantinople Thessalonica and Hadrianople but it suffices to have given an account of the most remarkable We have also said that the Christian Bibles are not so accurate as those set forth by the Jews but the Christian Characters are far superiour to those of the Jews The Five Books of Moses also are set forth apart by themselves with a threefold Targum and the Commentaries of Solomon Isaac Thus was the Pentateuch printed at Hanovia 1611. with verses distinguished by Number according to the Latin Editions CHAP. IX Whether the Jews corrupled their Bibles of set purpose The Opinion of the Fathers concerning this matter examined ALthough there be a very great difference between the Exemplars of the Hebrew Context which are now extant and those which the Seventy Interpreters and St. Jerom made use of and that in our days they very much vary one from another yet we ought not thence to conclude that the Jewish Bibles were by themselves corrupted in hatred of the Christians as some Divines bearing no good will to the Jews Leo Castro have been pleas'd to report Leo Castro a Spanish Divine urges highly for this the common opinion of the Fathers and produces a great train of their Testimonies After the same manner Johannes Morinus shews himself somewhat too severe against the Jews for though he adjudge this Opinion not altogether so probable yet he musters up a long Catalogue of the maintainers of it to impose upon the more ignorant And what seems to exceed all belief Isaac Vossius among the Heterodox has uttered many bitter reproaches against the Jews as adulterators of sacred Writ But if the weight of their reasons be considered rather than the number of their reasons we shall find their accusations to have quite another face True it is that they condemn under the name of the Jews the versions of Aquilas Theodotion and Symmachus in regard that the Jews continually set them up in opposition to the Septuagint Therefore as often as the Fathers question the Jews for corrupting the sacred Scripture they only speak of those versions or of something like them as hereafter we shall make it appear Upon which accompt St. Jerom labouring to excuse himself for having translated the Scripture out of Hebrew into Latin gives this reason Epist 89. I have not so much endeavoured to abolish the Ancient as to produce those Testimonies which by the Jews are either omitted or corrupted that ours might understand what the Hebrew truth contains In which words he sharply taxes Aquilas Symmachus and other Interpreters whom he frequently calls by the title of Semi-Christians For when the Fathers in their disputes with the Jews concerning the truth of the Christian Religion made use against them of no other Scripture but the Septuagint on the other side the Jews still had recourse to the Hebrew Books that is to Aquila and other Interpreters who had made new translations out of the Hebrew for this reason chiefly was St. Jerom induc'd to make a new translation from the same fountains And for the same reason Origen before him had compos'd his Hexapla with wonderful Art Justin Martyrs Opinion explained The first that comes into the field is Justin Martyr who disputing against Tryphon accuses the Jews of false and crafty exposition of the Scripture As when he objects to them their ignorant and malicous applying the words of the Psalm Psal 110. The Lord said to my Lord to Ezechiah which are only to be understood of Christ As also their misapplication of the words of Isaiah Before a child knows to call his Father and his Mother c. To the same Ezechiah which as he demonstrates ought to be interpreted concerning Christ Then he affirms many things to have been taken out of Scripture by the perverseness of the Jews because they favoured the Christian Religion and then that some words were changed into others However in all this there is nothing argu'd against but the perverse exposition of the context or misinterpretation not against the text it self in regard Justin could give no Judgment concerning the Integrity or falshood of that as being one that was utterly Ignorant of the Hebrew Language which is palpable from the Etymology which he gives of the word Israel This name Israel saith he signifies a man overcoming Power For Isra is a man and El Power But this above all the rest is most worthy observation that Justin by the word Scripture understands nothing but the Translation of the seventy Interpreters So that when he accuses the Jews for depraving the Scripture he also taxes the version of Aquila which in many things differs from the Septuagint Which led several learned men into mistake not heeding what Justin meant by the name of sacred Scripture And thus he condemns the Jewish Rabbies for rashly asserting that there was never any such thing wrote by Isaiah as Behold a Virgin shall conceive but Behold a young Woman shall conceive The whole controversie lies about the Translation of the word Gnalmah which the Seventy Interpreters Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 virgo a virgin But Aquila 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 puella and after Aquila the Jews of that Age. Which Interpretation nothing alters the Hebrew Text. But Justin allowing no Scripture but that which was publickly received for the use of the Church that is the Septuagint opposes the Authority of that Translation against the Jews But you saith he in these things
the Jews as being taken out of the Old yet are not there to be found Such are the words Jerusalem Jerusalem who slewest the Prophets and stonedst them who were sent unto thee c. The same story is related of Zecharia slain between the Temple and the Altar which because they do not appear in Scripture he therefore suspects to have been taken out by the Rabbies Wherefore saith he there was nothing more which the Seers and Princes and Elders of the People more desir'd then to blot out those passages which contained their misdeeds among the People And therefore it is no wonder that they who were not much unlike those Elders in their practices should steal and remove out of the Scriptures the true Story of Susanna against whom the lascivious Elders laid their unjust Accusations Many other Examples might be heaped together out of Origens Works to prove the same thing which many Writers abuse to subvert the Hebrew Text not understanding Origens genius and his proper method of writing Which Eustathius was not ignorant of Eustath dissert de Engastr adv Origen Hieron Apol. adv Ruffin who reproves Origen for every where inserting Opinions contrary to his Writings And this Jerom long before had observ'd not only of Origen but of Eusebius Methodius and Appollinarius who sometimes speak not what they think but what is necessary That too much liberty of Origen was the reason that when he prattl'd without judgment whatever he had drawn out of other Authors he was looked upon as a Heretick for delivering the Opinions of others as his own thoughts These things are therefore diligently to be observed if you would reconcile Origen to Origen never to obtrude for Origens what he wrote only upon probability proper for the Times and the Persons to whom he applied himself Otherwise Origen unconstant to himself will be thought to speak alway contrary to himself as by the example of the present controversie concerning the purity of the Hebrew Text it is no difficult thing to make out For the same Origen who never speaks well of the Jews as corrupters of the Sacred Scripture is cited by Jerom for a most eager defender of the Hebrew truth But if any one shall say saith Jerom that the Hebrew Bibles were afterwards falsified by the Jews Comment in c. 6. Isai let him hear what Origen in his eight volume of Explanations of Isaiah answers to this Question that the Lord Christ and his Apostles who severely reprove the Scribes and Pharisees for the rest of their sins never made the least mention of this which was the greatest But if they shall say that the Bibles were falsified after the coming of our Lord Saviour and the preaching of the Apostles I cannot but laugh that our Saviour the Evangelists and the Apostles should produce Testimonies how the Jews would afterwards falsify Here Origen does not play fast and loose but freely and plainly delivers his opinion what he thinks of the Jews But why the same Origen sometimes affirms the Contrary the same St. Jerom who well understood his humour teaches us in these words Prooem Quest Heb. in Genes I pass by Adamantius whose name if we may compare little with great things is the more envyed for my sake who in his homilies which he speaks to the people following the Common Edition in his larger Disputation surrounded with Hebraick verity troops of his own followers sometimes seeks the aid of a forraign Language Thus Origen proceeded one way with the learned and made use of another method with the common sort and as they say wise with a few what he had gathered from many made those things publick Agreeable to this are those things which Origen writes against Celsus For after he had produced some things concerning the Circumcision of Eleazar the Son of Moses according to the Edition published at that time he presently adds the Text it self with this note But these things which seem more nice L. 5. adâ— Cels and not fit for vulgar ears c. That is when Origen had observed many things concerning the power of names in various Languages according to the principle of the Magi Cabbalists had noted something superstitiously concerning the circumcision upon the eighth day the words of Scripture being cited both Greek and Hebrew as it were correcting himself he omits many things which he thought too far remote from the knowledge of the vulgar acting the part of a Doctor whose business it was to teach the multitude according to the principles of Christian Religion not of Judaism Were these and other things which in prudence I omit but rightly observed in reference to Origens Genius and manner of writing it might be easily discerned how he came to be induced to tax the Jews of falsifying Scripture For in his Homilies to the people he was bound to act the part of a vulgar person and so in his epistle which he wrote to Africanus he followed the opinion of the Ancient Fathers concerning the Hebrew and Greek Copies not daring to depart from it lest he might seem to joyn with the Jews as by the words in the same Epistle he plainly intimates Take care therefore lest through imprudence and ignorance we abrogate those exemplars which are received in the Churches and give an ill example to the Fraternity to lay aside those sacred books which are frequent among them and give credit to the Hebrew Copies as those wherein there is nothing of mistake Then he calls to mind what a dammage it would be to Christianity to favour the Opinion of the Jews concerning the Translation of the Septuagint Upon which occasion he farther adds Consider whether it be not good to remember what is written Thou shalt not remove the Eternal bounds which thy Ancestors have appointed These things I say not that I fear to search the Jewish Scriptures and to compare theirs with ours and to see where they differ for if it be not arrogancy to say so much we have done to the utmost of our power to exercise our studies in all Editions and their differences at what time we more sedulously examined the Interpretation of the Septuagint lest we might seem to have introduc'd any thing of false and Adulterate into the Churches under Heaven and should give an occasion to those who seek a pretence to calumniate those which are in the middle between both and to accuse those which are commonly used By which it is manifest that Origen did not entirely approve the Opinion then vulgarly received concerning the Jewish Copies but only for Government and convenience sake in regard that among the Learned he taught the quite contrary nor does he seem much to value the Reasons which he produces in his Epistle For he adds a conjectural expression as it were doubting Which perhaps saith he was done by craft on set purpose by the Jews To all which we may add that the probations of these things which he
or in what Age they liv'd Concerning their Antiquity also the Christians much dispute while others led by the Testimonies of the Jews believe their Paraphrases to have been made about the time that Christ liv'd upon Earth Others think them later than Origen or St. Jerom because they neither make mention of them Yet it might be that in those very times they were known to the Babylonish Jews where they seem to have had their Original but not being yet reduc'd into one body they were not made commonly publick And thus I have lighted upon some Exememplars of the Pentateuch to which there was added to every word of the Hebrew Text an Exposition in French yet a French Paraphrase upon the Law of Moses was never yet cited by any of the Jews And therefore it is very probable that certain Doctors of the Babylonian Schools expounded the Hebrew words in Chaldee for the benefit of the people out of which in process of time an entire Paraphrase was compil'd And to make me so believe the purity of the Chaldee Language wherein they are written induces me Which is to be understood of the Paraphrase only that goes under the name of Onkelos upon the Law of Moses and of that other upon all the former and latter Prophets which are attributed to Jonathan For that same Jonathan or whoever else were the Author of the Paraphrase upon the Prophets did by no means compose that other which is publish'd by certain Jews under Jonathan's name so different is the stile of both which I wonder was not taken notice of by Huetius and other Criticks who confound this same Pseudo-Jonathan with the True and Antient Jonathan as if one and the same Author had paraphras'd upon the Pentateuch and the Prophets But as for that story of the Talmudick Doctors of the Voice that spoke from Heaven to deter Jonathan from explaining the Hagiographers there is no wise man but takes them for the dreams of the Jews But first we are to take notice of what has been observ'd concerning the diversity of the Babylonish and Hierosolymitan Dialects by the same Elias who seems to set little or no value upon the rest of the Paraphrases which are extant upon the Hagiographers because they were written by men of no name To which we may add that their Authors frequently swerve from the words of the Hebrew Text