at that time from the Jews for while the State of the Jews continu'd there were publick Scribes who committed to writing the Affairs of the Nation and they were called Prophets because they were inspir'd with the Holy Ghost though they did not Prophesie of things to come However it is not necessary to believe that they who wrote the publick Affairs of the Nation at that time should be Prophets for that the Senators of the Grand Council who as we know were inspired overlook'd their works but seeing that the publick Authority of the Jewish Senate never Register'd those Books among the Canonical 't is no wonder that most of the Fathers would not receive them as Divine but only as Apocryphal and of suspected credit especially in respect of those other Books which were allowed to be of undoubted Reputation For that Book which was of suspected Credit was not the same with them as that which was spurious adulterate as Vossius seems to think only under this Title they distinguish certain from uncertain otherwise those Books had ne'r been read in the ancient Ages of our Forefathers had they apprehended any thing spurious and adulterate in them Only they were of less moment then the sacred Books and therefore the Fathers call'd them rather Ecclesiastical than Divine They would have them read in the Churches saies the Author of the Exposition of the Creed attributed to Rufinus but not to be Cited as Authentick Confirmations of Faith and only upon those Grounds it is that the Church of England reads those Books in their Congregations yet I doe not beleive that ever any one here except Vossius ever dreamt of introducing the Books of the Sybills to be read in the Church I know indeed that some of the Fathers have in great Veneration the Book which is called the Preacher and that Tertullian endeavour'd to obtrude the Book of Enoch as of Divine Authority and that the Jews also earnestly laboured to remove several Books from the sacred Context which illustrated the Christian Religion To which opinion also Origen seem'd to adhere who in the Epistle which he wrote to Africanus concerning the History of Susanna asserts that the Jews had withdrawn several passages out of their Bibles to prevent their being read by the common People But these things and others of the same Nature which are own'd but by a few and which are produc'd rather to support their own opinions than to maintain the Truth are not to be look't upon as the general judgment of the Fathers For Tertullian himself seems to confirm that common sentence of the Church by his own words in this place The Book of Enoch is not admitted by some because it is not admitted into the Collection of the Jews Therefore in those days it was adjudg'd Apocryphal because it was not admitted among the Canonical Number of the Jews Origen also thought otherwise in other places than what he wrote to Affricanus But in this place he could not defend the History of Susanna and the other Additions in the Greek Edition of the 70 Interpreters by any other means than by having recourse to the Apocryphal Books and supposing that the Jews in Transcribing their Copies concealed many things from the knowledge of the vulgar sort which were set down in those Apocryphal Books Origen perhaps had learn't from the Jews with whom he was frequently Conversant that Esdars and his Companions did not suffer all the Books which were extant to go abroad and hence he presumed it might be inferred that the Greek Interpreters had taken those things which are not to be found in the Hebrew Copies But this opinion does not agree with the General consent of the Ancient Jews who have acknowledged a perfect and acurate Concord of the Hebrew Text in all things Neither does it seem to have been invented by Origen and some others for any other reason but that the Hebrew Truth might be reconciled to the Greek Exemplars of whose Syncerity there was sufficient reason to doubt To this we may add that Origen in this Epistle to Africanus did not speak so much his own Sentiments but only that he might defend the Books which were then read in the Church Moreover the learned Vossius objects that a person of unexhausted Erudition Clemens Alexandrinus writes that the Apostle Paul referr'd to the Oracles of the Sybills and the Prophesies of Hystaspes and recommended them to be read But if it should be enquired of Vossius where St. Paul said this he presently answers that it ought to be sufficient for us that Clemens Alexandrinus a Holy Person and Conversant with many Apostolick Persons affirmed it for Truth but if any regard be had to that Answer of necessity it follows that all the Ancient Fathers were free from all Errour then which there is nothing more absurdly Fictitious For they know well who have any knowledge of Ecclesiastial Affairs how craftily those Ancient Fathers and Clement of Alexandria in the first place disputed with the Jews and Gentiles Vossius also earnestly maintains that the Book of Enoch and other such Books are not to be rejected for that reason only because that many Superstitious and Magical Fragments are contained in some Fragments that are extant seeing that Balaam was a Magician and Inchanter yet manifestly foretold many future Mysteries concerning Christ as if those things which are register'd in Scripture concerning Balaam could be wrested to the present Argument or that it were lawful by this Example to defend and justifie those Books which we find not only to be stuft with Lies and Superstitious Fables but to be written by Impostors assuming to themselves the Names of famous Men. By the same Art the Dreams of the Feavourish Jews are maintained in Midras Zohar and Rabboth to be inspired by the same Spirit from whence the Gospel proceeded as William Postellus declares De Orig. cap 17. who did not scruple to affirm that the Gospel was produc'd from the Doctrine of Zohar as that which had its rise from the Holy Ghost and Spiritual Authors The Chalans also saith the same Postellus the Syrian Indian Caldaean Magicians the Egyptian Gymnosophists and Prophets are from the same Original from whom the worthy Vossius seems not much to swerve whom I would advise to place among the number of Soothsayers Lib. Zorob the Prophesie of Zorobabel which speaks very plainly concerning the Messiah and was published by the Jews in a Prophetic Stile and in none of the meanest sort of Language But leaving these things let us prosecute our intended Subject Besides what has been hitherto alledg'd concerning the Apocryphal Books we are to observe that the Jews did not only frame to themselves a Canon of Scripture but that the Church has also her Canon who by her own Authority has restor'd several Books which the Jews expung'd Thus St. Austin asserts that the Book of Maccabees were not received by the Jews but by the Church for Canonical
Lib. 18. de civit Dei c 36. which is to be understood only concerning the two first Books of Maccabees for the third is rejected as well by the Church as by the Synagogue To which opinion St. Jerom seems to adhere though frequently in his works he shews himself a most stout defender of the Judaick Canon For when Ruffinus objects Lib. 2. Apoll. adversus Rufus that Jerom in his own Edition of the Bible would allow no Authority of Scripture to the Story of Susanna the Song of the three Children and the Story of Bell and the Dragon which he had called Fables the learned Father answers that he did not speak his own Sentiments but only explain'd what the Jews were wont to urge against the Christians but Jerom had said that Origen Eusebius Apollinarius and other Doctors of Greece would make no answer to Porphyrius for those Visions which had no Authority of Scripture and the same Jerom thus writes concerning the Book of Judith This Book the Synod of Nice is said to have numbred among the Holy Writings upon which Erasmus thus observes He does not say it was approv'd in the Synod of Nice but the Synod is said to have numbred it and really St. Jerom in his Preface to the Book of Kings had denied both Judith and Tobias to be Canonical Now the question is whether St. Jerom do not seem to contradict himself when he affirms the same Books of Judith and Tobias to be read by the Hebrews among the Hagiographers who nevertheless both here and in another place had written that these Books are not extant in the Canon of the Jews and therefore to be accounted Apocryphal But what those Hagiographers of the Jews that were mentioned by St. Jerom in these places Joseph Scaliger confesses he does not understand because the Hagiographies were received by the Jews into the Canon of Holy Scripture long before St. Jerom liv'd But Huetius believes St. Jerom to be deceiv'd in this particular in that he thought the Jews had no Hagiographies without the pale of the Canon and he brings against Scaliger the famous Bath Kol or the Daughter of the voice by whose assistance the Jews set forth their Hagiographies and their inspir'd Scripture But they are the meer dreams of idle triflers which the Circumcised Doctors have invented concerning Bath Kol Then it is certain that they never receiv'd among their Canonical Authors the Books of Judith and Tobias Therefore they are all fictions which Huetius and others alledg concerning the twofold sort of Hagiographers among the Jews and they may be refuted not only by the Testimonies of Josephus and Jerom who positively witness that Tobias Judith and other Books set forth in Greek now comprehended within the Canon of the Roman Church were never reckon'd by the Jews among the Prophets or Hagiographers but also by the Authority of the more Modern Jews who when they number up the Sacred Books make no mention of them at all but only cite them as sententious Writings wherein however they did not believe there was any thing of Divine Inspiration If therefore in this our Age nay in the ancient Ages of the Church they were numbred among the Canonical Books that is to be attributed to the Judgment of the Church and not of the Synagogue Therefore there is a double Canon to be allowed that of the Church and that of the Synagogue And by the first Rule they may not erroneously be called Ecclesiastic Books which the Church taking no notice of the Jewish Canon have thought fit to admit into their Canon and to be read in their Congregations For it is certain that even from the very first Infancy of the Church these Books were accustom'd to be read and sung in the Congregations of the Faithful which Erasmus admires to hear so frequently sung and read in Churches at this day But that it was so Eras Schol. in Prefat Jerom in Dan. Erasmus might have learnt out of the Invictives of Ruffinus against St. Jerom. All these things Sixtus Senensis egregiously illustrates at the beginning of his Bibliotheca where he divides the Books of Holy Scripture into two Classe's Sixtus Senens l. 1. Bibl. S. In the first he reckons those which he calls Protocanonical or Canonical of the first Order And these are they which are received beyond all Controversie by the unanimous consent as well of the Jews as Christians In the other Classis he places those which he calls Deutero Canonical or Canonical of the second Order which formerly saith he were called Ecclesiastic That is to say those of which there was for some time a dubious Opinion among the Catholicks and which came late to the knowledge of the whole Church Among the Books of the first sort he only numbers those which the Synagogue admitted into their Cannon Into the next Classis he admits those which in the ancient Ages of the Church were reckon'd by most among the Apocriphal Writers to which he adds the Book of Esther in regard that some of the Fathers were doubtful of its Authority the only difficulty arises from the Authority of St. Jerom who in contradiction to the belief of all the Jews and his own Testimony has written that the Books of Tobias and Judith are extant with the Hebrews among the Hagiographies I admire that Scaliger and others so well skill'd in Critic Animadversion did not observe that in the Prefaces of Jerom upon Tobias and Judith we were not to read it Hagiographa as it is now read but Apocripha For though I want written Manuscripts to maintain that Lection yet the words of St. Jerom himself manifestly make it out The Book oâ— Tobias saith the Learned Father which the Hebrews pruning off from the Catalogue of Divine Scripture have condemn'd among those which they call Hagiographa Who does not presently apprehend from hence that the word ought to be read Apocripha not Hagiographa since it is apparently manifest that the Jews never cut of the Hagiography from the Catalogue of Divine Scripture The same observation is to be made in the Preface of St. Jerom upon Judith where instead of Hagiographa it ought to be read Apocrypha For thus the words run at this day Among the Hebrews the Books of Judith is reckon'd among the Hagiographa whose authority is not so sufficient to strengthen the convincement of those things which give occasion of dispute If the authority of that Book be not sufficient to confirm our Faith certainly it can be none of the Hagiographa which without Controversie are accounted Canonical and inspir'd among the Jews but of the number of the Apocrypha which are of dubious and uncertain Credit as St. Jerom thought the Books of Judith and Tobias to be Thus much concerning the Apocryphal Books upon which we have insisted longer then the purpose of our Subject required But we did not think it a deviation from our Argument to unfold a Dispute highly intreagu'd by the Contentions of
is not a thing lookt upon by the Jews as much material whether they reckon twenty four or twenty two Books only they divide them after another manner This was well known to St. Jerom who informs us that they who number'd twenty four Books of Holy Writ separated the Book of Ruth from the History of the Judges and the Lamentations of Jeremy from the Prophesie it self which is not contradicted by the Jews in our time who attribute these two Books to the number of the Sacred Writers but not of the Prophets But they who seem'd to have had the choicest Opinion of the Bible were the Sect of the Carraitans among the Jews who gave it the name of a Prophesie 2 Epist c. 1.19 Under which name St. Peter seems to comprehend it and indeed it may be thought to have been the Antient and Genuine name of the Scripture which was not understood by the more Modern Jews who have invented many Subtilties concerning the Books which are inscrib'd Hanbiim or the Prophets and I admire to find that some Christians also listen to these acute Doctors The Antient Division likewise of the Sacred Writings into the Law the Prophets and Cetuvim Writings or according to the Vulgar expression Holy Writings The Division of Scripture is a thing which is well known to all people Which Division wonderfully tormented the Brains of the Jews who have been very laboriously inquisitive about it and what was easie before have strangely perplexed with their Niceties Isaac Abravanel a most acute person complains that none of his Rabbies have come near the mark unless one Ephodaeus But as to what that Rabby at large discourses concerning that matter we thought fit to pass over in silence as having more of wit than solidity Taking therefore our leaves of these lighter Fancies we may have some reason to believe that the name of the Prophets was given to the Books of Joshua Judges and other Historians which were written before the Jews were carried out of their Country into Babylon because at that time the Jews called them Prophets who undertook to write the Annals of the Age wherein they liv'd Thus in the Holy Writings of the Books of Samuel frequent mention is made of Gad Nathan and other Prophets because they carefully collected the publick Transactions of their own Time and then with no less diligence transcrib'd them into the publick Register Which is the meaning of Josephus where he affirms that it was not for every one among the Jews to write the Publick Annals but only for the Prophets This Theodoret more largely explains L. 1. advers Apo. Theod. in Praefat. in lib Reg. Id. 2 Reg. where he boldly asserts That there were several Prophets among the Jews of which every one wrote the Story of their own Times and that the greatest part of the Books by them written are past recovery lost And therefore he affirms it to be past all doubt that the Books of the Kings were taken out of several Books of the Prophets With Theodoret Diodorus Procopius and others not a few eminent for their Learning agree Which seems to be the True Reason why the Books of Sacred Scripture which were written after the death of Moses before the Captivity were call'd by the name of the Prophets but that after that time they were only known by the single name of Cetuvim or Writings Not that thereby they depriv'd them of the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost for the Jews no less than the Christians willingly admit their Divine Authority but only content themselves with the single name of Cetuvim or Writings as we generally call the whole Scripture by the name of the Bible To say truth it is for men that have little to do more accurately to enquire into these names and to hunt these Mysteries of which the Antient Hebrew Writers never so much as thought For this reason the Christians who in the Infancy of the Church borrowed the Books of the Old Testament out of the Synagogues of the Jewish Hellenists neither separated the Book of Ruth from the Judges nor the Lamentations from the Prophecy of Jeremiah as the rest of the Jews do who refer those little Treatises to the third Classis of Sacred Writings which are called Cetuvim Nor is it a little to be wondred at what cruel pains that most subtle Doctor Abravanel takes where he very angrily enquires for what reason it was that the Book of Ruth was not joyn'd to the History of the Judges to which it seems to belong more especially acknowledging Samuel to be the Author of both But the Christians according to the Example of the Hellenist Jews have reduc'd the Books of Sacred Scripture into much better order which seems to be the first order and disposition of the Holy Writings which was allowed by the Antient Jews and approved by the publick use of the Synagogues Therefore the Jews commit a great folly who as well in their Manuscripts as in their Printed Copies separate the Prophecy of Daniel from the body of the rest as if the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost which was present with Daniel when he prophesied were not the same in all as that wherewith the other Prophets were inspired The same absurdities they run into concerning David whom they refuse to number in the List of the Prophets though they confess him to have uttered many Prophecies So true it is that those Rabbies who so highly value their Paternal Traditions invented many things unknown to their Fore-Fathers and which it seems much more rational to take out of the Books of the Christians than the Works especially of the more Modern Jews For the former imitated the Antient Custom of the Synagogues which does not seem to have descended entire to the Jews of later Ages And therefore that Order of the Books of Sacred Scripture is to be retain'd which is observed in the Greek and Latine Bibles of the Christians Neither are we to listen to those who following the Example of the Jewish Rabbies pervert that Antient Order in the Greek and Latine Copies of the Bible which they put forth And yet I do not believe that Order to be so exactly necessary in smaller Editions in regard that as to those things neither the Jews agree among themselves nor the Christians neither Cassiodorus divides his Work of Divine Readings into these three Heads The Division of Scripture according to St. Jerom The Division of Scripture according to St. Austin The Division of Scripture according to the Septuagint The Jews also though most passionately devoted to their own Traditions and wholly govern'd by the Talmudick Rabbies observe in the Disposal of the Books of Holy Writ another Method than that which is approved by the Talmudists Also the very Order of their Manuscript Copies varies in that particular CHAP. II. Of the Hebrew Manuscripts of the Context of the Bible WE may divide the Hebrew Manuscripts of the Jews into two sorts of which the
has a large Masora in the Margin under the several shapes of Bears Dogs and Bulls and sundry other creatures But indeed more fit to be expos'd for Children to play with for the sake of the Pictures The Spanish Copies which are of best repute shew the Masora barely and plainly written neither are there any Lines therein that are drawn into the shapes of living creatures as in the last mention'd And therefore the plainer the Copies of the Hebrew Bibles appear so much the chaster from Errours and more corrected thy are For under these shapes of Beasts and Plants the Writer conceal'd his own Errours and Imperfections neither are they more accurate in the Text it self than they are in the Masora CHAP. III. Several of the Manuscript Copies of the Bibles are examin'd Their various Readings are approv'd by the Testimony of the Learned Jews Supposititious Copies of the Bible VVHat the Jews have invented concerning some Copies of the Bible wrote by the hand of Esdras there is no man surely in this Age but believes to be all meer stories As also what is related of other Copies preserv'd at Bononia according to Tinus of Ferrara or at Cabilo if we may credit others No less supposititious may we imagine that Chimerical Piece of Antiquity to be which the Samaritans attributed to the Copy of the Mosaick Law found at Sichem Several other Copies have been also found among the Christians who to defend the Latine Interpreter have very much commended erroneous and counterfeit Copies Thus Lindanus extolled the Copy of an Hebrew Psalter which was preserv'd in England and agreed exactly well with the Latine Edition But that it was plainly an adulterate piece Isaac the Levite sagaciously discover'd meerly by his knowledge of the Hebrew Language Lindanus stifly maintain'd that many things were corrupted by the Jews of set purpose and out of their hatred of the Christians and this he endeavours to make out from the credit of that English Copy which he did not scruple to affirm did formerly belong to Austin the Archbishop But Arias Montanus after he had long sought and at last found out that Copy expresses his grief to find that a person so judicious and learned should write and teach such Stories upon Forein trust Neither Ar. Montan. ad appar B. 6. reg saith he is the Copy Antient nor writ by one that understood the Hebrew Language but by some Latine Scribe that knew how by the command of his men to make a well-shap'd Hebrew Character and this not above fourscore or a hundred years ago A short Book in a short Hebrew Character commendable rather for imitation and neatness of Writing than the knowledge of the Writer where every word was so corrupted that scarcely one could be said to be true Whence we may collect that there is no credit to be given not only to the Jewish Rabbies while they vaunt the Antiquity and Integrity of their Sacred Books but also neither to the Christians though eminent otherwise for their Piety and Learning while they go about to obtrude false and counterfeit Copies upon the World instead of true The feign'd Antiquities of some Copies Lib. Juchasin seu Fanul Among the Jews also there were some true and real Manuscripts of the Bible which were not of that Antiquity to which they pretended Such was that famous and highly reputed Copy of Hillel concerning which there are these expressions in the Book Juchasin In the year 584. there was a great Persecution in the Kingdom of Leon at what time they brought away thence a Copy of the Books of Scripture which Hillel had wrote out by that they corrected all other Copies I saw a part of it which was sold in Africa many years after it seem'd to have been written R. D. Kimchi makes mention of this Exemplar as well in his Grammatical Discourse as in his Commentaries upon the Scripture and in his time he affirms that there was a Pentateuch drawn from that Copy which was kept at Toledo Also R. David Ganz and several other Jews applaud that Copy as being a piece of great Antiquity and Exactness And that same celebrated Name of Hillel impos'd upon persons of great knowledge in the Hebrew Language and Sacred Criticism R. David Ganz in Tjenach David p. 56. Cun. l. 1. de Rep. Heb. insomuch that Cunaeus calls Hillel's Copy a Book of Venerable Antiquity which R. Hillel Chief Priest or Governour rather of the Jews wrote with his own hand who came from Babylon into Syria 60 years before the Birth of our Lord Christ Schickardus also wonderfully extols the Antiquity and Exactness of that Copy and brings Elias the Levite for his Witness as if it had been the Opinion of that same Learned Jew that Hillel returning from the Captivity of Babylon had written that Copy with his own hand Yet for all this Elias the Levite was of a contrary Judgment in this particular who had slain himself with his own Sword had he pronounc'd that Judgment concerning Hillels Copy which Schickard would falsly make him guilty of For in that Exemplar of Hillel there are several Vowel Points Accents and other things of which Elias makes the Rabbies of the School of Tiberias to be the Inventors whom he believes to have liv'd after the Talmudists and St. Jerom. As vain and idle also are all those things which Buxtorf crowds into his Book concerning the Antiquity of Points to prove that Hillel was Contemporary with Epiphanius and before the Masorites of Tiberias As little to the purpose also does the sharp-witted Capellus teaze himself with sundry conjectures concerning Hillels Exemplar But these men through the want of Manuscripts seem incapable to determine any thing concerning Hillel his Bible though had they consulted the Books of only one David Kimchi who is universally read they might easily have apprehended that Hillel was after the Rabbies of Tiberias For that the chiefest differences of Hillels Copy from the rest lie in the variety of Point Vowels Mapphick and Dagesh and other niceties of the same nature which no person conversant among the Monuments of the Antients will affirm to have been invented in the time of Epiphanius And indeed both Cappellus and Buxtorf might have consulted the Comments of John Mercer who sometimes also commends the Hillelian Exemplar Nor would it be a difficult thing to produce many readings of the Hillelian Codex different from the Masoretick collected out of five Manuscript Bibles and those Spanish besides and of the best repute But in regard they are for the most part of little moment I shall pass them over in silence Only some few I shall select from the Book of Joshuah placed in the Margin of a very fair Spanish Copy written about five hundred years since though the Annotations or rather Variations seem to be of a later date Joshuah chap. 6. in the Masoretick Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is written at large Classicum or