foisting in the room of those Talmudick Fables and Stories of the same nature Onkelos and Jonathan stick much closer to the sense of Scripture and yet sometimes they are not so very careful to express it verbatim as Elias the Levite testifies But saith he The Paraphrasts do not always observe the Rules of Grammar For sometimes they render the Praeterperfect tence by the Future and the Future by the Praeterperfect tence and sometimes the Participle by the Praeterperfect tence and Future Sometimes they interpret a Verse as they judge most agreeable to the Targumick Language not so much minding the Biblick Context To this Elias adds the Testimon of Salomon Isaac whom we erroneously call Jarchi who observes Onkelos not to be very curious of the Grammar of Scripture but to have follow'd his sense and judgment in many things and sometimes those Paraphrasts have omitted not only whole words but whole sentences For indeed it is the common Fate of all Paraphrasters who translate Books out of one Language into another to follow the freest method of translating So that if there occur any difference from the Translation it is presently to be referr'd to its Cause and Original and we are diligently to enquire what might have been the Product of the various Readings of the Codex's and what might be alter'd according to the Fancy of the Interpreter However this is chiefly to be taken notice of that the Writing of the Chaldee Paraphrases was heretofore very confus'd and disorder'd For there was no Analogy of Orthography the Letters Vau and Jod being without any distinction made use of and inserted into words without any signification In like manner the Author of the Chaldee pointing observ'd no method in putting the Titles to the Chaldee Context as Elias the Levite plainly testifies who was the first that polish'd the Chaldee Language Now how difficult it was to frame a Chaldee Grammar I rather chuse to shew from the words of Elias himself than my own Many saith Elias ask'd me whether a Grammar could be fram'd for these Targumims I answer'd according to my own sentiments that I could not do it in regard the Exemplars vary'd among themselves as well in words as in letters and altogether in the points which differ'd almost beyond all possibility of reconciliation And that proceeds from hence because the Paraphrasts wrote their Versions without points which were not yet invented as I have truly demonstrated in my Preface to Masoreth Hammasoreth To this we may add that the most Antient Exemplars are all without points because the Authors of the Masora never pointed them as they pointed the rest of the Scripture But a long time after they were pointed by one or more persons tho of no note as they thought good Therefore there is no Analogy observ'd neither can there be any method produc'd for the making of a Grammar And indeed unless it were so who could imagine that from the time that the Targums were compos'd there should be no persons among the Jews who had Erudition enough to frame a Grammar as Rabbi Juda did who was the * In this Elias is mistaken in affirming R. Juda to be the first Grammarian among the Jews when there was before him Rabbi Saad as whom he afterwards nominates first Grammarian of note whereas before him there was no Hebrew Grammar But because he found the Sacred Books of Scripture noted with points and accents as also furnish'd with a Masora by the Masorites he began to assist the Israelites and to enlighten the exil'd Jews with his Grammar Him follow'd R. Jona and after him came R. Saadas Gaon and after them an innumerable company of Grammarians But there was no person who animadverted upon the Targum to correct what was amiss all slighted that business so that it came forth perverted which is only preserv'd Therefore I began to think of a way whereby every one might be able to make a Targum Grammar in such a manner that he might take his foundation out of such things as were wrote in the Books of Daniel and Esther and only upon that might build his superstructure and deduce his Grammar Rules if not altogether yet in part Soon after he adds these words in the same Preface In times past before the Art of Printing was invented there was not found above one Targum in the City and one in the Country Therefore there was no man who minded them But there were many Exemplars of the Targum of Onkelos found because they were bound to read two Sections of Scripture and one of the Targum every
seems to make it a point of Conscience to deviate from the Context the Translation agrees so exactly word for word with the Hebrew Text the literal Translation and the obsolete words used no where but in the Synagogues render it very obscure if we may give any Credit to the Preface of this Translation the greatest part of the Translation is Pagninus's but I think the Jews therein had a better opinion of Kimchii Aben Esra and other Rabbins whom Pagninus consulted than of Pagninus when they openly profess they allowed that they thereby might not incur the danger of the Inquisition It is very likely that Abraham Vsque a Portugal Jew did make use for the perfecting this Translation of some old Spanish Rabbins who had long before his time read the Hebrew and Spanish Bible in their Synagogues There is this in that Edition of Ferrara worth observing that the Interpreter was so well convinced of the difficulty of Translating the Bible that he has put Asteries where he finds the sence dubious and could not be definitive in a thing of so great difficulty these words are to be found in the Preface And it is to be noted that in the place marked with an Asterism thus * it is a mark to assist ye in the Exposition of the word and somtimes of various Opinions But the Jews who Printed the Second Edition with Amendment in the Year 1630. have left out most of the Asteries whereas there was more need to augment than diminish that Number but what profit the Christians can reap from a Translation which the Jews scarce understand is not manifest if the ridiculous affectation of Aquila a contentious Translator was reprehended by the Fathers sure none will approve of this affected Translation which has more regard to Grammar than to the sence of the Context Cassiod de Rena Isaiah 9.6 Cassiodore de Regna blames his Exposition of these words of the 9. of Esaiah Vocabitur nomen ejus admirabilis consiliarius Deus fortis pater futuri seculi princeps pacis as they are in the Vulgar Edition in that he forcing the words contrary to the genuin sence attributes these words princeps pacis to the Messia and all the others to God But the Translator here and in other places is byassed by his Countrymen yet in this he is inexcusable in that he hath not kept so close to the Rules of Grammar which he hath profest for he hath prefixt the Article el marravilloso consejero and elsewhere whereas the Hebrew prefix ha the same with the Spanish Article el is not prefixt in like manner he errs in other places whereas he hath Translated the first Verse of the Psalms Psalm 1. v. 1. bien avanturado el varon when according to the Rules of Grammar it should have been Translated bien avanturancas de el varon as it is in the Hebrew but we will pass over these Subtilties CHAP. XV. Of the Translations of the Bible of greatest Authority with the Christians and first of the Septuagint ALtho the Greek Translation of the 70 Elders is publickly read by the Jews in their Synagogues and Schools Various Opinions of the Greek translation of the Bible yet I think it not amiss to rank it among the Translations used by the Christians for the Christians have long since received it from the Jews and to this our time is retained by most Churches But the Disputes about its Authority and Translators not yet decided may be a wonder for there be some who deny its Authority therefore others who highly maintain its Authority in all esteeming the Translators as Prophets inspired by the Holy Spirit Others again of a middle rank between these two extreams do highly value this Antient and to be honoured Translation of Holy Writ yet in some places they think it not Authentick I willingly pass by the History of the Translators as it is in Philo Josephus and in several Greek and Latin Fathers because known to most The Fathers borrowed the greatest part of this History from Aristaeus in his Book The judgment of Aristaeus of the Translation of the Divine Law out of the Hebrew into the Greek by the 70 Interpreters and a part since invented by the Jews The learned Critics have thought Aristaeus's Book in part suppositious suppose the Book that goes under Aristaeus's name were not suppositious I should think them no wiser that quote him for the Truth of this History then he that thinks Xenophons Cyropaedia to be a true History of Cyrus for as Tully upon the first sight perceived that Xenophon did not act the Historian but that in Cyrus he gave a Model or Pattern of a just Emperor so it may easiy be seen in the Reading Aristaeus that he is more Romantick than a true Historian We may easily guess from the Context that some Hellenist Jew writ this Book in favourof his Nation The Writer of this History according to the Genius of his Nation speaks great things and Miracles For he relates when King Ptolomy wondring that the Writers of other Countries made no mention of that Excellent works he bring in Demetâ—ius answering him thus Because says he it is a Holy Law given by God and because that some going about the Translation have been diverted by being punished by God and that Theopompus when he would have inserted some thing out of that Law not so well translated was Distracted for above thirty days and that during some little intermission of his Distraction having prayed to God to let him know the reason of his Distemper God revealed to him in a Dream that what had hapned was because he went about to publish to the World Sacred things and that at length when he had desisted from his Enterprise he was freed from his Disease And he farther tells us of one Theodectes a Tragical Poet who when he had inserted into his Play something of the Laws of Moses was struck blind till he had reflected upon what he had done and had intreated God by his Vows These truly are more a Romance than a History and sufficiently shew the Genius of the Jews which always delighted to invent Miracles there is such another Story of a Voice from Heaven which did frighten the Writer of the Chaldaean Paraphrase from the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures moreover the Supposititious Aristaeus seems to contradict here for where he speaks of Theopompus he tells us That the Law of Moses was before this translated into the Greek Tongue but if it were so why did they so earnestly desire another Translation wherefore Baronius and other learned Men with good reason rejecting Clemens Alexandrinus's Authority chiefly induced by this reason say that the Scriptures were not translated before into Greek and that there was no Translation whatsoever before that of the Seventy Elders Neither can you say Joseph Sealig inaâ—imady Chron. Eâ—seb Ger. Voss lib. 1. The Greek History this first Translation to
manner Vossius contrary to S. Jerome in his Judgment concerning the Language of the Septuagint which is certain notwithstanding the endeavours of a certain person to deduce the word from a Greek Original because he has the care of the business of the Land For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Land and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Solicitude or care Now how far the Greek Interpreters have deviated from the genuine sence of Scripture in the c. 24 ver 23 of the same Prophet where we read in the Latine Edition The Moon shall be ashamed and the Sun shall be confounded St. Jerom truly observes in these words Instead of that which we Interpret The Moon shall be ashamed and the Sun shall be confounded The 70. have Translated the words the Brick shall be melted and the Wall shall fall And by and by he discovers the reason of the mistake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because that instead of the Hebrew word Levana which signifies the Moon they read Lebena which signifies a Brick and instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chammah which signifies the Sun from his heat they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chomah which signifies a Wall But I stay too long upon these things in regard that St. Jeromes Commentaries upon Isaiah may be read by every body where he frequently taxes the Greek Interpreters of Mistakes sometimes deceived by the Ambiguity of words sometimes upon other accompts However sometimes he spares them as in the 30th Chapter where after he had condemned their inconstancy of Interpretation by and by as it were correcting himself he adds I am apt to believe they did not err from the beginning but that they were deprav'd by the negligence of the Transcribers And E. 40. where he notes some things omitted by the Interpreters he presently adds as it were in some doubt either omitted by the Septuagint I terpreters or by the fault of the Transcribers In like manner sometimes he corrects the Greek Exemplars according to the Hebrew Copies least the mistake should be put upon the Interpreters as upon these words Chap. 45. Thus saith the Lord to my Annointed Cyrus he truly observes that most of the Latines as well as the Greeks did very much mistake in believing the words to be written Thus saith the Lord to my Lord For the Text doth not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Lord but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Cyrus who in Hebrew is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Curosch The same things are to be seen in St. Jeromes Commentaries upon Jeremiah Ezekiel and other Prophets And indeed there is nothing more frequent in his Commentary upon Jeremiah then his observations of things omitted by the 70 or at least of passages not to be seen in the Greek Exemplars For sometimes he accuses the Interpreters sometimes the Transcribers In this Commentary also upon Ezekiel where he observes the Omission of the Creek Copies he presently adds In divine Scripture it is better to take all in that is said though thou understandest not wherefore it is said than to take away what thou dost not know Nevertheless in the 5th Chapter of the same Prophet he scarcely dares adventure to accuse the Interpreters where he says 't is much better to Translate what is written then to seek to defend a thing ill Translated Nor do we say this was done by those to whom Antiquities has given Authority but that after many Ages it was deprav'd through the negligence of the Readers and Writers though both Aristeas and Josephus and all the Schools of the Jews assert no more than only the five Books of Moses to have been translated by the 70 Interpreters Nor is it only in this place but in many other that St. Jerome seems to deny that any other part of Scripture was translated by the 70 unless the five Books of Moses as upon the 5th Chap. of Micah where he has these expressions The Interpretation of the 70 if were done by the 70 for Josephus writes and the Hebrews assert by Tradit on that only the five Books of the Law of Moses were Translated by them and dâ—livered to King Ptolomy vary's so far in the place cited from the Hebrew Truth that we can neither set the Chapters right nor expound their Sentences together But Vossius is of a quite contrary Opinion who not only seeks every where a Defence for a place ill translated to use the words of St. Jerome but openly testifies that he makes no question but that the Prophetical Books were also translated by the Seventy Interpreters though formerly he made a doubt of it And which seems to be above all belief if we may credit Vossius the Greek Interpreters shew themselves most accurate in the more obscure Books of Job and the Proverbs But I believe there is no person sikll'd in both Languages who will agree with him in this particular so trivial is the Greek Translation of those Books in many places St. Jerome sometimes taxes the Greek Interpreters without cause Yet am I not such a one as to pin my sleeve so passionately upon St. Jerome as every where to appove his Errors which are very many Thus not to go farther in the 27th Chapter of his Commentaries upon Ezekiel He taxes the Seventy Interpreters for putting down the Sons of the Rhodians instead of the Sons of Dedan deceived perhaps by the likeness of the first Letter whilst they read Radan for Dadan But that this mistake is rather to be attributed to the Transcribers then the Interpreters those Verses which follow in the same Chapter plainly demostrate where the Seventy write Dedan as in St. Jeromes Translation Again in the 33th Chapter of the same Prophet where mention is made of Gog he observes that the Greek Interpreters in the 24th of Numbers for Agag in the Hebrew have made use of the word Gog But it is a manifest mistake of the Transcriber But to omit a thousand thnigs of the same nature the Observation of St. Jerome is much better in his 40th Chapter of the same Commentaries almost all the Hebrew words and many in the Greek and Latine Translation were Corrupted by long Antiquity and deprav'd through the negligence of the Transcribers and while they are Transcribed out of bad Copies into Copies more corrected of Hebrew words they are made Sarmatic nay of no Nation at all while they cease to be Hebrew and become Forraigne Therefore are those things most carefully to be distinguished and according to the Rules of Criticism which St. Jerome taxes as ill translated by the 70. For as he has rightly display'd the most of their Errors Praef. in l. 7. Com. in Ezech. So he corrects many things which deserve not to be found fault with Nor is it to be wondred at when St. Jerome himself testifies that he could hardly compleat his Emendations in regard there was not an hour scarcely a Moment wherein he did not meet with
70 would have clamour'd against me as one Sacrilegious and not fearing God especially they who when they differ in the Truth of Faith and follow the Errors of the Manichaeans incense the minds of the ignorant as if they could shew any thing changed from the ancient custom rather desired to err then to learn truth from one whom they Emulate And after something more of this Nature he again adds against Ruffinus and others his followers who reviling his Translation reproach him for a Heretick and an Apostate Our Latin yea envious Christians and that I may speak more plainly Hairs of the Grummian Faction bark against me why we discourse according to the Hebrew If they do not believe us let 'em read those other Editions of Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion let 'em examin the Hebrews not in one place but in several Provinces and when they find them all agree with me in my Error or Ignorance then let 'em understand themselves to be overwise and rather desirous to sleep then learn and let 'em inhabit in the 70 Cells of Alexandrian Pharos Lastly he does not spare the very Eyebrows of the Bishops to use his own words who endeavours to oppress whomsoever they see powerful in the Church and to Profess the word of God But I spend time in vain his Apologies against Ruffinus being every where to be had In which he strenuously defends the reason of his Version and shews how much he profited in his Study of the Scriptures under his Jewish Masters and how much by the same Instructors Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius and several others advantag'd themselves who while they dispute about the Scripture and endeavour to prove what they say produce the Jews for Witnesses and Patrons of their Opinions And because Ruffinus had objected to St. Jerom that while he made his Translation he was not inspired with a Prophetic but a Judaic Spirit He answers Would it not seem tedious or rather would it not savour too much of vain Glory I could shew thee what an advantage it is to wear out the Thresholds of good Masters and to learn Art from Artificers For St. Jerom wrote an Epistle to Pammachius entitled concerning the best manner of Translating wherein he refuses the Calumnies of one Palladius who at the Insligation of Ruffinus had bespattered his Translation He there shews by many Examples that it is not the duty of a good Translator to translate his Authors verbatim when neither the 70 Interpreters nor the Evangelists follow'd that Method of Translation Aquila saith he a Prosel te and contentious Interpreter who endeavoured to Translate not only the words but the Etymologies of words is deservedly rejected by us Concerning the 70 Interpreters in the same Epistle he has this expression It is new too long to enumerate how much the 70 have added of their own how much they have omitted which in the Exemplars belonging to the Church are distinguish'd by Lines and Asterisks These and many other things of the same Nature he throws together into the same Epistle to vindicate his own method or Translation somewhat more free and loose then some of the rest from the Calumnies of his Adversaries and to the end his Detractors might understand That the sence and not the words were to be considered in Scripture Let 'em not think saith he that the State of the Church is endangered by me if through hast of dictating I have omitted some words Readily therefore St. Jerom acknowledges that in framing a new Translation of the Sacred Text he chiefly consulted the Jews as his Leaders and Instructors neither does he question but that many things might slip him as a man so far was he from the Opinion of those who asserted him in that undertaking to be inspir'd with the Holy Ghost whom Mariana egregiously refutes What avails it saith that learned Jesuite after so many Ages to strain for new Fictions to set up new Prophets Shall we call him a Prophet who in the framing his Translation follows sometimes the Greek Interpreters sometimes the Jews of his Age upon whom he more frequently depends Can he be said to be a Prophet who frequently but chiefly in his Commentaries upon the Prophets doubts of the Genuine Signification of the Hebrew Words 'T is true I knew Pagninus and other Writers especially of the Protestant Belief who deny'd that Version to be St. Jeroms which for many Ages has been read in the Eastern Churches but if you except some few Books of that translation which it is certain were not rendred by St. Jerom as they are extant in the Edition no person truly candid will deny but that this Interpretation which goes about under the Title of the Vulgar was really made by St. Jerom though there be something in it of the ancient Latin Version which before St. Jeroms time was only esteemed in the Church So that in some places which however are very few there does appear the reading of the Ancient Version or else a mixture of both And clear it is that that same Translation was made by some native Latinist from the Hebrew Original Now who in the whole Latin Church beside St. Jerom at that time understood both Languages that is the Hebrew and the Latin But they that desire to know more of these things let them consult Austin Eugubin and John Mariana in their Writings upon this Subject Now that we may more perfectly understand the Nature of that Vulgar Edition we must take notice that St. Jerom tho he confesses himself not to have expressed the Words of his Text verbatim and like a Grammarian nevertheless sometimes he sticks more close to his Words then the 70 or the other Interpreters so that he is not always like himself in his Translation Again we are to observe that the modern Lection of the Hebrew Text is not so often to be corrected from the Translation of St. Jerom as it disagrees from it for thohe make profession to have followed the Hebrew Truth yet sometimes he forsakes it to follow the Greek Interpreters Neither do I think that the Hebrew Exemplar of his Masters which he frequently opposes against the 70 Interpreters is to be preferred in all things seeing that St. Jerom himself had no Original Exemplar of the Hebrew Text neither do I think we are to give Judgment upon the Version of St. Jerom by the later Translations which frequently vary from the other but we must have recourse of necessity to other Grammer Rules then those which have been set down by our late Instructors as hath been at large demonstrated and which it is no difficult thing to confirm by many Examples I shall therefore produce only enough to puzzle the less skilful We find according to the vulgar Edition in the oth of Zachary ver 11. these words Thou also in the Blood of thy Testament hast sent forth thy Prisoners out of the Pit but according to the Hebrew Exemplars it ought to be rendred I have sent
forth thy Prisoners and the Pronouns Thou thy thine are in the Feminine Gender and so make the Sence far different from that of St. Jerom which agrees with that of the Seventy Interpreters Many to defend the vulgar Edition in this place reject the J wish Exemplars as corrupted by them on set purpose But it is much more proper to say that the same Pronoun in the Feminine Gender is taken sometimes for the same in the Masculine which the Masorites of Tyberias allow who added the pointed Vowels to the modern Context And thus they demonstrate the same thing to have happened in three places of Scripture which they cite Wherefore if the same occur in any other places which the Masorites have omitted the antient Translators are not therefore presently to be accus'd because they do not agree with the later In the same manner St. Jerom may be vindicated for translating the word Thou hast sent when according to the Hebrew he ought to have translated it I have sent For this difference of Translation arose from the Letter Jod which is noted by the Mazorites to be often superfluous The Mazorites themselves reckon up 43 Places mark'd jather jod that is throw away Jod as redundant Thus Jer. 32 v. 33. where we read Thou hast taught in the second Person The Hebrew word is written with Jod at the end as if it should have been rendred in the first Person And indeed in the lesser Mazorah it is marked to be read without a Jod and in the second Person as Jerom renders it But I pass by these things and many others by which it might be made out that the Latin Interpreter is often undeservedly reprehended by those that do not understand him and measure all things by the Rules of their own Skill CHAP. XX. Concerning the Authority of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church and first of the Vulgar In what Sence it may be said to be Authentic The authority of the Ancient Version of the Church AS it is a thing that seems to be rooted in men by nature to be opiniated in their own Disputations and to be so presumptuous as to take sometimes those things which are false and unjust for Truths so it chiefly happens in this present Argument where the Writers seem to fight for their Lives and Liberties Thus the Jewish Rabbys seem to be incited by no other reason to avouch their Manuscripts to be free even from the slightest Faults and Errors but only as they are Jews and read no other Scripture in their Synagogues than the Hebrew Text. In like manner the Greek and Latin Fathers in the primitive Times of the Church embracing the Greek Version of the 70. Interpreters as Divine preferr'd it before the Hebrew Copies for that the one were skilled in the Greek Learning others preferr'd the Latin or Vulgar Edition of the Bible altogether used by the Latin Church and Translated from the Septuagint not understanding the Greek Therefore is the wisdom of the Fathers of the Council of Trent highly to be applauded for this that they by their Suffrages declared Authentick that Version which being publickly received and made use of in the Church was in every bodyes hands that is which was solely esteemed Authentick among the Latins Nor does that antient Lati Edition which was read for many Ages in the Eastern Church before Jerom's Translation less deserve the Name of Authentic than the modern Vulgar only there is this difference between the one and the other that the other was not declared Authentic by the publick Decree of the General Council Prologue 10 de vulg There Walton is in an Error who denyes this antient Vulgar Edition to have been Authentick as well saith he for that it was translated from the Greek which we have demonstrated not to have been Authentick nor can the Rivulet have more Authority than was in the Fountain nor can any Version be said to be Authentick unless the Interpreter wrote it with the same Spirit as the first Author which never any man affirmed as to this Version nor had the Church of Rome rejected it and entertain'd a new one had she judged it to have been Authentick But Walton understood not what was meant in the Decree of the Council of Trent by the word Authentick