abundantly declare CHAP. VI. Other parts of the Manuscripts in reference to the Manuscript Bibles are examined Their True Original and the Masoretick Lection confirm'd MOst of the Jewish Rabbies not unwillingly acknowledge that the Sacred Manuscripts of the Old Testament do not altogether retain that Form The Antient disagreement of the Heb. Bibles according to the Rabbies which the most Authentick and Original Copies represented and they believe that this Alteration of their Bibles happen'd after they were carry'd into Captivity at what time they had no Rabbies to read to them the Mosaick Law their Form of Worship being utterly abolish'd and their Civil Affairs in that deplorable condition that they had no time to look after their Books Therefore D. Kimehi frequently asserts in his Works R. D. Kim That they perish'd in the Babylonish Captivity and they being destroy'd nothing but confusion follow'd with many other expressions of the same nature R. Ephod R. Ephodaeus is also of the same Opinion who writes That in those Seventy years of the Babylonish Captivity corruption and confusion began to overwhelm the Sacred Writings For that as Kimchi says the Doctors of the Law were dead From thence therefore that before the time of Esdras the Sacred Writings vary'd in several places they believe it may be made out that Esdras who examin'd those Books left several Lections which he met with in the Copies of his Time unmedl'd withal in the Books which he himself examin'd and for this reason they give great credit to the differing Scriptures which were mark'd by the Criticks of Tyberias as if they proceeded from Esdras who was inspir'd with the Holy Ghost than which there is nothing more idle or remote from Truth Aben Mel. in liâ— 1. Paraliâ— This Aben Melech observes upon the words Diphath and Rodanim Diphath in the Book of Chronicles is written with a Daleth and in the Book of Genesis with a Resch Rodanim is written with a Resch and in Genesis with a double Daleth because Resch and Daleth are alike in their form and they who ever viewed the Books of Genealogies written in the Antient Times some write Daleth others Resch Therefore in the Book of Genesis the word was written one way in the Chronicles after another to shew that the word was the same whether written with a Daleth or a Resch Thus Jod and Vau are written promiscuously because they are alike in their figure And the same is to be said for the mute Letters Aleph and He in the end of a word as in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a He in the end which is the same as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Aleph in the end For Aleph and He are agreed to be both Aspirates and every one makes use of them at his pleasure Thus has Aben Melech written almost word for word from the Commentaries of R. D. Kimchi The same Aben Melech produces many other Examples of several other varieties of the same nature which he testifies to have collected out of the Tractates of R. Judas Jonas Aben Esra Kimchi c. Thus he observes Alin and Alevan to be read in Scripture promiscuously with a Jod sometimes and sometimes with a Vau. Hemeran and Hemdan with Resch or with Daleth Jaakan and Vaakan with Jod or with Vau with many others which I omit for brevities sake They never minded saith he the change of a Letter or two and he observes it to have been frequently done He also makes mention of the transposition of words and upon those words in Chronicles Bathsceva the Daughter of Amiel he makes this observation Bathsceva the Daughter of Amiel she is Bathsceva the Daughter of Eliam 2 Sam. 11. which some read Barsceba Aben Mel. ad c. 3. Chron. others Bathsceba because they are near in pronunciation In the same manner Amiel and Eliam are the same but that the Letters are transposed which transposition of Letters is to be observ'd in the first place there being several Examples to confirm it in the Hebrew Copies of which the LXX Interpreters made use R. Levi Ben Gersom makes the same observation upon the word Jabes R. L. Ben Gersom I believe Jabes with an Ain to have been one of the Judges and to have been that person who in the 12th of the Judges is call'd Abetson with an Aleph For Aleph and Ain are near in pronunciation and often changed one into another Don Joseph also the Spaniard R. Joseph Comment in Chron. in his Exposition of the Book of Chronicles inquiring why there appears so much difference in the Genealogies between that Book and the Books of Moses Joshua Samuel and Kings unfolds this question in these words That Esdras seem'd to have found those words or hard names in some Compendium and so wrote them down as he found them Then observing a vast difference of names and things he presently adds Neither ought that to be a wonder for that in the Series of many Ages great alterations happen both of names and things But Esdras wrote down those Families in the same manner as he found them scatter'd in little Manuals some out of one place some out of another and in words abbreviated And therefore the Family which he mentions is described in many places without order and method Lastly The same Rabbi believes that the Jews had forgot their Genealogies and that Esdras wrote what occurr'd to his memory though it were written without order R. Jos ad l. 1. Chron. c. 9. and at several times And therefore most of the Jewish Rabbies rather chuse to accuse the Books which they believe Esdras made use of in digesting the Context of the Bible than the oscitancy and carelesness of the Scribes that came after In this indeed the Fathers of the Church agree with those Jews that both ascribe to Esdras the Title of Restorer of the Sacred Context at that time in great confusion only the Fathers believe that being inspir'd with a Prophetical Spirit he reform'd it from many faults In Prâ—fat in Psal That most admirable Esdras saith Theodoret transcrib'd those Sacred Writings which by the carelesness of the Jews and the Impiety of the Babylonians were entirely corrupted And these are rather to be believ'd than the hair-brain'd Jews who will have Esdras to publish the Scriptures deprav'd and corrupted as they were with all their faults and so they attribute all those various Lections which the Masorites denote under the terms of Keri and Cetib to the same Esdras as if those various Readings which the Criticks daily remark upon the Margins of their Books were to be attributed to men inspir'd by God We must therefore conclude that the Masorites of Tyberias by the help of the Antient Copies and assistance of good Judgments corrected what Errours had crept into the Copies of their Times through the Ignorance of the Scribes But bearing a Veneration too superstitious toward the Sacred
in the Plural In the 6 Chap. of the same Book instead of Michael as it is in our Exemplars the Manuscript Copy reads Malachie and in another place instead of Vzziah another Manuscript reads Azaria In the eighth Chap. of Josuah v. 22. The Manuscript Copy reads Lo in the singular Number with this note in the Margent Lahem in another Copy which Lection is now observed in the modern context The Particle Lo Not and Eth which is the sign of the accusative case are not always written in the same manner in the Manuscripts as in the Printed Exemplars Of far greater moment is that difference which is found in 21. Chap of Joshua wherein there is a want of two verses which are notwithstanding both in the Greek and Latine Editions which that they ought not to have been left out the thing it self declares when in recounting the Cities allotted to the Levites out of every Tribe the Tribe of Reuben could not have been omitted Besides these verses are supplied by five Spanish Manuscripts of best note as also by the Royal Parisian the English the Venetian of Bemberg and Bragand in Quarto the Plantinian in Quarto Robert Stephanus's and that of Amsterdam and other Against all these the learned Masius opposes the Animadversions of the Masora and R. D. Kimchi From whence it is manifest that none of those verses were extant in the Ancient Manuscripts And Masius farther observes that none of those Bibles wherein those verses are to be found make any mention of Jordan Jericho or the Cities of Refuge Only in one Spanish Manuscript there is mention made of a City of Refuge which none of the exemplars hitherto printed allow But there was no need of mentioning Jordan or Jericho because the number of the Cities is made up without them Johannes Morinus who has commented more largely upon this place believes these verses to have been obliterated by the injury of time the negligence of th Jews which seems most probable But in the same place he erroneously observes that the two Comma's which were in the Manuscript by him cited were afterwards eras'd by him that transcribed it this annotation being added in the Margin we found not these two verses in the Hillelian Exemplar for in perusing that Manuscript I perceived that note to be added by some Jewish Criticaster long after the transcribing of the Copy who added to it some of the tittled Vowels and some parts of the Masora beside For that same Criticaster was desirous that his Exemplar should conform in all things to the Masoretick and to gain the more credit to his Emendation he cited the Hillelian Manuscript Therefore D. Kimchi seems more addicted then was needful to the Lection of the Masorites while he affirms that he never saw those two verses which are wanting in the Masoretick Edition in any ancient corrected Exemplar but only noted in Neither does Grotius weigh those verses with a sufficient accuratness suspecting them to have been added out of Chronicles to the Book of Josua after Kimchi's time and thence crept into the Greek and Latine versions On the other side Morinus believes them to have been translated out of the Book of Josua into the Chronicles by Esdras and afterwards left out through the carelesness of the Scribes Which mistake of the Scribes might in this particular more easily happen by reason of the frequent repetition of the word Vmematteh and of the Tribe c. Whence it came to pass that afterwards the several Manuscripts did not constantly retain the same order of sentences In a manner not much unlike to this the ancient Jewish Scribes made many more mistakes especially in the accompts of their families For the same words and the same Phrases often occurring to their fancies as they wrote great confusion by that means crept into the Books of sacred Scripture as may be easily apparent to any one that shall compare the Books of Chronicles with the other Historians For tho it be not permitted to correct the first from the latter yet is it most apparent that there are many things wanting in both that might be restored from the ancient especially the Greek Interpretations the authors of which had Copies differing from the publick Exemplars of the Bible Whose different writings I pass over in silence as being obvious to all and aiming only at those which may be taken out of the Manuscript Copies of the Jews And indeed those Errours have been in the Hebrew Codex of an ancient standing But when any Jewish Rabbi has got himself a name for leâ—rning among his Country-men presently taking a preposterous course they reformed their own Manuscripts by such a ones Copy rejecting the more ancient Books Such among the Jews were the Doctors of Tyberias R. R. Ben Ascer Ben Naphtali Hillel and several others to us unknown By this means it came to pass that the Ancient Exemplars of the Bible being laid aside the differences of writing in things of greatest moment were likewise lost All which things may be demonstrated from other Books of the Jews For if we compare the written with the printed and those which were publisht in several times and at several places 't is a wonderful thing to see how they differ one from another Thus the little Book entitled Jetsira or of the Creation which the Jews falsely attribute to Abraham the Patriarch differs egregiously from it self in several Editions and still there is more disagreement between the Printed Copies Moreover the Latine version of this little treatise in many things disagrees as well from the Manuscripts as printed Editions So that they who lookt after the Mantuan Edition found the vast difficulty of publishing that small Tract to consist as well in quantity as quality The same publishers also observed that the Interpreters who adorned it with their commentaries do very much differ in the reconciliation of the Text. And indeed in the Mantuan Edition there is extant another Copy of that Book not much different from the first In like manner if you compare the Manuscript Copies of that famous piece entitl'd Zohar either with themselves or with the printed Copies you will find a very great discrepancy among them Nor need you look any further then the Edition of that Book printed at Cremona wherein the various Lections which are almost infinite are sedulously noted The same may be observed in the various Copies of the Book entitl'd Cozri of which one was written But I shall insist no longer upon these things Certainly the extream diligence and Industry of the Jews is highly to be applauded who have so studiously observed the readings of various Exemplars On the other side they were highly to be blamed who making no mention of the Books from whence they took their Editions make corrections of them as they think fit themselves Therefore I would have it that those places of sacred Text which bad Connexion tells us to be false or corrupted should be restored
a Prophet But the learned person never understood the reason why or in what sence the Jews did separate him from the rest of the Prophets However concerning this matter the Christians in vain dispute with the Jews For both willingly acknowledge that in the Book of Daniel there are many Prophesies of the Messiah to come and that that Book was written by divine inspiration as the other Books of Scripture were The Jews also feign the same things of David as of Daniel however they do not deprive him of holy inspiration Quite the contrary they publickly assert that there are many things in the Psalms which foretel the coming of the Messiah so that if there be any difference in this particular between them and the Christians the controversie is meerly about the name as has been already prov'd in regard they otherwise methodize the Books of Scripture than the Christians But Vossius stabs himself with his own Sword while he goes about to prove the Jews guilty of falsifying their Chronologie in regard the modern Chronologie of the Hebrew Text presses harder upon the Jews then that which is drawn out of the version of the LXX Interpreters nor do the Jews deny in their Talmudick Books but that the time is fulfilled and past within which the Messias was expected but they add that their own sins retard his coming These are the words of the Talmudists Talm. in Tract Sanhed in Avoda Zara This is the Tradition of the House of Elia The World shall consist of six thousand years Two thousand shall be of emptiness that is before the Law Two thousand shall be spent under the Law And two thousand years the Messiah shall reign But by reason of our iniquities those years are already elaps'd Vossius endeavouring to draw this Tradition of Elias to his purpose has err'd in many places For first he seems to applaud it as being delivered by Elia the Prophet or taken out of his Book which formerly as he says was numbered among the Books of the New Testament But this Elias was a Talmudick Doctor like Rabbi Hillell R. Schammai R. Johanan and several others whose names are set down in the Talmud Then it is a fiction to say that the 2000 years that preceded the Law of Moses ought not to be numbered from the beginning of the Creation but from the Flood or from that time that God told Noah that he would destroy the World For the Opinion of the Jews concerning the six thousand years Duration of the World according to the