while he confounds Authentick with Divine and Prophetical all the while he treats upon the Argument now in hand Therefore it is necessary to consider what the Fathers of the Council of Trent intended should be understood by the word in Controversie Vulgarly among the Lawyers the word Authentick signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the French interpret Originale or Original And in this Sence the Exemplification of a Will is distinguished from the Authentick or Original and Authentick Tables are said to be those which are first drawn from whence as from the Original Copies are made In this Sence the Hebrew Context cannot be said to be Authentick because the Originals of the Hebrew Codex are lost and there remain no other than Copies Therefore the word Authentick is taken by the same Lawyers in another Sense and so Version in their Books carrys the Name of Authentick Thus the Latin Translation of Justins Novels is call'd Authentick because it was rendered out of the Greek verbatim and so it is distinguished from another Version the Author of which is said to be Julian Patricius which is only a Latin Epitome of those Constitutions The first Exemplar was called Authentick as much as to say True and no way maim'd as Antonius Contius has observed Now in this Acceptation of the word Authentick there is nothing which can offend the Protestants But if we must not derive the signification of this word from the Lawyers where it had its rise the same word is several times repeated in the Acts of the Fifth General Synod Where when the Exemplars which Macarius the Patriarch of Antiochia and other Monothelite Bishops offered to the Fathers of the Council were read over again presently the Legates of the Apostolick See replyed That the Testimonies of the Fathers were maimed by Macarius and his Companions Thereupon they require the Authentic Copies to be sent for from the venerable Patriarchal Treasury of the Royal City of Constantinople and to be compared with the Exemplars produced by Macarius and the other Monothelite Bishops There Authentic is no more than that which is not adulterated or of suspected Credit Nor did the Tridentine Bishops pronounce the Latin Version which was only read in all the Eastern Churches Authentic in any other Sense Nor can the Words of their Constitution be wrested to any other Exposition if they be but a little more attentively considered For they were in Consultation about selecting one out of many Versions of the Scripture which were then publick in the world and because the Authors of most were Persons of suspected credit it was in prudence thought fit by those Bishops that
rather mix'd then Pure Those variations which arise from the different marking of the Numbers I pass by as for example Judges 16. Where the Hebrew and the Vulgar read 1100. the Syriac Version numbers 1300. 1 Sam. c. 6. for 50070. in the Hebrew Greek and Latin the Syriac reckons 5070. But no man can be ignorant that there are frequent variations of numbers in all Books of the same nature There are other Examples of different Readings of more moment in the Syriac Translation which altogether alter the Sence such are some in the Book of Joshua especially in the division of their Allotments to the several Tribes Another Alteration there is in the Syriac Exemplar where all the Inscriptions of the Psalms are left out on purpose to put others in their places The reason of which seems to be for that anciently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Argument of the Psalm was prefix'd at the beginning of every Psalm Whence it came to pass that the Hebrew Inscriptions of the Psalms which did not explain the Psalms to the liking of the Syrians were omitted and others added by the Syriac Rabbies As to the Syriac Language and it's various Dialects I shall say nothing at present in regard that many have already learnedly handl'd that Subject We are only to discourse of those things which concern the Syriac Version Therefore what before we have observ'd touching the Jewish Exemplars to which the Rabbies of Tiberias added the Points that supply the place of Vowels that is now to be noted as to the Syriac Exemplars to which the Syrian Doctors have added the Pointed Vowels which now appear in their Coppies Therefore Walton is in an Error who believes that Gabriel Sionita the Maronite of Mount Lebanon was the first that inserted pointed Vowels into the Syriac Exemplar He was the first saith he speaking of this Gabriel who pointed it and added the Latin Interpretation of the same For before all the Manuscripts were either destitute of points or if any word or vowel happen'd to be pointed in another it was omitted one Syllable pointed and another naked as we see at this day in the Manuscript Copies That this is partly true I will not deny for that the Syriac written Copies some have more some have less points at the pleasure of the Transcribers who nevertheless seldom omit the Principal Yet I have met with Manuscripts that have been exactly pointed Abraham Echâ—llensis In Ebed Jesu a Maronite of Mount Lebanon testifies also that he had by him some Books written in the Syriac Language above 300 or 400 years before compleatly furnish'd with all the Points Then again in most Copies they never omit any Points but only such as are of no use in reading which may be easily supply'd by the Reader As we find in the Syriac Edition of the New Testament which was first publish'd by Vuidmanstadius wherein some Points are omitted which are of little use And therefore the Industry of Gabriel Sionite a most learned person is not so much to be applauded for his adding points to the Copies but he is rather to be commended for this for that with great labour and toyl he corrected the most of the Errors which are extant in those Manuscripts though that Edition does not seem to be so absolute and perfect neither Of the Arabic Translations The Arabick Translations seem to be of much less Authority which are read at this day by the Easiern Christians Nor do they seem to be so ancient as the Syriac For the most of them were made publick among the Syrians as well Jacobites and Maronites as Nestorians when the Syriac Language ceas'd to be familiar when they were subdu'd by the Saracens who introduc'd the Arabic among them The Coptic also or the Christian's that inhabit Egypt had their Bibles written in the ancient Coptic Language which they still retain but because that Coptic Language was known to very few there was a necessity to make new Arabick Versions which might be understood by all So that the most of their Books which are made use of in their Churches are written both in Coptic and Arabic Therefore it is very probable that the Syrians Translated the holy Scripture out of the Syriac into â—â—abic such as were those Arabick Exemplars at the end whereof we find the Arabic Version to have been Translated from the Hebrew that is from that Syrian Translation which the Syrian's call unmixt By the same reason we might affirm that the Exemplars of the Arabick Versions which follow the Greek Copies of the 70 were not so much Translated from the Greek of the 70 Interpreters as according to the Syriac which was Translated from the Greek though it be probable that the Sect of the Melchites took their Version from the Greek Copies as they did most of those other Books of which they make use But whether there were any Version of the Scriptures before that time I shall not now enquire it being certain that most of those Versions now us'd by the people that inhabit the Eastern Regions are not now the same which in former times were made use of in the same Country And indeed should that Arabick Version publish'd in the Parisian and English Polyglots be throughly examin'd it would be found very imperfect full of faults and Errors Thus the Arabic Book of Joshuah though toward the end it may be said to be Translated out of the Hebrew yet it appears to be a mixture of Greek and Hebrew or rather Syriac Besides the Author of that Translation many times shews himself a Paraphraser not an Interpreter and he makes no scruple of altering the Sence of his Text. In the Book of Chronicles we find the names of Greece Turkie Chorasan Sclavonia France Cyprus and the like Yet all the Errors of that Version are not to be imputed to the Arabian Translator the most without doubt being committed by the Scribes Thus Jos 11. We read in the Arabic Version Nabin King of Caesarea whereas in the Hebrew Text and ancient Translations it is Jabin King of Hasor In the same Arabic Version Joshua is said to have assail'd the City of Caesarea which was the Metropolis of several other Cities and Judges 3. instead of the Hebrew word Pesilim which signifies Idols the Arabic reads Palestine Lastly some Errors have crept into the Arabic Exemplars through the incertainty of the pointed Vowels For the points are no less defective in the Arabic then in the Hebrew and Syriac The Coptic Versions The Coptic Versions of the Bible which were anciently made by those Christians that inhabited Egypt seem to be of more Credit then the Arabic For they carry a semblance of more Antiquity And if we may believe Kircher who had by him some Exemplars of those Versions we may look upon 'em to be as ancient as the Council of Nice But not to content about their Antiquity certain it is that they were read in the Churches
Version of St. Jerom betwixt them i. e. the Hebrew and the Translation of the 70 as it were betwixt the Synagogue and the Eastern Church like two there 's one on each hand but in the middle is Jesus i. e. the Roman Church For this alone being built upon a strong and lasting Rock stood always firm in the Truth when all others deviated from the right understanding of the Scriptures a comparison highly unworthy a Cardinal of the Roman Church which yet Nicholas Ramus a Spanish Divine too and Bishop of Cuba has transfer'd into his Tract of the Vulgar Translation San. Pignin a Dominican first publish'd a Version of the holy Scriptures according to the Hebrew Original in the year MDLXXVII with two Epistles of the two Popes Adrian the Sixth The Version of Pagnine and Clement the Seventh in the front of the Book who both strengthen his Edition of the Bible with their Authority and before this time Leo the Tenth had approv'd Pignine's design of making a New Translation of the Bible according to the Hebrew Original 't is evident as well from the Epistle which Franciscus Picus wrote to Pagnin as from Pagnin himself that he spent at least thirty years in that Work insomuch that it had the approbation of all the Jews of that Age for an accurate piece Yet some great men amongst the Catholicks have judg'd otherwise of it For Genebrard describes it thus 't is not dâ—ligently done 't is too ambitious too curious too Grammatical too much affecting abbinical niceties and such as often mars the Truth and Substance of things with the subtilty of Novel Precepts Whereupon sometimes it corresponds not enough with the Doctrine of the ancient Hebrews And Joannes Mariana confirms this with instances of his lapses who endeavours to make it out that Pagnin has sometimes overthrown the mysteries of our Religion by receding too much from the Version of St. Jerome as in the ninth Chapter of Job where Jerom renders it rursum circundabor pelle meâ I shall be again clothed with my Skin and thence proves the resurrection of the Body Pagnin Translates it postquà m pellem meam contriverunt after they have consumed and worn my Skin and in the first Edition of his Version had interpreted it more obscurely post pellem meam contritam vermes contriverunt banc carneâ— and after my consumed Skin the Worms have consumed my Flesh adding words which are not extant in the Hebrew and yet Monsieur Huel gives quite another Character of Pagnines Version than Genebrard Mariana and other very learned men whom I forbear to mention He has given us says he an example of almost a perfect and compleat interpretation of the holy Scriptures But it 's evident that Pagnine err'd in many particulars For first he declar'd that he would keep close to the Latin Interpretation except in such places where 't was absolutely necessary to do otherwise Notwithstanding which he often deserted it without any colour or shadow of reason only that he might follow Kimchi and other latter Ribbins of the Jews For how came it about that for these words in the beginning of Genesis which in the Vulgar Translation are Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas the Spirit of God mov'd upon the Waters he should render Spiritus Dei superflabat in superficie aquarum the Spirit of God breath'd upon the Face of the Waters unless because the Chaldee Paraphrase and some Doctors of the Jews had so explain'd it Again who could brook the Version of the same Pagnine in the sixth Chapter of Genesis who for these words which in the Latin Edition are nòn permanebit spiritus meus my Spirit shall not always abide he put nòn erit ut in vaginâ speritus meus my Spirit shall not be as if 't were in a Scabbard He was not content to explain the Sense of the Hebrew word only but likewise the Etymology of it just as Kimchi had done it Wherefore he shew'd himself a foolish and quarrelsome Interpreter As Aquila of old had done in speaking so barbarously Thus where the Latin Interpretation has it in the 1 of Gen. and the 20 vers producant aquae reptile let the Waters bring forth every creeping thing He Translates repere faciant aquae reptile let the Waters make every creeping thing to creep and in another Edition reptificent let them creep c. Neither does he always follow the Sense of the Hebrew Text thus in the 8 Chap of Nehemiah the Latin Interpreter excellently well renders these words from the Hebrew legerunt in libro in lege Dei distinctè they read in the Book in the Law of God distinctly But Pagnine contrary to all Sense and Reason Translates it so legerunt in libro in lege Dei expositi They read in the Book of the Law of God Expounded in which place he contradicts himself for in his Dictionary those very words are otherwise explain'd Other remarks which might be made upon Pagnine's Version I shall for brevities sake omit Arias Montanus was not the Author of the new Version of the Bible he was content to correct Pagnines Translation in some places But having a more then ordinary regard to the bare Grammar Rules never minding the Sence he outwent Pagnine in his barbarousness He spent his whole time in expressing the Hebrew exactly without any respect to the Sense thus in the 9 of Exodus where Pagnine has pretty well render'd novi quià nondùm timeatis I know because ye will not yet fear the Corrector Arias Montanus turn'd novi quià antequà m timeatis I know because ye fear before that The Hebrew word Terem has doubtless a different signification in one place it signifies priusquà m before that in another nondùm not yet which Arias never minding turn'd it to that Sense which comes next to hand An infinite number almost of such absurdities may be found in this Translation which I advisedly forbear to mention Who for Gods sake can understand Arias's Interpretation of that Verse of the 110 Psalm where for these words which we read in the Vulgar Edition tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedec thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec In Pagnines Version secundùm morem Melchisedec thou art a Priest after the manner of Melchisedec Arias turns this way tu es Sacerdos in seculum super verbum meum Melchisedec thou art a Priest for ever upon the word of Melchisedec Monsieur Hewet did indeed attempt defending him in this and openly styl'd him a most faithful Translator who keeping close to the Hebrew Text despis'd the censures and calumnies of the unskilful yet certainly he does not seem to deserve the name of an Interpreter who does not in some measure express the Sense of the Author which he Translates But notwithstanding all this Arias Montanus is very famous among all Learned men for that vast and truly Royal Work of the Polyglot Printed at Antwerp which