Tradition of R. Elias is in this place far different For the Foundation of that Prophesie is deriv'd from the six days of the Creation for that as God created the World in six days so the same World should endure six thousand years So that the computation of the years of the World must be taken from the first Creation of all things The Commentators upon the Talmud reckon two thousand years from the first man created to the time that Abraham abandoning the worship of Idols embrac'd the true Religion of one God Dissertat de Sept. Praefat At what time according to their computation he was two and Fifty years of Age. But those are frigid Arguments which Vossius produces to prove out of the Epistle of St. Peter that the beginning of the World is to be reckon'd from the Flood because the Apostle call'd that the Old World which preceded and the Earth which we now inhabit the other World I say these are very sorry Arguments and quite from the purpose But enough of Elia's Prophecy concerning the duration of the World Nor is there any heed to be given to that Book of the Prophecies of Elias which Isaac Vossius cajoll'd by the name of Elias the Talmudist believes to have been receiv'd into the number of Canonical Books Now let us examine his other proofs brought against the Jews whether they be of any more moment In the next place Vossius brings a load of Arguments to prove that the Jews have mutilated not a few Texts of Scripture and first he calls Justin Martyr for a Witness who writes that several Exemplars were corrupted by the Jews But as to what may be borrowed from Justin we have already made a plenary answer Justin never consulted the Hebrew Text neither could he as being one that understood not the Language as is manifest out of his own Writings But saith Vossius how bravely had the holy Martyr foil'd Trypho and the rest of the Jews with whom he liv'd had not those Crimes been true that were laid to their charge Vossius reproved But this way of arguing does not become a Learned man who in perusing Justin's Books might easily have perceiv'd that he had mistaken in many things But Vossius goes on The Prophecy of Christ which occurs Psal 22.16 where instead of they digg'd as a Lion is put in the room most of the Christians except Phanaticks and Semi-Jews acknowledge to have been deprav'd by the Rabbies True it is indeed that the Jews are call'd in question by most Divines for having purposely corrupted this place But far be it from me to pronounce those people Phanaticks or Semi-Jews who clear the Jews of this offence when Rabbi Jacob Ben Hajim Restorer of the Masora publickly testifies that in some Manuscripts of the Hebrews he has met with Caru they digg'd or pierc'd which is in favour of the Christians Nor is it a wonder that the Masorites chose that reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Lion which was most for their purpose I acknowledge the Translation of the Greeks and St. Jerom to be the truer yet the Jews are not to be accus'd of falsification for having made choice out of two Readings of that which was most for their turn In the words Cari and Carou all understanding Criticks know there is but little difference and how easily and frequently the change of Jod for Vau and Vau for Jod happens Besides that there are several other Examples of the redundancy of the Letter Aleph which were not unknown to the Mazoreths so that the Letter Aleph may as well fall out to be superfluous in Carou as necessary in Cari. Wherefore the Greek Interpreters and St. Jerom past it by as ridiculous or else perhaps it might not be in their Copies but the Masorites who acknowledge it made use of it Vain are also those things which Vossius alledges out of Zachary c. 12. v. 10. as if the Jews had purposely chang'd the Antient Reading which the Old Interpreters found in their Copies But there is no skilful Critick but will discern that this diversity happen'd from the varaince in several Copies while in some it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they have pierced in other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they have danced by reason of the easie transmutation of Resch into Daleth and Daleth into Resch Nor do I see any reason why for that or five hundred more of
Language of which Perescius testifies himself to have one in his Epistle to Morinus Pestellus also makes mention of their Grammar Which Writings were they Printed would give great Light into the Samaritan Language and how the Samaritans pronounce the Hebrew and what signification they give to some more difficult words CHAP. XII Of the Bibles of the Sadduces and Karraeans Of the Bibles of the Sadduces CErtain it is that the Sect of the Sadduces in the time of Christ's being upon Earth was the most noble Sect and one which had the chief management of the Publick Affairs among the Jews But after the Destruction of Jerusalem and that the Jews were scattered into several parts of the World that famous Sect became so entirely extinct that there is not the least footstep of it There only remain'd the Sect of the Pharisees whose Room the Rabbanists and Talmudists vulgarly so call'd in after-times usurped For they are the same with the Pharisees whose Traditions the Jews so greedily swallow'd and ador'd as if proceeding from the mouth of God Therefore the Scriptures of the Old Testament came to the Christians from the Pharisees and not from the Sadduces Vossius de Septuagint Interpret c. 17. But in this Isaac Vossius and several others seem to have been deceiv'd St. Jerom himself being their guide and directer while they affirm that the Sadduces in imitation of the Samaritans translated no more than the five Books of Moses For what reason was there why the Sadduces who were but a late Sect among the Jews after the Volumes of the Prophets were confirm'd by the publick practice of Reading should only believe in Moses Therefore there is no question to be made but the Sadduces receiv'd all the Books of Sacred Text or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that was written rejecting only the Traditions of the Pharisees which seem'd to them to be only the Figments of idle persons More notoriously do they mistake who believe the Carraeans to have followed the Samaritans in this particular And which seems almost incredible Isaac Vossius otherwise a Learned Person places the Carraeans among the Ebionites Nazareans and other Sects of the Jews who retaining the Ceremonies of the Mosaick Law believ'd the Gospel Therefore it behoves us to relate in short what the Sect of the Carraeans was and what was their Opinion concerning the Sacred Scriptures The word Karrai from whence the Carraeans derive their name signifies a man exercis'd in the Reading of Scripture But that name which was formerly reverenc'd became to be hated by reason of the Sect of the Carraeans that first began to spread it self toward the beginning of the 10th Century They like the Rabbanists allow of twenty four Books of Scripture with the Tittl'd Vowels and other Masoretick Marks In expounding the Sacred Scriptures they follow the Masoretick Lection every where esteeming it no less than Aben Ezra Kimchi or any other of the Jewish Grammarians and in imitation of them are great searchers after Grammatick Quirks Therefore was Buxtorf horribly mistaken where he writes We have read of the Carraeans who rejecting all the Traditions only adhere to the Text that they not only differ extreamly one with another De pâ—nctor Antiquitat as to the understanding and Exposition of things but also in the Reading of Scripture as refusing points which they look upon as a piece of Oral Law or Tradition Buxtorf had had a quite contrary Opinion concerning the Carraeans if he had lighted upon those Books which he seems not to have been furnish'd withal For they do not altogether reject the Talmud and Traditions of the Jews but they presume not to compare them with the Sacred Scriptures as the Rabbanists And therefore laying those aside they endeavour after the manner of the Criticks who are free from all prejudice to draw forth that which seems to them to be the truest sense of Scripture by comparing one place with another taking little notice of the Talmudick Expositions which many times make large Excursions far from the matter And therefore if the Jewish Rabbanists speak ill at any time of the Carraeans as Corrupters of the Biblick Context it proceeds out of meer Envy and Malice not from heat of Dispute All which things may be more perspicuously seen in the Books of the Carraeans themselves Aaron the Son of Joseph of the Sect of the Carraeans who wrote the Commentaries upon the Law An. 1294. at the beginning of his Book deplores the lamentable state of the Jews and their being scattered into all parts of the World asserting that Vision and Prophecy was taken from them and that they had almost forgotten the Hebrew Language But saith he several Doctors appear'd among the Israelites who searched out the Scripture which contains the 24 Books in use among us Therefore the Carraeans do not agree with the Samaritans upon this point but with the Rabbanists allow the whole Scripture to be Canonical and Regular And they also frequently call it a Prophecy thereby to distinguish it from those other Traditions which the rest of the Jews are not afraid to obtrude upon us In the same place he rebukes the Cabbalick Doctors who many times propound for Scripture the Figments and Fables of their own Brains and to use his own expressions depend upon the Cabbala and tattle idle stories and boast their Cabbala or Tradition to be above the Scripture However the Carraeans do not reject all manner of Tradition but they separate the ridiculous and uncertain from that which has some appearance of Truth as the same Carraean openly testifies in these words Nor let any one object to us that we are Enemies to the Writing Reason and Doctrine deliver'd to us by our Ancestors For this Tradition which we make use of was not lost and is comprehended in true Scripture not seated in variety concerning which the Israelites in all things agree This is that Tradition which caus'd them to approve by their Authority the Masoretick Scripture receiv'd by all the rest of the Jews with the Points and Accents which will be still more apparent from the above quoted Commentary of the Carraean It is a wonderful thing how studious this Carraean was of Modern Lection and Grammar when they appear useful to the Explication of Scripture Sometimes he appeals to the most celebrated Masters of the Jewish Rabbanists to confirm his Opinion by their Testimonies sometimes he refutes them especially the Cabbalistick and Allegorical Doctors But much oftener he has recourse to the Analogy of Grammar than to the Testimonies of others Thus at the beginning of his Exposition of Genesis he has these words Bereschith is of the same form as Scherith only that Aleph is not pronounc'd Now it is known that the word Reschith is a word that signifies time and that it denotes the time that precedes or that which is first of all as Exod. c. 23. The first of the Fruits of thy Land he adds in
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
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
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
overcame the first restorer of the Masora But whether he wasted his Patrimony in maintaining those Centuries that Bombergh hir'd as Vossius eagerly contends I shall neither sollicitously inquire neither is it to the purpose Much more might be added to what I have already produc'd and perhaps proper enough to the business but I am afraid least the learned Gentleman should bring me to the Bar for a Semi Rabby and a Favourer of the Jews Therefore let us come to the Examination of his little Treatise concerning the Oracles of the Sybills where he disputes more learnedly of the Jews and their Books At the beginning of his discourse this Person of an unexhausted Erudition produces some things in reference to the Oracles of the Sybills which the Jews more especially in Spain made use of against the Christians And as for those things which seem to be more remote from Truth then Fiction he refers them to p. 19 or 26. where he handles that Argument but seeing that it has already been demonstrared that the Chronology fetch'd from the Books of the Jews less favours the Jews than that which is taken out from the Greek Translators there is no reason we should spend any more time in rifling the Inventions of the most learned Vossius The quâ—cksighted Gentleman had already observ'd that the Jews in the time of Aquila had for the nonce corrupted the Hebrew Manuscripts and had expung'd above 2000 Years that they might make it out that the Messiah's time was not yet come But in this place more perspicatious then before he believes that the space of that Depravation may be Comprehended within the limits of two and twenty Years at most and this he gathers from the words of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philadelphians That most Holy Martyr according to the report of Vossius relates that he heard some say that if those things which are contained in the Gospels were not to be found in the Ancient Monuments he would not believe them Now saith Vossius since he answered and they denied it is manifest that the Jews had deprav'd the Exemplars or swerved from the Sense of the 70 Interpreters But how this Learned Gentleman can wrest the answer of Ignatius who afferts that Christ shall be to him instead of the Ancient Monuments to his opinion of the Jewish Manuscripts being corrupted about that time I confess I do not understand Neither also are those words to be found in the Genuine Exemplars of Ignatius which Vossius himself set forth Christo velut summo sacerdoti credendum potius quam aliis sacerdotibus Which however the learned Person produces as if they belong'd to the answer of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have heard some say that unless I find the Gospel in the Ancient Monuments I will not believe To these I answer that Jesus Christ is to me instead of the Ancient Monuments But there the discourse is not of the Old Testament compared with the New as Vossius believ'd but of the Hereticks which springing up in the Infancy of the Church denied the Faith which the Exemplar of the Gospel set forth Whence it came to pass that the Ancient Fathers of the Church Tertullian Ireneus and others of the same rank did not undertake to refute the Hereticks out of the sacred Scripture but from certain Tradition or from the Doctrine of Christ propagated by the Apostles and their Successors Apostolick Persons in the Churches of several Nations In which sense Ignatius asserts that Christ or his Doctrine was to him in the place of the Ancient Monuments This unless I am very much deceived is the meaning of Ignatius's words who commends Unity of Doctrine in Christ whose Spirit ought to be preferred before any Ancient Monuments whatever Many other things also Vossius produces in this place concerning the Etymology of the word Aera and concurs with them who believe Era and the Heriga of the Arabians to be the same word nor is it improbable but that which he presently adds of the Arabick word Hegyra as if it were to be deduc'd from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hagger a Proselyte or Stranger seems not so very likely The Learned Gentleman believes that several Jews of the Sect of the Herodians forsaking Herod their Messiah who was also by them stil'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Stranger revolted to Mahomet by them also call'd Haggar When the Jews saith Vossius believed that their Messiah should be a Stranger But these things are little remote from the Fictions of the Rabbies In the next place I would fain know from what Oracle of the Sybills the Learned Gentleman gather'd that the Messiah of the Jews should be a Proselyte and a Stranger according to the true opinion of the Jews for that this Assertion is contrary to the Prophesies of the Prophets and all Evangelical History as all Men well know Certainly the Jews expect one Messiah above all the rest of whom Vossius discourses at present but he according to the common consent of all the Jews is expected to be of the Nation and one of the Tribes of the Jews But they expect other Messias's besides and for that reason they give that Title to some Kings who were well affected towards them And therefore Cyrus is call'd the Messia of the Jews so also Herod and Mahomet might have the Title of Messiah from the Jews And in our age they are ready to salute that Prince or King whoever he be with the Title of Messiah that will but take into his protection their Affairs and the Ceremonies of their Country But these things belong nothing at all to the word Heriga which most certainly is an Arabic and not an Hebrew word Much nearer does that come to the Truth which after some things thrown between the Learned Gentleman adds concerning the Genuine signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that the Apocryphal Books signifie the same with Mysterious Books and inaccessible to the understanding But who can then gather with Vossius that the Books of the Apocrypha that according to his Sentiments were formerly added by the Ancient Jews to the Books of the Old Testament were worthy to be reckon'd as Canonical with the rest of the Prophetick Books that the Modern Canonical Scripture both of the Synagogue and Church is maim'd and lame while the Books of Enoch Elias and some others are left out Prophets are become very Cheap with Vossius who not only numbers the 70 Interpreters among the Prophets but also the most famous Impostors who taking upon them the names of the Patriarchs and Prophets and other Persons of high same and repute among the Gentiles have Printed the Books of Adam Enoch Abraham Moses Esaiah Jeremiah Hystaspes Mercurius Trimegistus Zoroaster the Sybils Orpheus Phocilldes and several others In a short time if it so please the Heavens we shall have
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
all those things which are related by Samuel to his Deaeth many passages declare that they could not be written by him For it is hardly to be believ'd that he writing of the Transactions of his own time and of which he was an eye-Witness should write these words Therefore neither the Priest of Dagon 1 Sam. 5.5 nor any that come into the House of Dagon tread upon the Threshold of Dagon to this day In like manner neither could those things be related by Samuel concerning the Ark in the next Chapter where it is said and the Stone remains in the Field of Joshua the Beshemite to this Day To this we add That Samuel could not be the Author of that Clause which we find in his History Heretofore to every one spake that went to take Counsel of God for he that is at this day call'd a Prophet was then call'd a Seer However notwithstanding all these Objections it is probable that the History which goes under Samuel's Name was written by himself till the Relation of his Death And as for those things which are alleadg'd to the contrary that there was a review of some Scribe or Prophet perhaps Jeremiah as some think who added some things for Explanations sake tho' others choose rather to add these Additions to Esdras and his Collegiates The Syrians also affirm That the first and second Book of Kings were call'd the third and fourth in the Latin Versions were written by a certain Priest whose Name was Johanan As for the Book of Chronicles Sal. Comment in Paralip Kimchi praef in paralip or Parilapomena by whom they were Collected there is some reason to question Most of the Jews will have Esdras to be the Author of them which R. Solomon and R. David Kimchi asserts to be the Tradition of their fore-Fathers making also Aggai Zachary and Malachi assistants to Esdras Yet not so that they should be said to write the History anew but only to have reformed the Antient History of the Kings of Israel and Judah rejecting those things which did not seem so proper for their purpose and adding some things which were omitted in other Books of Sacred Scripture from whence they deriv'd the Name of Paralipomena among the Greeks which word afterwards crept into the Latin Wherefore St. Jerom not improperly calls the Book of Chronicles an Epitome of the Old Testament In Epist ad Paul Nevertheless he reports the Opinion of the Jows concerning this thing with whom Grotius also agrees who believes these Books to have been written by Esdras and by the Jews to have been call'd Dibre Hajamin the words of the Days or taken out of the Kings Diaries As for the Book of Esdras the greatest part of it was written by himself as the Transactions therein contain'd do manifestly declare But Nehemiah confesses himself in the Front of the Book to be the Author of the second Book of Esdras The Book of Psalms is by the Jews call'd Sepher Techillim or the Book of Praises which sometimes St. Austin seems to believe to have been all of David's composing nor does he scruple to ascribe those to David which it is manifest were written long after his time because he was both a Musitian and a Prophet Nor could the Names of Asaph Jeduthun and other Musitians said to be the Authors of some of the Psalms beat off St. Austin from that Opinion because that David might supply the Matter which afterwards they polish'd and set to several Tunes But St. Jerome is more in the right who asserts the Psalms to be theirs whose Names they bear in the Titles that is Davids Asaph's Jeduthuns the Sons of Core's Eman's the Ezrahite Moses's Solomon's and theirs whom Esdras comprehends in the first Volume with St. Jerom also most of the Jews agree And the Prudent Aben Ezra affirms That the Psalms were made by them whose Names are prefix'd Praef. in Psalm though there are some who have no Name at all But in this that Rabby corrects St. Jerome because he does not absolutely pronounce the Psalms to be made by them whose Names are prefix'd but that those which carry the Names of David and Solomon were either theirs or compos'd from them by the Musitians Yet Christ seems to attribute the whole Book of Psalms to David where he says And David himself says in the Book of Psalms But Christ only spake according to the common Opinion of the Jews for they call'd them generally David's Psalms not that they thought them to have been all compil'd by him for the Matter it self speaks the contrary but because he was the chiefest of all the Authors and for that he is call'd the most excellent Singer of Israel Yet the above-cited Aben Ezra writes that there are some of the Rabbys who attribute the whole Psalter to David and acknowledge him to be a Prophet The Book which is called the Book of Proverbs is generally said to be Solomons whose Name it carries at the beginning though the whole Method of that Work seems to demonstrate that it was nothing but a Collection of Sentences which being first gather'd together by Solomon and others were afterwards embody'd in one Volume That Solomon composed many Parables those words prove which he speaks of himself Eccles 12 9. And because the Preacher was wise he still taught the people knowledge he sought out and set in order many Proverbs which are number'd up to be above three thousand in the third Book of Kings of which at this day no more are extant then what we find in the Holy Writings C. 4.32 To the first nine Chapters of that Work the Name of Solomon is prefix'd and other fifteen Chapters which also bear his Name And this Aben Ezra believ'd to be the second part of his Parables or Sentences The third part of the Proverbs begins from these Words of the 25th Chapter v. 2. It is the Glory of God to conceal a thing Which distinction was made by them who reduc'd the Books of Scripture into that Order which is now observ'd for it is not to be believ'd that Solomon fix'd his Name to his Proverbs but only the Scribes who divided that Work into parts And so that Verse which we read at the beginning of the 25th Chapter These are the Proverbs of Solomon which the Men of Ezekiah King of Judah Copyed out Aben Ezra believes to have been written by Sobna who was King Ezekia's Scribe And indeed I am ready to believe that Sobna and others of King Ezekia's Scribes did extract out of the whole Volume those Sentences of which the first is the Glory of God c. and this the Word which the Men of Ezekiah Copy'd clearly demonstrate The fourth part of the Proverbs of Solomon begin at the beginning of the 30th Chapter where we read in the Latin Edition the Words of the Assembler but in the Hebrew Text the Words of Agur. But who that Agur and Assembler was the Interpreters of
was only a Translation of his into Hebrew out of some Forreign Language But letting these things pass if we may conjecture in a matter so obscure I believe they are nearest the Truth who fix the Composition of this Piece in the Time of the Babylonish Captivity For the Language is hardly Hebrew and abounding in Chaldee Phrases bespeaks a Person who by Forreign Converse had corrupted his Hebrew Speech In which Sense the words of St. Jerom are to be explained when he tells us That he Translated Job out of the Hebrew Arabic and Syriac Language To which we may add that the Jews whose Affairs were then in a desperate Condition took great Delight in reading that Book as the Comfort of their Afflictions Therefore the Author relates an Action that lately happed and because he takes upon him to perform the part of a Poet tho the Argument be not fictitious yet he makes use of Figures and florid Language mixing sometimes Probabilities with Truth observing only a Decorum between the Interlocutors The Prophets by St. Austin are call'd Pronouncers or Publishers of the word of God to Men. For they Quest in ex as the Interpreters of the Divine Law preach'd to the People whom they taught the Law of Moses confirming his Authority Then what Threats and Promises Moses had only in general promulgated they applyed to the several occasions of their Times and that after the manner of Orators which is the reason that they abound in Comparisons Metaphors and Hyperboles and not content with a plain and bare Relation they amplify it in many words For saith St. Jerom the History and Order of things is not related barely by the Prophets Praef. in Lib. 18 Com. in Isai but all places are full of Riddles and Mysteries one thing is contain'd in the words another in the meaning that what you would think to run over with a plain an uninterrupted Sense you find presently involv'd in the obscurities of that which follows Nor did the Prophets so altogether foretell future things but that they frequently repeated things already done as is evident from the Prophesie of Zachariah which is a Relation for the most part of what was past or was at that same time transacted Thus that most dilligent Interpreter of the Scripture in expounding some words of the Prophet Amos blames the Exposition of the Jews maintaining in the same place a Prophesie of the future where there is nothing said but of what is past and sâ—on after he adds these words worthy observation In c. 3. Amos. We are under a scarcity of Sacred Authors for we read of many things in the Prophets which are not to be found in Sacred History In like manner St. Jerom attests that the Prophets in their Relations do not mind the Order of things as they were Transacted Among the Prophets saith he there is no order of History observ'd while we find under the same King those things that were last transacted Com. in c. 25. Jerom. first related and those things that were first in action last recorded This preposterous Order Pseudo Dorotheus attributes to the Scribes De vit mort Proph. who committed to Writing the Predictions of the Prophets as they receiv'd them from their own Lips as if the Prophets had not wont to write down the Sermons which they made to the People The same observation Cornelius a Lapide makes upon the Prophesie of Jeremy who believe that Baruch who was the Scribe belonging to that Prophet collected all his Prophesies which he had preach'd at sundry times and embody'd them into one Volume not regarding the Order of time wherein they were preach'd And John Calvin himself confesses that the Prophesies of the Prophets never came to our hands digested into that order as they ought to have been nevertheless he does not believe it any derogation to their Inspiration They Calv. praef in Isai saith he who have diligently and judiciously convers'd with the Prophets will grant me that their Sermons were never digested into that method as they ought to have been but as Opportunity offer'd so the Volume was perfected He believes that the Books of the Prophets were preserv'd