to the Jewish Doctors who were the first Authors of them Sextus Senensis gives us his opinion of this Translation in these words Munsterus ubique horridus senticosus asper usque adeo Hebraici sermonis horrorem sequutus est ut cum multa Latinis auribus molliter accommodare potuisset omnes tamen Hebraici sermonis proprietates phrases adeo servare studuit ut nec ipsos Hebraicorum nominum stridores pretermittere voluerit ingerens Latinis auribus ubique pro Ozia Uzzijah pro Ezechiele Jechezohel c. But I wonder that Sixtus should be so nice and critical seeing he so highly commends Cajetan Pagnin Oleaster and some others who affected a far more barbarous and unpolite Style Likewise Gerebrard treats him with as little candor and moderation passing a sharp and severe censure upon him Munsterus saith he neglecta vocum propria notatione sepe Lutheranisabat a sue Franscisci institute discedebat Certainly none of the Modern especially Protestant Translators have more fully and emphatically express'd the genuine sense of the Hebrew Text than Munster who cannot deservedly be blam'd for any thing but for slighting the antient Interpreters of the Holy Scripture and adhering too closely to the late Jewish Doctors neither is he so rough and harsh in his stile abating some proper names as Sixtus and some others fancy him to be Huâ—tius who seems the most impartial and unbiass'd in his Judgment gives him this Character Sebastianus Munsterus Bibliorum Interpres sane doctus in Hebraica semper stilum collineans ad eaque nunquam non se componens Yet without doubt he had gained greater applause if according to the advice of Conradus Pellicanus his Tutor in the Hebrew Tongue he had chiefly followed the Rabbins in Grammatical niceties consulting in other things as well the Antient Interpreters of the sacred Text as the modern Jews and then he had not disagree'd with the Latin Translators in so many particulars as he did For what necessity was there that for Crescite multiplicamine implete aquas Maris which we find in the vulgar Translations he should put Fructicate augescite implete aquas in fretis which words carry a far harsher sound with them than the former Likewise Leo Juda a Zuinglian Translated the Old Testament or at least the greatest part of it out of the Original Hebrew into Latin and because he died before 't was quite finish'd Bibliander and P. Cholinus completed it Bibliander turned the eight last Chapters of Ezechiel and also Daniel Job Ecclesiastes the Canticles and 48 Psalms out of Hebrew and Cholinus translated the books which the Protestant Divines call the Apocripha out of Greek This Translation was first published at Zurich in the Year 1543. and afterward in the Year 1545 there came forth a second Edition of it by R. Stephanus but without the name of the Author and with the vulgar Translation on one side as we have intimated before But the Parisian Divines rail'd and inveigh'd bitterly both against the Edition and the Publisher of it so that after many hot and wrangling disputes about several things belonging to the Bible Stephanus was at lenght forc'd by the prevailing party to leave his Country and to fly to Geneva for Sanctuary there he writ his Apology against the Parisian Divines and published it both in Latin and French wherein he made grievous complaints of them but in most things he showed himself to be an Innovator and a rigid follower of Calvin Yet he was defended in some things even against the Parisian Divines by P. Castellanus Bishop of Mascon and grand Almoner of France who often carried the matters in controversie to the hearing of the Kings Council for he had observ'd how the Parisians through their Ignorance of the Tongues had laid many things falsly to his charge Neither did this Translation of Leo Juda escape the Censures of Genebrard who thereby got the Favour and Patronage of the Parisian Divines he himself being one of the same faculty But Stephanus was entertained with far more courtesie and civility by the Spanish Divines who without any scrupulous enquiry after the Authors name or without any regard to the censures of the Parisians reprinted this Edition at Salamanca with some small variation of the notes and moreover judged it worthy to be read of all those who were inquisitive after the true meaning of the Scripture 'T is true that Leo Judae render'd some Hebrew words less properly than Munster but be took more care to accommodate them to the Latin Phrase So that he cannot justly be accused for any thing but his translating by way of Paraphrase purposely to avoid obscurity Sobast Castal Interp. The most famous and generally receiv'd Translation of the Bible is that of Castalio of which there are several Impressions But that is accounted the best which was made at Basil in the Year 1573. Sixtus Senensis giving us his Judgment of Munster and Castalio avers that they fall into both Extremes one of them being harsh barbarous and unpolish'd in his Stile and often inclining to the Jewish Idiom the other being as prophane as a Heathen foolishly affecting the Proprieties of the Languages of the Gentiles fancying his Latin could not be pure and elegant unless it were soft and effeminate Sixtus gives several examples of his prophane expressions Castalio saith he calls God the Father Jupiter Divus Armipotens Gradivus Caelicola likewise he calls Angels Jovis Genti Prophets Vates fatidici and holy Men Heroes Genebrard gives an excellent description of him and his Translation in these words Versio Castalionis est affectata Geneb praef in op Orig. plus habens pompae phalerarum quam rei firmitatis plus ostentationis quam substantie plus fuci quam succi plus hominis quam spiritus plus fumi quam flamâ—ae plus humanarum cogitationum quam divinorum sensuum But he is handled more severely by the Geneva Doctors and especially Theodore Beza who upbraids him with ignorance and rashness for his profane imitation of Catulus in his Translations for in the Canticles he does not use the plain word Columba but mea Columba Mea Columba saies he ostende mihi tunâ—â— vulticulum fac ut audiam tuam voculam venustulam lepidum vulticulum habes capite nobis vulpeculas parvas vinearum vastatriculas In this Book he plays the Poet rather than the Interpreter but every where he assumes the liberty of connecting the Periods and Verses that his Translation might appear more graceful and elegant as is evident in the first Chapter of Genesis which begins thus Gen. 1.1 In principio creavit Deus Coelum Terram cum autem esset terrarudis qâ—que iners tenebrisque offusum profundum divinus spiritus sâ—se super aquas libraret jussit Deus ut existeret Lux c. Beza and some other Geneva Doctors will only allow him to be a smatterer in the Hebrew Tongue but with
of the Emperour Charles the Fifth but we can have no certainty of that Edition because the year of the Impression disagrees with somethings contain'd in the Priviledg viz. that the year 1530 was the first year of the Reign of Charles the Fifth who was made Emperour in the year 1529. Besides in the same Priviledge the Inquisitors and some other Divines are mention'd who had the inspexion of that work but at that time and in these places there was no Inquisition To these things may be added another observation drawn from the third Chapter of Genesis where we find these words Ipsa conteret caput tuum which occur in the Latin Edition to be render'd the same way in this Translation as the Protestants render them viz. cette semence brisera ta teste Moreover in the Preface to this Translation we have the same division of the Scriptures which we find in the Protestant Bibles for there these Books are only reckon'd to be Canonical which were writ in the Hebrew Tongue and receiv'd into the Jewish Canon But we may give a probable answer to all these Objections First some error may be couch'd in the Priviledge as we may gather from some other Editions of this Translation Secondly 't is very probable that the true Inquisitors are not mention'd in the Priviledge Thirdly 't is no wonder that he find cette semence c. in the French Translation because the Translation tells us that he follow'd the old Interpretation Lastly the Author of this Translation who also Translated the Edition of St. Jerom as may be seen in the Title Page might have imitated St. Jerom in the division of the Scriptures at that time there being no Decrees of the Council of Trent against it Neither did Cardinal Cajetan who writ a long time after give any other division of them I shall not say any thing at present of the Divines of Lovain whose Translation is generally read among the Catholicks and which hath been several hundred times Printed and Re-printed and also accurately corrected Which work they did not attempt upon any other account but that they might draw the Common-people and the unlearned from the reading of the Geneva Bibles which were then had in great esteem Likewise those Divines who Translated the Bible into the English German Polish Hungarian and some other vulgar Languages profess they did it on purpose to divert the Catholicks from reading Protestant Translations 'T is said that a Manuscript Copy of the Bible was found in Province in the Language of the Country Translat Waldens which I fancy was made by the Waldenses in their Mother Tongue not the pure French John Leger Hist des Vall. John Leger a Calvinist who composed the History of that Sect makes mention of it and tell us that he has likewise a Copy of it German Versions There were Bibles likewise in Germany in the Dutch Tongue read by Catholicks before the innovations of Luther as some Writers affirm who prefer the Norimbergh and Augustan Editions before the Lutheran's after this Joannes Eckius Dictenbergerus and others oppos'd the German Translations to those of the Protestants James Wowiezkus a Jesuit Presbyter Polenian turn'd the Bible into the Poish Tongue at the command of Gregory the 13th and his Version was afterwards approv'd of by Clement the 8th We have read likewise that there were Versions of the Bible in the English Tongue from the time of Bede but at this time the English Catholicks use an English Version made by some English Divines who fled to Rheims in France and there publish'd a Version which they mightily oppos'd to those of the Protestants a late Writer attests in these following words that there were Spanish translations of the Bible from the time of St. Vincentius sirnam'd Ferrarius la Biblia en lengua Valenciana con licencia de los Inquisidores à cuya translacion assisto S. Vincente Ferrer And affirms that 't is publish'd in Folio in Royal Paper in folio de papel Real Socrates and Sozomen praise a much more ancient and Gothic Version done by Vulphile a Gothic King The Version into Arabic done by a Bishop of Sevil when the Spaniards were under the Dominion of the Moors is commended by some I omit Jeroms Version into the Dalmation Tongue because 't is fictitious and foisted in by those who understood not that Learned Fathers words where he says he has given the men of his Tongue a translation of the Scriptures For by Men of his Tongue he means those who understood Latin than which expression there is nothing more frequent in his Writings when he designs the Latin in opposition to the Greeks who read Origen's Hexaple's CHAP XXV Of the Bible done into the Vulgar Tongue by Heterodox Translators IN the days of Pope Innocent the third a French Translation of the Bible done by some Heterodox Divines was publish'd at Metensium whereof that great Prelate did not a little complain being informed by the Bishop of the above-named place that no small number of the Laity Men and Women made it their business to read a certain French translation of the Bible that they frequented secret Conventicles slighted the public worship and defying the Catholic Clergy to the face began to floot at their simplicity Which aforesaid translation might probably be borrowed of the Albigenses people of that time Neither did the Wicklevists in England want their Vulgar translation whereof I hear that something is as yet remaining Now we may observe that these and such like translations were done only out of the Latin by reason their Authors were unskill'd in the Greek and Hebrew tongues Martin Luther a man of a bold and refractory Spirit was the first who took upon him to do an old Copy out of the Hebrew and a new one out of the Greek into the Mother tongue who was a smatterer only in the Hebrew when this his impolish'd and erroneous translation a translation afterward rejected by men after his own heart came to cope with the Vulgar Latin which for many years before and that in the judgment of all Divines was generally received and approved both in Churches and Schools And yet the Gentleman sticks not to be his own Trumpeter and applauding himself for a Linguist boldly asserts that as for all the stratagems of Popery all the tophitical Tyranny of the School-men yea and the whole Kingdom of Antichrist he had invaded subdued and totally overthrown them Nay if we may believe him he telleth us that he and his Languages were a terrour even to Lucifer himself The Devil saith he is not so much afraid of my Faith and internal Courage as of my Tongue Pen and knowledge in the Holy Scriptures But this Patriarch of the German Protestants as not resting very well satisfied I suppose with the first Edition of his Translation wherein he presumes to have repulsed the Armies of the Devil and to have shaken off the Popes tyrannical Voke set