by the diligence of the Preist whose Duty it was to recommend the Prophesies to Posterity though the Preists were profest Enemies to the Prophets The same Calvin writes also that after the Prophets had Preach'd to the People they wrote out the Heads of it which was affix'd to the Doors of the Temple that all people might read them which being afterwards taken away by the Officers of the Temple was laid up in the Treasury for a perpetual Monument and Record of that Sermon from whence he conjectures that the Books of the Prophets now extant were Copy'd True it is that from the words of Isaiah and Habaccuc whom Calvin produces for his Witnesses this one thing seems easie to be prov'd that the Prophets wrote their Sermons plainly and legibly upon Tables that they might be read by all the people But of the Doors of the Temple to which he believes they were affix'd they make no mention at all Then again he Conjectures amiss that Summaries of the Sermons were only Copyed out and not the Sermons at length Though there is no skilfull Critic who will presume to aver that the Prophesies which we have now are entire The same Calvin and the Divines of Geneva farther conjecture that the Inscriptions which declare the Names of the Prophets and the Years when the Prophesies were pronounced were added by the Priests whose Duty it was to keep them safe for the satisfaction of Posterity These are their Words Il semble che ces Tiltres ayent estez adjoustez aux Revelations des Prophetes par les sacrificateurs et Levites qui avoit charge de garder les Prophetes au Tresor du Temple apres qu' elles avoient este proposees au Peuple suivant le contume des Prophetes It seems probable that the Titles were added to the Revelations of the Prophets by the Priests and Levites who had the charge of those Prophesies in the Treasury of the Temple after they had been exposed to the people according to the custome of the Prophets To which Opinion Hugo Grotius also gives his Vote There is only this difference between him and them that he does not attribute these Inscriptions to the Priests and Levites but to the Men of the great Synagogue who collected the writings of the Prophets and set down the time of their being written This seems more probable because it is taken for granted among all that the Senate where Esdras presided did add something to the Sacred Text by way of Connexion and Explication Thus also Thomas believes that the Inscriptions fix'd to some Psalms were inserted by Esdras Com. in Psal 6. and were done partly as things were then acted partly according to what happned Lastly it is is very probable that those Histories which are inserted in some of the Sermons of the Prophets were added by the same Senators when they review'd the Sacred Books and form'd the Canonical Scripture as now we have it which is the reason some believe those words were inserted in the 51. Jeremie Thus far the words of Jeremie Which conclude the Prediction of the Prophet in regard the following Chapter is no Prophesie but a History taken out of the end of the 4th Book of Kings And in this the Rabbies agree with most of the Christian Doctors For R.D. Kimchi testifies that those words which run on to the end of the Prophesie of Jeremiah do not belong to the Prophesie only that he who Copy'd the Book inserted here the story of the Israelites being carried away Captive Com. in c. 51. Jer. as it is in the end of the Book of Kings On the otherside Abravanel conjectures that Esdras or the Senators of the Grand Assembly were the Authors of that Supplement as the History of Ezechia was tranferr'd out of the 2 Book of Kings cap. 18. into the Prophesie of Isaiah From all that has been said it may be easily discern'd who were accompted Prophets among the Hebrew People what was their Office and Function and what their method of writing Moreover this also seems worthy Observation that the Prophets did not only preach to the People and foretel future events but also digested the Histories of their times and wrote them into the publick Records And thus Isaiah who wrote the Acts of Hosea bears the Title no less of a Historian then a Prophet or rather the name of Prophet among the Hebrews comprehends all those significations So that whoever was a revealer of the Divine will or foretold future Accidents or wrote the Translations of his Time was call'd a Prophet From whence questionless it came to pass that the ancient Jews adorn'd the Histories of Joshua Judges Samuel and Kings with the Titles of Neviion Prophets because they were written by Persons who being full of the Holy Spirit were call'd Prophets In which sence Josephus affirms that in his Nation Books were not written by every one but by Prophets only Jonathan also has rightly understood the force of that word who instead of the Hebrew word Navi Prophet sometimes mixes another word in his Paraphrase which signifies only Scribe as if Prophets were the same with Scribes And thus much concerning the Sacred Writers I pass by the Apocriphal Books which the Jews do not admit into their Canonical Number because their Authors as the word Apocryphal signifies are uncertain and hidden in obscurity Let the Learned Vossius therefore forbear to bark at the most worthy Simon a Person so well deserving of the Sacred Scriptures who has publish'd nothing concerning the Writers of the Old Testament but what has been already approv'd by Persons most Grave and solid and highly Eminent both for their Piety and Learning Into a wicked Heart Wisdom shall not enter FINIS
Testimony of the learned Jews pag. 12. Chap. 4. Of the publisht Exemplars of the Hebrew Context which are Masoretick Of the Art of the Masorites Of its Original and what Opinion we are to have of it pag. 22. Chap. 5. The parts of the Masora in relation to the Manuscript Copies are weighed and illustrated The true Original of the Masora pag. 28. Chap. 6. Other parts of the Manuscripts in reference to the Manuscript Bible are examin'd Their true Original and the Masoretick Lection confirm'd pag. 35 Chap. 7. Some things unprofitably and superstitiously noted by the Masoreticks are illustrated out of the Manuscript Copies of the Bibles pag. 44. Chap. 8. Some Examples of different Writings are produc'd from the Manuscripts which vary from the Masoretick Versions pag. 48. Chap. 9. Whether the Jews corrupted their Bibles of set purpose The Opinion of the Fathers concerning this matter examin'd pag. 56. Chap. 10. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the Hebrew Manuscripts is examin'd and refuted pag. 71. Chap. 11. Of the Samaritan Bibles their Targumim or Paraphrases pag. 81. Chap. 12. Of the Bibles of the Sadduces and Karraeans pag. 92. Chap. 13. Of the Targumim of the Jews or the Translations of Sacred Scripture and first of the Chaldee Paraphrases pag. 98. Chap. 14. An Appendix of the other Translations of the Bible in use among the Jews pag. 137. Chap. 15. Of the Translations of the Bible of greatest Authority with the Christians and first of the Septuagint pag. 140. Chap. 16. A more particular examination of the Greek Septuagint Translation pag. 150. Chap. 17. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the seventy Interpreters is examin'd The Vindication of St. Jerom. pag. 157. Chap. 18. Of the rest of the Greek Translations of Sacred Scripture and the Hexaples of Origen The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the disposition of the Hexaples refuted pag. 172. Chap. 19. Of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church pag. 186. Chap. 20. Concerning the Authority of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church and first of the Vulgar In what sense it may be said to be Authentick pag. 193. Chap. 21. Of the Translations of Scripture us'd by the Eastern Church and first of the Arabic Coptic Aethiopic Armenian c. pag. 201. Chap. 22. Of the later Versions of the Bible and first of all of Latin Versions done by Catholick Divines pag. 209. Chap. 23. Of the Latin Translation of the Bible made by Protestants pag. 215. Chap. 24. Of the Translations of the Bible in the Vulgar Tongues and first of all of those made by Catholicks pag. 221. Chap. 25. Of the Bible done into the Vulgar Tongue by Heterodox Translators pag. 226. Chap. 26. Of the Translations of the Bible which were writ in the Vulgar Tongue and their rise from the Geneva Schools pag. 233. Chap. 27. Of the Polyglot Bibles pag. 240. Animadversions upon a small Treatise of Dr. Isaac Vossius concerning the Oracles of the Sybils and his answer to the objections in a late Treatise Intituled Critica Sacra pag. 249 CRITICAL ENQUIRIES Into the Various EDITIONS of the BIBLES at several Places and Times CHAP. I. Of the Bibles in general as well among the Jews as Christians THE whole Context of Sacred Scripture is remarkably known among the Christians by the name of The Books that is to say The Books so call'd for their Excellency above all others and these Books contain both the Old and New Testament The Jews however allow of no more than only the Books of the Old Covenant Of the Old Testament and those only written in the Hebrew Language for as for those which the Church has receiv d from the Hellenist Jews in the Greek Language they deny them to be Canonical and therefore will not admit them into their Synagogues Whereas the Church inspir'd with the Holy Ghost admits them likewise to be of Divine Authority As to which difference they who among Christians assume to themselves the Name of Protestants and Reformed rather chuse to take the Synagogues part than to joyn with either of the Churches that is the Eastern or Western And therefore the Christians have only admitted into the Church those Books of the Old Testament which they receiv'd from the Jews As for the New Testament Christ the first Author of it committed nothing of it to writing but his Disciples after his Passion made publick those Books which we call the Books of the New Testament The New Testament Now who were the real Authors of those Books some there are who very much doubt as if the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John were not assuredly theirs For say they they would not then be entitl'd the Gospels according to Matthew Mark Luke and John but the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John had they been wrote by them and thus we generally say the Books of Moses and not according to Moses But the Titles of the Gospels and other Books are plainly different For that the Gospel which Matthew published was not Matthews but Christs and therefore it is rightly inscrib'd According to St. Matthew that is to say the Gospel of Christ according to the Testimony of St. Matthew upon which the Christians ground their Faith Pauls Epist to the Romans But now to return to the Jews with whom the Oracles of God were first entrusted as the Apostle speaks it the Holy Bible among them is called by several Names For sometimes they call it Mickra The names of the Scripture among the Jews or Reading in which sense those words of Nehemiah are to be taken where he says c. 8. v. 8. And caused them to understand the Reading For though it be true that Nehemiah in that place discourses particularly of the Levites reading the Law of Moses yet afterwards that name was not unfitly attributed by the Jews to all the rest of the Books of Holy Scripture Sometimes they denote the Scripture by these words Gâ—esrim ve Arbang or Twenty four under which name they comprehend the number of the Books of Sacred Writ To which St. Jerom seems to have alluded where he says Which are not of the Twenty four Antient Praelections upon Nehem. and Esdr have not equal Authority with Divine Writ Now what is to be understood by the Twenty four Antient the same St. Jerom more manifestly declares in Prolog Galeat Neither is there any thing to be more frequently found than this name of the Sacred Writings which they generally affix to the beginning of their Manuscript Bibles intimating thereby the whole Context of the Old Testament Although Josephus a notable Witness in this Argument affirms the Sacred Books allowed by his Nation to be no more than Twenty Two Which seems to have been so concluded to the end the number of the Books might be the more readidily and stedfastly retained in the memory by the numbers of the Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet which are also twenty two Nevertheless it