his Brains a work for a more accurate Version though his second attempt was so far from being embraced by the more wise of his followers that Sebastian Munster was not affraid to give his Master the Title of a very Fable Translatour Munst praef on the Bible and Notes on the 2d Chap. of Jonah and no great Conjurer in the Hebrew This made Bucer maintain that Luthers Translation was faulty and Melchior Zanchius write a whole Book of the Authors Errata Hence it was that the Zinglians confided in themselves and turned the Hebrew Bible into the German that sighting Luthers poor endeavours they cast themselves upon one Leo Judas though these proceedings were not well taken by the above mentioned Translator Hence it was that the Low-Country Protestants mighty Adorers of this High-German Translation together with those of Suecia Finland Denmark Ireland and the rest of the Northern People who had formerly stuck close to Luthers Errors openly declare their readinss for a new Translation of the Bible being that That of Luthers was done all in a hurry and that as John Leusden Hebrew Professor in the University of Vtretcht testifies Luthers Works lay under a great many gross mistakes whereof some indeed might inveagle themselves in but that others without dispute arose the sluggishness of the Author slumbring over the Low-Dutch Translation And yet as Mr. Luesden tells us the Anabaptisis stood up Tooth and Nail for this Lutheran Translation resenting it very highly that Johannis Vrtenovis should take upon him to Correct Martin Luther upon the New Testament Though the Protestants of Low-Germany in the Synod of Dort as they call it rejected Luthers Translation which with all kindness they had formerly caressed looking upon it as spurious and degenerate an off spring nothing related to the Mother Hebrew wherefore they were delivered of a Translation of their own and Christned themselves the Revisors and Interpreters of Dort Now 't is our Province to enquire what order and method Martin Luther observ'd in his farewel Translation of the Scriptures Since he publickly asserts that the Hebrew is void and ineffectual that the Jews are not men to be believed and that St. Jerom himself in Translating the Scriptures was not inspired with Christian wisdom jumping into Ruffinus his opinion who gave out that the above named Holy Father was a Jew in heart For he wonders that any Christian will concern himself with the ridiculous Comentaries of the Jews The Jewish trifles saith the same Luther argue their Authors to know little or nothing of Holy-Writ and yet forsooth these are the Idols of our Modern and Famous Divines Divines most dexterous in the Hebrew Tongue and yet the most apt to hunt after such like whimsies He hath likewise a touch upon those Rabbys whose Talent is most commonly employed and laid out in Grammatical affaires decrying them thus That they may know perhaps the Nominal and bare signification but as for the real and intrinsic that they are ignorant of it and that therefore nothing of soundness and solidity may be expected from them Hence it is that he rejects the Hebrew Translators and their adherents as a pack of Fools Ideots who would pretend to shelter the Jewish Translations within the roof of the Scriptures And he thought it much better that the more obscure places of Scripture should be expounded by the Analogy or Rule of Christian Faith than by any Rabinical Books by reason the once lost Hebrew is impossible to be retrieved and that the true signification of a great many words in that Language is yet unknown even by the Jews themselves as well as by the Christians The use and knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue saith Martin Luther is so much lost and estranged that it can never be recovered neither do the words only but also the very Phrases and Construction lye under a most doubtful and various obscurity Hence it comes to pass that we know not the force Figures and Emphasis of a great many words and sentences which if any Christian may ever sift out so as to know their meaning he must necessarily be one of those men who with the help of the New Testament hath acquired to himself the full knowledge of the Scriptures That several particulars in this Method of Luthers may be hooted at is past dispute more especially those objections which he offer'd against the Translators of his Time in that they depended too much upon Rabbinical Books And yet the true reason why he pretended to calumniate these men was because they had spoke against the impropriety of his Translation Luther I surmize was in the fault when he stood dissatisfied not only with the Books of the modern Jews but also with St Jerom and the ancient Interpreters whom when he had strangely disrespected he betook himself as though all the world were Fools but his worship to a certain imaginary rule of Faith upon the faith of his own Brain Moreover being no great Critic in Grammer he was found guilty and condemned of several misinterpretations so that truckling under Prejudice and Opinion he giveth us for these words in the 4th Chapter of Genesis Possedi hominem per dominum I have gotten a man from the Lord. Possedi hominem Dominum I have gotten the man Lord. Certainly Luther was no stranger to the Cabalistical Doctor 's Opinion who out of this place would gladly raise up a Messia Besides Luther in the first Edition of his Translation had rendred these very same words thus acquisivi hominem Domini I have got the man of the Lord which Interpretation was much more disconsonant to the Hebrew Text than the other For truly it was not possible that such a Novice in the Hebrew should not sometimes lye under most palpable mistakes Wherefore his own Disciples were not affraid to revise and correct their Masters Translation a Translation I confess which they allowed some elbow room within the Bible and descended so far as to write their own corrections in a different Character or to imprison them within two stroaks which you may see in the Vinariensian Bible where Luther's Translation and the abovesaid Animadversions are exposed to the view of the World yet how much men of his own principles esteemed it we may easily conjecture since the Corrections added to it procured it the general applause of the Lutherians as the most accurate Edition Paulus Eberus who calleth himself Pastor of the Church at Wittenberg used the Protestants in the same manner as Isidorus Clarius did the Catholicks This man corrected the vulgar Latin and added thereunto Luthers German Translation declaring that in as much as was possible for him he followed the ancient Latin Translator whom notwithstanding you may afterwards find very much ashamed of his Animadversions having so low thoughts of his endeavours that he desired his Bible might not be republished because that being distracted by other business when he compos'd it he had run into some mistakes
Now there is extant a German Translation done by the Doctors of Tigurino and chiefly of Leo Judas who was most particularly concerned therein which Translation openly opposes that of Luther And yet the same Doctors of Tigurino forged a new one as though the former Version had not been found and good The Authors of this late Translation are are as I hear Hottinger Heideker Mulerus and others who have translated the Hebrew words almost verbatim Piscator a man of great account among the Calvinists is reported to have done a Bible into the German tongue who though he relyed upon Junius and Tremelius their Latin Version yet he did not hang back but kept a full pace with the above named Translators The low German Translation which was taken into consultation at the Synod of Dort in the year of our Redemption 1618 came forth in the year 1637 and by orders of the higher Powers was done into Low-Dutch immediately out of the Hebrew and not from Martin Luthers High Dutch Translation was found errouneous Neither doth the Low-Dutch Translation want its faults arising from a more than ordinary dependance upon the Expositions of the Modern Jews who were rashly supposed by them to understand the Hebrew better then all the World beside And thereupon this Translation met with brisk opposition from some of the the Protestant Faction and Low-Germany the Country wherein it was hatcht was quickly markt out with the brand of novelty and affectation Mr. Leusden Hebrew Professour in Vtrecht a man before commended taking upon him to argue for the Low-Dutch Translation among the rest of his proofs produces as arguments the Corrections of the vulgar Latin by Sixtus Quintus and Clement Octavus Popes of Rome But the true reason why these two Prelates should Correct the vulgar Latin was far different from that of the Low-Country Protestants The former Animadversions without vain affectation desired only to make the vulgar Latin answerable to its ancient Copies whilst the latter sort of men magnifying the Hebrew varities which they pretend always to stand by set out every day and jump't up new Translations of the Bible which as soon as they come a little in vogue the Authors of them presently perkt up show their faces and ridicule the Old Translatour making it their end and aim to build up their Yesterday Opinions upon these new and unheard of Translations being the sole way they make use of to thrust their monstrous Doctrines into the Church and which they do openly acknowledge saying That the Sun of the Eastern Languages arising they betook themselves to the Hebrew Fountains the better to find out and confute the errours of Popery the better to establish their Religion That the English Protestants was cloy'd and overcharged with the numerous Translations of the Bible the bare words of the Bishop of London in his conference at Hampton-Court may be of sufficient evidence If each man begins the Bishop had his peculiar fancy we could never expect an end of Translation wherefore the good will and pleasure of his most Excellent Majesty 't is that some uniform Version be thought upon adding moreover that then he had never met with an English Bible well Translated and was very well satisfied that among the bad ones that of Geneva was the worst where he then thought expedient that the most Learned in both the Vniversities should confer notes together and make up a Translation which being first revised by the most Learned Bishops and Privy Council should at last be established by the Kings Authority The which being done the Church of England will be confin'd to one Translation and no more We may easily from hence conclude with what noyse bustle and dispension the diversities of Bibles came accompanied into England under the different Names of Tâ—ndal and Coverdale Thâ— Matthews Tonstal and Hethe Parker Archbishop of Canturbury and other Bishops the last named persons being the Author of a Bible Entituled the Bishops Translation Now the Geneva Translation which King James will have to be the worst is the same with the French Bible Printed at Geneva the which was made English and Read in Great Britain by some of the Geneva Profession As for the History of these and such like Bibles you may have it in Durel and Fuller's State of England Most wisely therefore did King James the first of the Name of the Kings of England Establish That rejecting and making void all other Translations which were then us'd in the Nation some new impartial and unaffected Translation should be composed Likewise he made a Law for Interpretation and ordered those who had the overseeing of it to go from the Bishops Translation as little as possible willing that some particular words which were in a manner Consecrated to the use of the Church should be retained as the word Church it self which signifies a public meeting and by the Decree he reprimanded the Geneva Reformadoes who had foisted in other Names commanding for these mens sakes that all Marginal Notes and Annotations at the beginning and end of the Bible should be struck out as things of bad consequence and the snares of the common People These and a great many more particulars of the like Nature were order'd by the Kings Royal Authority and accordingly effected so that to this intent there is no Translation made use of in the Church of England than the English one only set forth by his Majesties especial command To which Translation truly their Book of Common Prayer may bear some resemblance which Book except the Version of the Psalms hath been so far from the least alteration that it hath been used in their Publick Worship ever since their Reformation in the Reign of Edward the Sixth Though it be a general Opinion that the English had a Translation of the Bible in English done by Wiclift and that before the above named King began his Reign which Translation together with that which was abroad in England in the Reign of King Henry the Eighth was done into English out of the vulgar Latin Also Cochlaus will tell you that Luther's Translation of the New Testament was made English Besides all this there is a common report that a Bible was published at London in Welch that James Vsher the Bishop of Armaugh turn'd a new Copy into Irish and Mr. William Bedd an old one and that both of them are supposed to have been burned CHAP. XXVI Of the Translations of the Bible which were writ in the vulgar Tongue and their Rise from the Geneva Schools WE find not any French Translations of the Holy Scriptures and done out of the Hebrew and Greek which went not to School at Geneva neither do I omit that Translation which may seem to be composed by Renatus Benedictus one of the Parisian Divines since the Geneva Translation and the aforenamed piece are most nearly related as I shall hereafter make evident Robertus Olivetanus born in Picardie and a nigh kinsman of Jo.
was nothing formless and darkness covered the abyss and that the Spirit of God hover'd over the waters God said let there be Light doing it word by word out of the Latin Translation wherefore Theodore Beza mightily complained of it as likewise of the Latin and inveighs bitterly against the Divines of Basil that they should suffer Castalio's French and Latin Bible to be published at that place condemning both those Versions as prophane and the Author himself as no great Proficient in the Hebrew which Beza tells you he Learned from the most Expert Hebricians tho he himself had no skill in the Language And yet Castalio was not so meer a Child in the Hebrew as not to outstrip the Geneva Translators which he did in several places hundreds whereof I omit tho I cannot pass by the Hebrew word Tannanim in the beginning of Gen. render'd by the Latin cete grandia and by those of Geneva Grandes baleines which this Gentleman translated very well and most significantly grands poissonnars The Spanish Translation Here I had almost forgot the Bible Translated into Spanish by Cassiodorus de Reyna and Cyprianus Valerius Reformadoes The one of these men telleth you in his Preface that he followed Pagninus and the Jews The other Gentleman sheweth Himself not so much a Translator as an Animadverter upon Cassiodorus his Endeavours To speak plainly neither of these pretending Translators understood the Hebrew That there was a Translation of the Bible done in Italian by the Protestants may be probable The Italian Translation since Robertus Olivetanus speaketh of two Bibles in Italian whereof he was an Eye-witness That the Author of the one was Antonius Brucciolus we have before observed tho the Author of the other Translation is not yet known CHAP. XXVII Of the Polyglott Bibles BIBLES have the appellation of Polyglott from the several Tongues wherein they are penned Now the Jews of Constantinople are said to have published two Copies of Moses his Law in serveral Languages the first whereof gives you the Hebrew Text the Chaldee paraphrasely Onkelosius the Targum or Arabic Paraphrase by R. Saadius Sirnamed Gaon or the excellent and the Persian Version by Tausus The other presents you with not only the Hebrew Texts and Chaldee Paraphrase but a Translation in the vulgar Greek and another in Spanish and both of them writ in Hebrew Characters with the Rabbinical points which supply the places of so many Vowels And some points may be found both in R. Saadias and Tausus his Persic Translation though it may be worth our while to observe that the Jews who pointed R. Saadias his Translation did therein have a greater regard to the vulgar Arabic Translation than the true and Grammatical which may be seen by the Alcoran and made apparent from these first words in Genesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Compare these with R. Saadias his Copy which in the Bible printed in England is Grammatically pointed though you may perchance find it in a new and different Equipage in the Bible published at Paris and you may easily see the difference of the Judaical method of pointing from the true and Grammatical And I will give you a small Specimen of the Vulgar Greek and Spanish Translations because you cannot meet their true Copies in any Europaean Libraries drawing my example from the 6 Version of the 1 Chap. of Deuteron placing the Hebrew as an unprejudiced impartial Arbitrator between the Spanish on the on side and the vulgar Greek on the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first Polyglott was published by Fran. Ximeniuâ— of Sineros Cardinal and Archbishop of Toledo and was vulgarly called the Complutensian Bible Here you may take a prospect of the Hebrew Text the septuagint and a Latin Translation supposed to be St. Jeroms together with a Chaldee Paraphrase upon the Pentateuch Now the reason of this Illustrious Cardinals attempt is laid down in his Preface to Pope Leo the 10th since that every Language hath its proverbial proprieties whose full energie may not be expressed by the most compleat Interpretation which more especially happens in the Hebrew Tongue it must likewise come to pass that where there is so great variety of Latin Books and so many false readings there must then an appeal be made to the Original Language as St. Jerom St. Austin and other Ecclesiastical Writers are pleased to tell us so that the right reading of the Books of the Old Testament is to be tryed by the Touchstone of the Hebrew-truth and those of the New-Testament by the Greek Copies and yet in another of his Prefaces to the Reader he seems to deny the Hebrew verity to recriminate the Jewish Books an useful method whereby he might with lesser difficulty bring in vogue the Old Translations of the Church for he declares that when he had placed St. Jeroms Latin Translation between the Greek and Hebrew Tongues he fancied he beheld our Saviour or the Catholick Church between two Thieves Certainly a most unworthy similitude and not fit to come out of the Lips of so eminent a Cardinal touching the Chaldee Paraphrase He saith he only published that part which related to the Books of Moses and as for the remainder upon the rest of the Old Testament he looked upon it as corrupt and unworthy to be bound up with the Holy Scripture This is the method observed in the Complutensian Bible and the Author Cardinal Ximenius is to be commended that he did not compose a New Translation different from St. Jeroms and yet would certainly have been more applauded if he had taken notice of the places where the Translatour follows St. Jerom a little too hard and deviates from the Hebrew Text. For truly Criticks go about to remark that St. Jerom's Translation as we have it now is not all of a make but hath some little mixture of the Ancient or Italian Herein I quote the most Learned Cardinal that he rectified the faulty Latin Edition which yet he had the happiness to perform in general namely where he endeavoured to correct the Latin Translator without the help of Latin Books neither came he well off in reforming the Greek Copies with the Hebrew though he solemly declares he had nothing to do with the Vulgar surreptitious Copies but the most ancient and least faulty He published a Book of the words in the New Testament and professes that his sole aim herein was to present the Reader with the bare Letters only without spirit or tone He saith 't was an easie case to mannage That the ancient Greeks never troubled their heads with such like punctillâ—'s Now why he did venture upon the Septuagint after the same method he giveth this reason namely that it was bare Translation and not Text as is the Greek Edition of the New Testament In fine Cardinal Ximenius superadded to these his abovementioned works an Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary which he did not take up upon trust at the Shops of the Rabby's
but had it at the best hand of the Ancient Interpreters Arias Montanus at the expences and by the Authority of Philip the 2d King of Spain republished the Complutensian Polyglot with no small augmentation which in process had the spacious Title of Kings Phillips Bible A Book which beside the Hebrew the Septuagint and St. Jerome's Latin Translation of the Complutensian Edition gives you a fair prospect of the Chaldee Paraphrase upon the remainder of those Books in the old Copy which Cardinal Ximenius gave to the Library at Complutensian together with the Syriac Translation of the New Testament done into Latin Neither would Arias Montanus influenced by Ximenius his example suffer his Book to contract acquaintance with any Translation save that of St. Jerome's and yet that a Latin Translation might not be wanting to render the Hebrew Text verbatim he inserted in the end of his Book San. Pagninus his Latin Translation with his own animadversions whereby the Hebrew might be better understood This grand elaborate and princely undertaking tho it was approved of by the Divines of Spain Lovaenium and other learned and pious Men nay even by the Universal Bishop himself Gregory the 13th yet it groaned under the common fate of all Books was carp'd at and pinched by the men of Leeth These were the detracting sort of People who objected that Arias Montanus had put in Execution a most bold rash and nefarious attempt in daring to publish that corrupt and monstrous Paraphrase which Ximenius had ordered to be laid up in the Colledge Library at Complutensia And there were some Jews who thinking that the Chaldee Paraphrase was a great Pillar to keep up the superstitions of their Religions wished all health and happiness to King Philip the 2d a Defender as they supposed of their Rites and Ceremonies In the mean time one Franciscus Lucus of Bruges a great Divine and a man of vast Learning took up the Cudgels ägainst these impertinent Detractors and made an Apology for the Chaldee Paraphrase Besides Arias Montanus declares that Cardinal Ximenius himself had thoughts of publishing the same Chaldee Paraphrase and that he had thoughts of adding a Latin Translation to it only putting out the Fables Doubtless that princely Work deserves to be had in estimation with all Divines though it be defective in some particulars as carrying along with it all those deformities which we took notice of before in the Conplutensian Bible For the Greek and Latin Copies are the same that were published by Cardinal Ximenius Arias Montanus did not so much reform San. Pagninus his Latin Version as he did corrupt and spoil it for pressing the Hebrew which too closely he frequently commits toto casu and making a great noise about a little Sense does often miss of the proper import of the words Besides Arias caused a better method and more Copious Index to be published as containing more Lexicons and Grammars than that of the Complutensian Bible though many unnecessary things might be left out which make nothing for his purpose The liberal expences of Cardinal Ximenius and Phillip the Second were far exceeded by an Eminent Person of this Age Michael Le Jay of Paris who undertaking to Publish the Polyglot Bible at his own charge spent his whole Patrimony in Printing of it before he had finish'd so great and wonderful a work First then they took care to have all that was already extant in the King's Bible reprinted in a fairer Character and to these he joyn'd the Samaritan Books viz. the Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch with the Samaritan Translation and the Syriack and Arabick Versions of the Old Testament distinguished by points with their Latin Interpretation a thing scarce credible ever to have been attempted In this business he was assisted by a very Learned man Gabriel of Sion that came from Mount Libanus in the Holy-Land and in some few Volumns by Abraham an Ecchellensian one of the same Nation But that part which contains the observations of several worthy men upon the various Editions of the Bible is wanting in this work and through the negligence of those that were intrusted with it it happen'd that the Copies of the Greek Translation by the Seventy Interpreters and the Latin one by St. Jerom were both composed anew the very same with those in the Kings Bible the Greek Edition after the Vatican Pattern though corrected and amended was omitted and the Copies of the common Edition were laid aside though they had been by Commissions from the Popes strictly examined after the most ancient and best approved Books and that by the Hands of several Excellent Persons and judicious Criticks However I pass by those faults which occasioned by the Transcribers oversight in the Syriack and Arabick Books do yet in great part remain Besides that the Latin Expositors not perfectly understanding the Syriack and Arabick words have often sailed in expressing the sence Lastly to this vast Work are perfixed certain Prefaces which recommend it's usefulness But in this the brave Mr. Le Jay proves his own Enemy for depending totally upon such men as were partly byass'd in their Opinions by prejudice especially John Morin otherwise a man of competent Learning he extolls the Jewish Books and sticks not to prefer them before the ancient Translations of the Church but what seems scarce 0 credible he possitively asserts that it ought to be granted as a certain and undoubted truth that that common Edition which passes about in the vulgar Tongue of the Catholick Church is the true and genuine Original of Holy Scripture But the Fathers themselves at the Council of Trent durst not pass any such decree concerning the Latin Books To no purpose has that Liberal Gentleman drained his Purse in Publishing such voluminous peices of the Polyglot Bible if it appear that the Latin comprehends the proper and Primitive Scripture and that we must have recourse to him as the true Fountain In like manner vindicating the interpretation of the Seventy Elders he draws an Argument solid enough in his Judgment from a Mahometan Author who as to matter of Chronology rejected the Hebrew Books of the Jews and Samaritans and adhered to the Greek Interpreters from whence Mr. Le Jay concludes that the Seventy Interpreters were in the highest esteem not only amongst the Christians but Mahometans too Indeed 't is very probable that Mr. Le Jay to credit the antiquity of the Arabick Versions which he himself first published would not stick to say that by the help thereof St. Jerom had restored the seven or eight hundred Verses of Job which were lacking in the old Translation and this his assertion he confirms by St. Jerom's own Testimony who before his Translation of the Book of Job had premised that in it were missing about seven or eight hundred Verses and that in compiling it he had not followed any of the ancient Translators but had collected sometimes the words sometimes the sence and often both at once out
of the Hebrew Arabick and sometimes Syriack Languages But that St. Jerom hereby mentioning the Arabick Tongue did not mean the Arabick Version is a thing so well known that it needs no proof these words of the Learned Father signify no more than that the Book of Job was difficult to be understood since the Author thereof had notonly used Hebrew words but also Syriack and Arabick For the better understanding of which he avers that with a great sum he ransom'd a certain Master called Lydaeus who was thought to be of great repute amongst the Hebrecians Scarce had the Parisian Bibles got abroad when in England the famous Walton and other divers persons begun to think of committing these same Bibles to the Press again to be of less bulk and not so large a Letter that this New Edition of the Polyglots might be readier and more convenient for the use of such as studied the holy Scriptures This matter succeeded as happily as was expected so that these Polyglot Bibles appeared in publick in the year 1657 and are vulgarly called the English Bibles containing six Volums They are indeed much inferiour to the Parisian Heptaglots in the largeness and goodness of the Paper as also the neatness of the Character But they have this advantage chiefly that every context and version may be discerned by the Reader in one single glance as it were and with little trouble compared one with another which cannot be done in reading the Parisian Polyglot without turning over two vast huge Volumns together Again they are to be preferred before that of Paris in that they contain truer Copies of the Greek Versions of the Septuagint and the Latin one by St. Jerom the Greek being first borrowed from a Vatican Book at Rome was afterwards Printed at Paris the Latin purged from innumerable Errours by the Study and Authority of Pope Sixtus the Fifth and Clement the Eight Besides all this you have the Arabick and Syriack Translations of Ester Judith Tobias and some other few Books which are not extant in the Parisian Bible either in Arabick or Syriack The English Edition has likewise a threefold Paraphrase one called the Hierosolymitan another that of Pscado Jonathan both which are writ in mixt Chaldee and a third Tausus his Persian Paraphrase It has also the four Gospels in the Persian and a Egyptian Psalter all which the Parisian Polyglots want In the mean time Monsieur Le Jay having consumed his Estate in publishing the Paris Bibles complains much of his sad Fortune and inveighs against the English men as Plagiaries who had taken his Work out of his hands and had published nothing except some few things of very little importance but what he had set forth before Truly the Gentleman ought to be pitied who had lavishly wasted all his substance in hopes of future gain But the English men in publishing such Polyglots as are more convenient and better suited to all necessities do really deserve Commendation and had deserved it much more if they had set out the Versions of the Oriental Nations especially the Arabic which lay dorment in their Libraries and are of better note than those which were published in the Parisian Bibles For it had been much better to have set