one serves for the publick use of the Synagogues the other for the particular use of private persons Neither do they read in their Synagogues every particular Book of Holy Writ but only such and such selected Books The Books of Scripture read in the Synagogues which are adapted and accommodated to the Mysteries of their Religion such as are the Books of Moses from whence they derive the Precepts of their Law and those which they comprehend under the name of the five Megilloth or Volumes That is to say the Canticles Ruth the Lamentations Ecclesiastes and Esther For these are the Volumes that are read in their Synagogues upon certain prefix'd days the Canticles upon Easter day Ruth upon the Feast of Seven days the Lamentations upon the ninth of the Month Ab. Ecclesiastes upon the Feast of the Tabernacles and Esther upon the 14th and 15th of the Month Adar And as for the Law it is divided into so many Sections as there are Sabbaths in the year so that they read a Section every year with an addition of something taken out of the Prophets The Superstition of the Jews in writing their Service-Books 'T is a wonderful thing to see how ridiculously devout and idly superstitious the Jews are in writing out the Copies which are for the use of the Synagogue For in the first place not content with the bare and naked Letter according as is to be seen in other Printed and Written Copies they adorn the several Letters with little Coronets which they call Tagin Neither are they asham'd to make God the Author of those flourishes which they say Moses learnt of God in Mount Sinai R. Moses Scem Tob in his Book where after the manner of the Cabbalists he seeks for the Reason of the Letters of the Alphabet tells ye many stories concerning those Coronets complaining that they were known to few of the Jews Thou shalt understand and hear saith he the Discourse which was drawn by our Ancestors of blessed memory in the Treatise Hagiga and shalt make Aleph wherein are seven Coronets There are seven also of the same nature in the Law Beth wherein are three Coronets they are four in the Law Gimel which has four flourishes three in the Law Daleth which has four flourishes six in the Law After the same manner does the same Rabby run over all the rest of the Letters he also has been so punctual to give us a Copy of the following Flourishes with Instruction how to make them and how often they are to be met with in the Books of Moses He also observ'd their differences some of these Flourishes being fix'd close to the Letter others set a small distance from the Letter either over the Letter or underneath it But these were only the Dreams Fancies of Jewish Brains about which nevertheless those Rabbies trifle away their time very seriously Thus Bal Masius makes Coronets for the Letters Zain and Heth quite different from those which R. Scem Tob delineates from the Tradition of his Fathers Farther these Jewish Rabbies shew an extream Superstition and Diligence in the choice of their Parchment for Paper they utterly reject as a new Invention This Parchment must be very clean nor can it be prepar'd by an Infidel or Ethnick but by a Jew and he neither an Apostate or a Heretick Therefore the Samaritan Copies are altogether renounc'd by the Jews as vile and impure Moreover they do not write as we do in folded Sheets but in large Volumes after the Custom of the Antients which they divide into Columes or Pages observing as it were a Geometrical Proportion and making use of a Ruler to draw the Lines streight for they have the vanity to affirm that Moses order'd that no Copy of the Law should be written without a Ruler and they also pretend that Moses taught them what sort of Ink they should use In writing careful in the first place not to joyn their Letters close together observing this proportion between the Letters and the Words to leave the space of a Silk Thred between every Letter and of a small Letter between every Word that the Lines be distant one from another the measure of one Line and every Line to hold thirty Letters To these may be added the Distinctions of the Sections of which some are larger and some lesser And then again some of these Sections are said to be close others open Those are call'd close which are so enclos'd on both sides with Letters that the space of four Letters be only left in open Sections the space of nine Letters Besides these there are also other larger Sections which are also to be seen in the publick Exemplars of their Bibles But those Jewish Rabbies are mainly deceiv'd who believe that Moses was the Inventer of those Divisions or Sections which are made in the Modern Copies For those Distinctions were found out by the late sort of Criticks The Antient Form of the Bibles especially those who call themselves Mosorethae for that in the Antient times there were no mark of Distinctions to be found either in the Hebrew Greek or Latine Copies For that was the business of the Grammarians and as Elias the Levite rightly observes the whole Law was antiently Pasuck Echad without any distinction of Letters or Words which as the Learned know was also observ'd by the Grecian Criticks in reference to Homers works Neither do the words of Nehemiah contradict what is here said Neh. 8.8 And they read in the Book in the Law of God distinctly as if the distinction of Verses had been brought into the Context of the Law ever since the times of Esdras Which Opinion the Talmudick Doctors seem to favour very much Tâ—l Tract Nedarim At least it could not be later than the Talmud when the Talmudick Writers make mention of it Baal Hatturim in compend Talm. de lect lib. legis and as R. Jacob Ben Ascer Baal Hatturim testifies It was the Custom of the Antient-Talmudick-Doctors to interpret the Law in another Language to the end the people might understand it because the Language of the Law was Aramean Now the Reader could not read above one Verse to the Interpreter for he first read one Verse then followed the Interpretation Then he read another Verse nor could the Interpreter proceed till the Reader was got to the end of a Verse nor could the Reader read another Verse till the Interpreter had made an end of his Interpretation Whence it may be collected that the Exemplars of the Mosaick Law were distinguished into Verses before the Talmudists were in Being But all these things might well enough be observ'd as well by the Reader as by the Expositor from the times of Esdras without any note of Distinction between the Context of the Verses which the Antient Translations of the Bibles which were publish'd in Greek before St. Jerom liv'd apparently demonstrate and St. Jerom himself who frequently distinguishes those
the warlike noise of the Rams-horns in the Hellelian more contracted the Vau being left out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 C. 10. of the same the Hillelian Copy reads v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a Schurec In the same chapter for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Vowel Segol under He it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Camets under He. The rest are more trivial excepting one place of the Book of Joshuah C. 21. where in the Masoretick Copies two whole Verses are wanting which that venerable Exemplar written for the use of Nassi or the Prince has supply'd again But in the Margin of the said Copy these words are to be read as being added by him who corrected that Exemplar in many places according to the Masoretick Lo Matzinou Elau Hashenin Pasikim Be Hilleli We cannot find those two Verses in the Hillelian by which the Masoretick Lection is confirm'd though it seems to be faulty enough We have some reason to suspect Hillel to be a Spaniard by Nation and a famous Rector of some Academy who reformed the Masoretick Edition in sundry places according to the Antient Copies After his death his Copies as being more corrected than the Vulgar became to be high in esteem especially among his Country-men and as Antiquity swells Mole-hills into Mountains after Death Thus the Name of Hillel being become famous was soon made use of to gull the more ignorant afterwards also his Name seduc'd the more Learned Jews less wary than they ought to have been And why I should thus think the very nature of the Hillelian Codex which varies in very few things and those very slight from the Masoretick which at that time was approv'd by the publick Practice and Authority of all Schools which seems to be confirm'd from hence for that then several of the Rabbies especially in Spain even after that tedious Labour which the Masorites undertook scrupled not to write down in their own Books the Variations of Scripture taken out of Antient Copies And hither ought we to refer the Animadversions of R. R. Judas Jonas Kimchi and others who have oft recourse to the Sepharim Midvikim or corrected Copies and hither also belongs that note frequent in the Margin most especially of the Spanish Manuscripts B' Sepher Achar in the other Copy But that Hillel was a Spaniard is not only to be proved from hence that his Biblick Copy was found in Spain and first extoll'd by the Spanish Jews but because I find several of the Spanish Lections quoted in the Spanish Exemplars quite otherwise than in the German and others In like manner we may affirm that the Exemplars of the Bibles which the Jews extol under the names of Ben Ascer and Ben Narthali were written out by such persons who being Presidents of Publick Academys made it their business to reform Erroneous Copies But in what time they liv'd is a thing not well known to the Jews themselves very little curious of their own Chronology However common fame reports them to have liv'd about the year 1034. long after the Tyberian Masorites R. Moses Tephil c. 8. And this was the Opinion of R. Gedalia R. David Gans and several others among the Christians It cannot be unknown what R. Moses has written concerning Ben Ascer's Manuscript which as he asserts was very well known in Egypt by which the Hierosolymitan Jews corrected their own Books That is the Examplar saith he which they all use because Ben Ascer corrected it labouring at it for many years and correcting it many times quite thorough For the Governours or Presidents of the Academies formerly according to the Custom of the Jews wrote out Copies which afterwards were made use of by the Provinces of which they were Chief Rulers and Princes especially if they were in any esteem for being Learned whence seems to have risen that variety of Readings which is found among the Manuscript Copies of several Provinces and distinct Ages Nor do the Rabbies themselves seem to deny it who believe that the Western Jews follow'd R. Ascer and the Oriental R. Naphtali in the Transcription of their Copies Now they call the Western Jews those that dwell in and about Jerusalem and the Eastern Jews those that live in and about Babylon The Hierosolymitan Codex saith Elias the Levite R. Elias Levita is that which Rabbi Jonas the Grammarian found by the Testimony of R. David Kimchi and perhaps may be that Exemplar which R. Ascer corrected who liv'd a long time at Jerusalem But the Lections about which the Rabbies themselves are at variance are very slight and trivial as they are in the Hillelian Nor will it be worth while to repeat them here in regard there is a Catalogue of them annexed to the large Venetian as also the Basil and English Bibles Let it suffice to observe that the Catalogue of the same Varieties in Manuscript which are fixed at the end of some Manuscript Bibles and to which they might have recourse do not exactly agree with those that are Printed at London Basil or Venice For some which in the Vulgar Editions claim Ben Ascer for their Author belong to those Catalogues which indeed owe their publication to R. Naphtali Such is that which is reckon'd the sixth in number and those which follow Those Manuscript Catalogues also add some and other Variations they omit besides those already Printed For where the Modern Lection makes use of the Accent Maccaph the more recent Manuscripts make use of the Point Dagesh or of some such thing Nor could there be any other way to knit together the series of those slight niceties because they are of little or no use For should we observe all the Variances of this kind which might be found in turning over those Manuscripts with an intention to embody them in one heap such a Collection would certainly swell into a large Volume For I must needs say they had leisure to spare who lookt after the Edition of the English Polyglottons who have not only publish'd those Lections every one in their order as they found them in the Basil and Venetian Editions but have also added the several places of Scripture of which there was hither never any Index before So that I wonder that men otherwise Learned should have no better thought than to employ themselves about such trifles But as to those differences of Readings which before the Times of the Tiberian Rabbies commaculated the holy Text and are of greater moment should be so sluggishly careless And which is worse having little knowledge of the Books of the Ancient Writers but only accustom'd to the Varieties in those Manuscripts of later date already mention'd yet they affirm a wonderful agreement of the Hebrew Copies among themselves Here might be added also those Varieties which are Ben Magnarabei ou Madnachei between the Eastern and Western Jews But in regard they are already publick and very few that are of moment that I may
Vulgar Distinction in their Commentaries In which particular the Jews agree very well with the Catholick Divines who do not depend so much upon the Masoretick Distinctions as to make it a point of Conscience not to depart from them when the receiv'd Distinctions will not yield a sense so proper and consentaneous to the Context To which we may add the Infinite Variety of Manuscript Copies which differ many times as to these matters as well from themselves as from the Masoreticks The Antient use of the distinction of Verses There is also another sort of Verses of Verses of which they seem not to have made mention who have handl'd this Subject from whence I am apt to believe that all the Masoretick Drudgery drew its Original These the Greeks call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rows the Latines Lineas or Lines These Verses were comprehended under a certain number of words And the setters forth of the Book were wont at the end of their works to add the number of the Verses therein contain'd that thereby they might prevent Additions or Diminutions which might be obtruded upon them Thus Diogenes Laertius tells us the largeness or smalness of the Books which he cites in his History by giving an account of the number of the Verses of which they consist In the same manner were the Volumes of Origen compil'd as St. Jerom seems to intimate where he says that there were seven or eight hundred Verses wanting In the Book of Job according to the Antient Edition of the Latine Interpreter the Verses are frequently reckon'd up at the end of the Samaritan Syriack and Arabick Copies So that 't is probable that the Jews deriv'd this Custom from the Arabians and they from the Greeks which afterwards the subtle Rabbies enlarg'd according as their Fancies prompted them But there was a necessity for them to distinguish other Verses by reason of their Readings and Lessons in the Synagogues to which they put a full stop not according to the number of words or letters but according as the sense guided them For that from the time that the Hebrew Language began to fail the Jews they never read the Law without an Interpreter who repeated it as it was read to the people in the Language they understood And thus the Interpreter follow'd the Reader when he had read one Verse which was such a short Sentence as might easily be deliver'd to the People without oppression to the memory which being read and interpreted then the Reader read another and then another till he came to some new matter so that his Lessons for Morning and Evening were therefore divided into Verses Nor can there be invented any other Original of those Verses which are pointed by the Doctors of Tyberias in the Sacred Context to be seen in the Editions of every Bible Although there were another sort of Verses well known to those of Tyberias