forth the Copies of the Arabic Pentateuch with the Obelisks Asterisks and others of Origen his Notes which are reserved in the Library at Oxon than to have composed anew that Old patched Paraphrase of R. Saadias which was extant before in the Parisian Polyglots But what seems more strange is that the infinite number of faults which the Parisian Edition is stuff'd with especially in the Syriac and Arabic Versions as also in their Latin Interpretations should yet be found in the English one nor taken notice in the critical Animadversions made upon the last Toâ—e Much more might be objected against the English Edition which I omit since nothing can be absolutely compleat and perfect But the most notable thing in it is the Animadversions prefix'd to the fore-front of the Book though this Preamble hath it's failings too for it seems to be composed by several Authors who differing in Opinion about the same matter become contrary Parties this is the cause why Walton in whose name this Book first appeared in publick sometimes talks a little incoherently ANIMADVERSIONS Upon a small TREATISE OF Dr. Isaac Vossius's Concerning the ORACLES OF THE SYBILLS AND His Answer to the Objections in a late Treatise Entitl'd CRITICA SACRA LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXXIV ANIMADVERIONS UPON A Small Treatise Concerning the ORACLES of the SYBILLS By ISAAC VOSSIUS D.D. And an Answer to the Objections against the late CRITICA SACRA THE Author of the Critica Sacra upon the Old Testament had bespoken Moderation in Isaac Vossius whom he look'd upon as a Person carried away with too great an affectation of the Greek Version But the Learned Gentleman who well understood that Christ in the Apocalyps had spu'd the Lukewarm out of his mouth and that God loves nothing that halts between two Mediums In Resp ad obj nup. Critic fell more obstinately to work when he set himself to write his small Treatise concering the Oracles of the Sybils wherein he seems to have argued to that one thing alone the advancement of the Greek Interpreters by applauding according to his common Custom the Exemplars of the Jews For he returns his answer to Simon in such a manner as if he had address'd himself in his work with a Mind prepossess'd by the Rabbins after the Example of St. Jerom who was the first of the Christians who fram'd a Rabbinic Version and â—ncouraged others to dare the same Vossius makes large Protestations that he does not follow the Rabbins and that he acquiesces in that Version which Christ himself approv'd and admonishes Simon to forbear from any new Translation of the Sacred Scripture in regard a purer and more genuine Version cannot be made then that which was recommended to us by Christ and his Apostles And so far indeed Vossius does well in attributing very much to the Greek Translators though he would have done much better had he not affirmed them to be altogether free from all manner of Error and that they were not to be swerv'd from in matters of smallest moment as they who were to be lookt upon as Prophets rather then Interpreters I also extol the diligence of that worthy Person in vindicating the Translation of the Seventy Interpreters from the calumnies of most slanderous persons and for correcting their Manuscripts But when he comes to discourse of the Jews and their Books the Learned Gentleman discovers a world of ignorance in those things and frequently endeavours to impose falshood for truth All which shall be made apparent by Examples To which purpose I shall select some things out of that famous Persons Treatise concerning the Oracles of the Sybills and his answer to the Objections of the Critica Sacra from whence it
the Disputants But now it was not enough for the most Learned Vossius to have feign'd new Prophets much more quick sighted then the ancient ones but he must now produce a new Order of the Books of Sacred Scripture hither to unheard of The Books of Moses according to his own Opinion make five Volums and not one as the Jews believe and to prevent any man from calling this in question he produces most convincing reason 's for this new Distrubution For it is manifest saith He even out of the Sacred Writings themselves that as other Nations so also the ancient Jews wrote their Books not upon folded Paper which is a modern Invention but in rolls and continued Skins What reason there was for Vossius to have recourse to the Antient Hebrews I do not understand when even in our times the Jews make use of Rolls of the same nature as to the Books which they make use of in their Synagogues yet for all that they do not divide the Law into five Volums but comprehend it in one Volum according to that ancient Custom which was observ'd even in Christs time By and by proceeding a little farther the Learned Gentleman affirms that in the time of Aquila whom he calls a most impertinent Interpreter the Jews or else Aquila himself invented a most wicked and idle division of the Sacred Books in hatred to Daniel's weeks and that they perverted the sense and order of Scripture by introducing a New Distribution that is to say of the Law the Prophets and the Hagiographers Now whether a new distribution of the Books so the Books be entire let the perspicacious judge But least I may seem to carp at small things I say it is much more probable that Aquila in his Translation of the sacred Writings observ'd that order which according to the method of that Age the Hebrew Copies set before him when there appear'd no reason for the Charge But he did that says Vossius in hatred of Daniel's weeks whom he cast into the last place almost among the Hagiographers as if the Jews did not give the same Credit to the Prophesies of Daniel concerning the Messiah as the Christians Vossius admires at their simplicity who believe the Rabbins asserting the Ketuvim or Books of the Hagiographers to have been written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost If you consult the Rabbins saith he they will lâ—ugh at ye as such as cannot choose but know what they mean by the Holy Ghost Why has not Vossius now become a Rabbinist cited those Rabbins that we might understand by them what they mean by the word Ketuvim I know indeed the Jews do not agree concerning the genuine signification of that word though all believe that the Ketuvim or the Hagiographers are no less Divine and Canonical then the rest of the Books of the Old Testament The most subtle Abravenâ—l unfolds this Riddle They were call'd Ketuvim because they were written by the Holy Ghost but if it be so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ramb. in More Nev. the word Ketuvim was not design'd that those Speeches were written in a book not receiv'd by word of Mouth but to denote that they were written in the Holy Spirit and in that degree neither was the Divine Spirit with them but at the vory time of their Writing in this Language and Wisdom R. David Kimchi affirms that Prophesie is divided into several Degrees of which one exceeds another Which Degrees R. Moses Ben Maimon more subtlely explains Praef. in Psal But leaving these subtleties which were taken from the Philosophy of Aristotle and Averrhoes it is certain that the Jews agree with Josephus in this particular that all the Books which are extant in their Canon are truly Divine and Prophetical because they were written by the Prophets For which reason R. Don Joseph Ben Jechaia Praef. in Psal who has illustrated the Psalms with his Commentaries and reduc'd them with his Fathers to the Classes of the Kotuvim or Hagiographers compares them with the Law of Moses and thence infers the cheifest Dignity of the Psalms Therefore saith that Rabbi the greater is the Dignity of that Book because it follows the Divine Law and imitates the form and perfection of it Which is confirm'd by the Authority of the Fathers who seem to have preferr'd the Psalms before the Prophets themselves while they joyn them to the Pentateuch of Moses Therefore by the Confession of the Rabbys themselves neither is the Authority either of David or Daniel lessen'd because they are not number'd in the Classis of the Prophets For the last quoted Joseph adds these words in the same place Nor is it a wonder that the Book of Psalms contains several Prophecies of the time of the Messiah seeing that there are several Prophecies extant in the Holy Spirit concerning future things By this means the Jews will easily be reconcil'd with the Jews And which seems to be worthy observation the Talmudic Doctors will have the Book of Job to be written by Moses which nevertheless they place in the Classis of the Ketubim or Hagiographers Who would think that Vossius of a Rabynist should become a Talmudic Doctor He earnestly maintains That the Jews by the Confession of the Ancient Rabbys expung'd many places in the Holy Writings and alter'd the Sense and Words Interest so perswading No Man shall find any thing feigned by me says the Talmudic Gentleman whoever he be that Consults the Talmudic Books wherein he shall read these words in several places It is good that a Letter be pull'd up out of the Law that the Name of God may be sanctify'd But it is not for all Men to have recourse to the Talmudic Books like the most learned Vossius I had thought that decree of the Talmudists might have been rightly explain'd by the Words of R. Moses Ben Maimon who with most of the Jewish Rabbys so far defends the Immutability of the Mosaic Law that he believes that some of its Constitutions may be for a time suspended by the Authority of the Grand Sanhedrim Ramb. More Nev part 3. c. 41. That Talmudic Rabby asserts That God indeed Deut. 4. forbad that any one should add to his Word or detract from it but that he gave permission to the Wise Men of all Ages and Times or to the Supream Judicatory to set bounds to the Judgments to be Established by the Law in some things which they desire to innovate to preserve the Authority of the Law Farther That God gave them Liberty to take away some Precepts of the Law and to permit some things Prohibited upon some certain Occasion and Accident but not to Perpetuity These were taken out of the Latin Edition of the Book More Nevochim Published by Buxtorf After the same manner speaks the Author of the Book Entitl'd Cozri set forth also in Hebrew and Latin by Buxtorf For upon Cozri's demanding the Question How that Power of Innovating any thing in the
Joshua or rather by the Senators of the Grand Sanhedrim of which Joshua was the Chief are vulgarly thought to be added to the rest of the Text. For it was the Custom that the publick Transactions should be register'd in the publick Acts by those who were appointed for that Employment in which Sence Moses is said to have written some things in the Volume of the Law of the Lord that is the Covenant which he had made with the People To say truth there are many things extant in the Pentateuch which plainly declare that the Books of the Law were written by Moses Thus we read in Exodus Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. And in Deuteronomy After Moses had writ the words of the Law Exod. 24. Deut. 31. But these and many other passages of the same kind are only to be meant of some parts of the Law of which mention is made in those places as Simon has demonstrated Whence Jerom Oleaster Prol. in Pent. a great Hebrician and perfectly read in Scripture Learning denies that it can be effectually prov'd by Scripture that Moses himself was the Author of the Law which we have under his Name Next to the Pentateuch is the Book call'd Joshua and which the following words seem to prove to have been written by Joshua And Joshua wrote all these words in the Volume of the Law of the Lord. That is Joshua after Moses's Decease Jos 24.26 or his Scribes by his Order set down in the publick Registers the Transactions of that Time in which Sense they are said to be as it were added to the Volume of the Law Nevertheless 't is strange to see how they wrangle among themselves who handle this Argument so that even St. Austin himself durst not possitively affirm Joshua to be the Author of the Book which goes vulgarly under his Name Whether that Book says he which is call'd Jesus Nave were written by him meaning Joshua or by some other person Theodoret affirms That it was not written by Joshua but taken out of some later Book and among the modern Authors the learned Massius asserts That it cannot be said that all those things which are now extant in the History of Joshua Com. in c. 10. Jos proceeded from himself He also confirms what has been already mentioned concerning the publick Scribes and their Employments and extends his Arguments to other Books of the Scripture The Opinion of the Talmudists is That Joshua wrote his own Book and eight Verses of the Law But the judicious Rabby Isaac Abravanel scrupl'd not to differ from them and asserts himself induc'd so to beleive not only by those words which are added at the end of the Book of Joshua And after these things Joshua the Son of Nun Dy'd but by reason of many other passages that frequently occur in the Context it self of which he denyes that Joshua could be the Author Of which sort the first is that concerning the twelve stones which he set up in the midst of Jordan Jos 4.9 of which it is said and they remain there to this Day To which the Author of the Book of Joshua presently adds these words Jos 6.8 The Name of that place is call'd Galgala to this present Day I pass by many other expressions of the Nature frequent in the History of Joshua and which Abravanel maintains could not be written by Joshua Had Joshua saith he wrote all these things would he have said To this present day To these things he adds what we read in the History of Joshua concerning the Danites taking Lachish by assault which nevertheless did not happen till toward the end of the Judges and consequently long after Joshua's Death But these and other passages of the same Nature do not serve so much to prove that Joshua or rather the Scribes that were under him Register'd the publick Transactions of the time as to shew that other Scribes afterwards review'd those publick Acts and added several clauses and intervening passages to unite the Sense and Series of History and for Explanations sake Nor does the Book Entitl'd Shoftim or Judges seem to be written but in the same manner as being full of the same Expressions Wherefore D. Huetius follows the judgment of Dorotheus in this particular who affirms That the Scribes of that Time Recorded in Commentaries the Transactions which happened under the Judges out of which Saemuel afterwards composed the Book of Judges Who that Dorotheus was I do not at present Dispute it is enough from thence to infer that Simon 's Opinion was not of Yesterday by which he constitutes publick Scribes in the Hebrew Nation who Recorded the publick Transactions of their Times whose Collections other Scribes or Prophets embody'd into those Histories which go now under the Names of Joshua Judges Samuel and Kings this opinion is confirmed by the Syrians For we read at the end of the Syriac Exemplar these words added But for the Book of Judges Excâ—d Usser Tom. 6. Pol Angl. though the Name of the Author be not set down it is known that it was wrote by some of the Priests of the Sons of Aaron who in the times of those Judges officiated in the Priesthood The last cited Dorotheus refers the Book of Ruth also to the same Scribes which seem much more probable then the Opinions of those wherein there is nothing of sure Foundation Concerning both thus Sixtus Senensis It is said that Samuel Collected the Book of Judges and added the Story of Ruth the Moabitess Bib. 8. lib. 3. Some think that Ezekiel others that Esdras was the Author of both Books As for the Books of Kings Theodoret has made these Remarks upon them That there were many Prophets among the Hebrews of which every one wrote the Transactions of his Age and hence it came to pass that the first Book of Kings is call'd both by the Hebrews and Syrians The Prophesie of Samuel soon after he adds They therefore who wrote the Book of Kings wrote them out of those writings long after as their leizure serv'd them And some while after he thus expresses himself concerning the Books of the Chronicles There were some other Historiographers who digested those things that were omitted by others which Book so written they call'd Parah Pomona the remainders As to the first and second Book of Kings which go under the Name of Samuel Sixtus Senensis adds these words The Book of Samuel is said to be written by the Prophet Samuel partly by the Prophets Nathan and Gad. Samuel Collected the Acts of Eli Saul David and his own which are related in the first Book of Kings to his Death Nathan and Gad wrote the Books of Kings from the Death of Samuel to the end of the second Book What Sixtus Senensis writes in this place though in general I may not think them remote from Truth yet if they be specially weigh'd they cannot be sure in every part for that as to