because they do sometimes reckon up the Words and Letters of which the Verses consist Another sort of Verses A third sort of Verses the Criticks seem to acknowledge which the Doctors of Tyberias the Authors of the Masora seem not altogether to be ignorant of The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greeks borrowed from Military Discipline does not only signifie a Line but a certain Order or Rank of Lines and consequently of Verses In which sense Hesychius compos'd a Tractate under this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The distinction of the Twelve Prophets To which the word Sita answers in the Masora and from the same Fountain the word Sedarim or Orders seems to have proceeded where it signifies the same with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which distinctions and subdistinctions were invented Cassio de Diâ—in Lâ—â—t that the breath being tired by a long Sentence might recover it self by the means of allow'd Pauses as Cassiodorus rightly observes Of the same nature were those distinctions which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latines Capitula or small heads differing from those which we now call Chapters For these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided the whole Context of the Books into lesser Sections and the Heads of these were placed at the front of the Book This is to be seen in the New Greek Testament Printed at Venice Anno 1538. and in the Greek Edition of the same by Robert Stephanus which was copy'd from the Manuscripts preserv'd in the most Christian King's Library Had the Criticks consider'd more seriously these things and some other things which I pass over in silence while they were making their Animadversions upon the Original of the Masoretick Art they would not have wasted so much time and labour in refuting the Jewish Miracles who talk of nothing but of Moses and Esdras To this I will add something concerning the Notes which the Jews call Taamin the Latines Accentus or Accents which serve in the room of Colons and Comma's to distinguish the Hebrew Context in the same manner as the Greeks make use of points and stroaks However in this the Rabbies seem to have exceeded the Greeks and Latines because they not only found out the marks of Accents for the distinction of Sentences and their Members but also invented other Accents for marks of continued speech as if what was not distinguish'd was not continu'd The Original of those Accents they take from Esdras himself But how vainly any man may judge by what has been already said concerning those other sorts of Distinctions For indeed they have no other Authors but the Doctors of Tyberias who in this particular acted the part of Grammarians Neither are the Jews so strict in observing them as to make it an Article of their Belief that they are not to be departed from especially where another Distinction produces a better sense In Lib. Tsachuth Thus Aben Esra makes mention of a certain Learned Rabbi by name Moses Coheu who took little notice of those Masoretick marks in distinguishing the Sentences of the Biblick Context And yet I have the same Opinion of these De Diviâ— Lect. as Cassiodorus had of the Points that were added to the Edition of the Latine Interpreter by the Criticks These Points saith he are as it were certain Paths of the Senses and Lights of Sentences But they must of necessity dote as the Jews do who look upon those Periods of the Hebrew Context to be the Effects of Divinity and thereby shew themselves absolute strangers to Criticism Nor do I wonder that the whole Nation of the Jews embrac'd those marks as well in transcribing their Copies as in the Explanation of the Context seeing all that profess the Faith of the Roman Church so religiously adhere to the Vatican Edition of the Latine Interpretation with points and stroaks and never swerve from it but when they play the Criticks in their Commentaries which that it was also a thing much practis'd by the Jewish Rabbies their Comments upon the Scripture
the Jewish Writings thus delivers himself concerning those Letters There is no question says he but the causes of those diversities seem'd worthy and just to those wise and prudent persons in former Ages Buxt Comment Masor but the various Exilements and grievous Calamities of their Posterity have buried them in oblivion or alter'd them into various Figments and fond Mysteries Thus Buxtorf rather chuses to make himself a Patron of Masoretick Superstition than to enquire into the cause of that Superstitious Writing which Superstition shews it self in this that the Modern Exemplars of the Bibles which were examin'd by the Doctors of Tyberias are some lesser some bigger than others some turn'd inward others hanging downward The cause of which seems to be no other than that the hands of the Scribes could not so make the Letters of Lines extended in length as to be every way equal one with another whence it happen'd that some varied in shape from the rest It might so fall out also that some Letters at the beginning of the Volume might be made bigger of set purpose as Aleph and Beth of which the one is the first Letter in the beginning of the Chronicles the other of Genesis But the Jews who knew how to fetch out a Mystery out of the least tittle of a Letter began to conceit new Fictions upon this Writing which afterwards by virtue of the Authority of the Doctors that first invented these Fables being receiv'd by the rest of the Jews were easily propagated to Posterity But though the use or rather abuse of those Letters seems to be very antient and long accustom'd by the Masorites yet have I found a vast difference in the observance of those Delineations between the Exemplars of the Manuscript Bibles and those For in those there are fewer Examples of those Letters or if you meet with any the form of the Letter is hardly discern'd to differ from the other Thus the bigness of the Letter Aleph which is the first in the Book of Chronicles and Beth in the beginning of Genesis in many Spanish Copies is scarcely to be discern'd so small is the difference between them and the rest In one Spanish Copy written about some 10 years since those trifles are altogether neglected Thus Isaiah c. 56.10 In the Masoretick Bibles the word Tsophau or Watchmen is Printed with a great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tsade but in the Manuscript Copy the same word is written without any manner of distinction from the rest and so it is likewise written in another Manuscript Thus in the 44th chapter of the same Prophet where we read in the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He planted an Ark with a small Nun at the end of the word is writ as it should be with a proportionable Nun. So vain and superstitious is that Masoretick Annotation upon that place There happen three small Nuns In the 6th chapter of Daniel v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is written in the Masoretick Bibles with the latter Pe very large whereas there is no such thing in the Spanish and other Manuscripts In other two Spanish Manuscripts there is a great Pe to be seen but with this difference that the one enlarges the first Pe the other the second In the 3d Chapter of the Prophet Malachi according to the Hebrew but the 4th in the English Translation and v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remember is written with a large Zain but in the two Spanish Copies there is not the least appearance of any such thing nor in the Bibles of Menasseh Ben Israel Printed at Amsterdam The same account is to be given of Letters turn'd and rais'd above the rest as in the Hebrew Exemplar as of Letters lesser or larger Thus in the 18th of Judges v. 3. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Manesses is written with a little Nun rais'd above the rest which is also advanc'd in the Manuscript Copies but not in that manner for only the top of the Nun is rais'd a little above the other not the whole body of the Letter Therefore the Jewish Grammarians erroneously give these Letters the Title of Rais'd Letters is it were separated and set above the other when it could be nothing but the fault of the Scribe who was not so steady at that time There is one Spanish Copy also that will not own the depressed Caph in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to weep for her Gen. 23. v. 2. nor the great Zain in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Harlot Gen. 34.31 Nor is the word Shilleshi M so written in the Manuscript with a capital Mem as in the Masoretick Editions Only one word of this Book Gen. 2.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they were created is written with a small 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He as the other Copies have it To search the Scriptures any farther for these trifles will be a vanity since they are only the dreams of idle Fancies And I could wish that custom might be utterly rejected for the future The same fond Superstition also was the occasion of so many Figments about Aleph Jod He and Vau which were the Original Vowels of the Hebrew Language especially omitted in the writing For Example in 2 Sam. c. 9. you find the Negative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lu with a Kibbuts without the Letter Vau which should otherwise have been writ thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon which I found this Masoretick note in the Margin Jerom◠quest in Gen. Lo is twice defective because Absolom did not overcome And that this the Jews observ'd ever since the time of St. Jerom his own words sufficiently testifie As we have here put it in the Hebrew his first name is written Ephran yet after he was over-ruled to take money for a Burial-place though he were pressed to it by Abraham the Letter Vau which is read among them was taken out of his name and instead of Ephron he was called Ephran the Scripture thereby intimating that he was not a person of true and perfect generosity Here as frequently in other places St. Jerom does not speak his own but the mind of the Jews However it is probable that this variety of Character which at first proceeded only from the careless and negligent humour of the Scribes as Aben Ezra observes The method of writing the Heb. Text uncertain gave the Jews an occasion to ground many Mysteries upon it as being persons that will spring a Miracle out of a Shoe-latchet As for the writing of Aleph it was always uncertain from the very time that the Authentick Originals of the Sacred Text were lost by the Jews So that it solely depends upon the will of the Jews as may be easily prov'd by comparing the most Authentick Manuscripts with the publish'd Editions For they differ in a thousand places so that I could number above six thousand of those Letters which are not extant in the publick Exemplars Therefore the
Criticks of Tyberias in vain turmoil'd and weari'd themselves in counting how many times this or that word was full and how many times defective For example they diligently consider how many times the word Otham is written at large in the Text they observe that it was written in the Law thirty nine times full or with the Letter Vau and thus they run through all the Books of Scripture But upon comparing the Manuscripts together they could never once agree among themselves after what manner the said word was to be written Moreover this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being fully thus written does not only signify them or those which is its true and genuine signification but sometimes with them as if it were written Ittham and were defective in the writing So true it is that in these words the sence and not the Character is to be regarded But above all there is nothing like the Superstitious niceness of the Jews in writing the word Ieruschalaim while they diligently observe all the places of Scripture where it is to be writ at length with a Jod and where without And yet neither the Hebrew Manuscripts nor the Masoretick Examplars agree one among another How many fictions have they raised about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Meoroth or Lights which in the Beginning of Genesis is written without a Vau contrary to the rules of Proportion and because the Jewish Rabbies have raised a thousand fictions from this manner of writing such a Notable word hence the Scribes have been very careful to observe that manner of spelling True it is that the Insertion or Omission of those letters which depend upon the pleasure of the Scribes seldom prejudice the sense and therefore in such cases neither the one nor the other is of any moment But sometimes it happens that they alter the sense As 2 Sam. 20. In the third of Sophonia where we read Nogue Sad as the Interpreters vulgarly render it from Jaga Rabbi Solomon expounds it remote or forraign as if it came from the Root Haga without any regard to the Masoretick reading There are not wanting some Rabbies who derive the word Nechiloth in the Title of the 5. Psalm from Chalal as if it were to be written without a Jod not much heeding the Rules of the Masorites for full and defective words I omit above six hundred of this nature frequently to be met with in the Commentaries of the Jews by which the Greek Translations of the LXX Interpreters and the Latine of St. Jerome may be Illustrated in many places Neither is St. Jerome to be commended for this that he blames the Greek Interpreters for differing sometimes from him in that sort of reading For this reason he taxes those who in the 14. Chapt of Isaiah for Angels as it is in the Hebrew Exemplar translate Kings because that in their Copies they find the word Malkim without the Letter Aleph not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Letter Aleph as St. Jerome had it But the Greek Interpreters were not to be governed so much by the reading of Copies as by the sense which was most proper to the place especially when the Manuscripts and printed Editions do not agree about the Insertion of the Letter Aleph As in Jeremy the Seventh v. 18. Where the modern Exemplars read Limleketh to the Queen without an Aleph yet in a single Manuscript it is written with an Aleph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And hence arose those Masoretick observations of Redundant Letters CHAP. VIII Some Examples of differing Writings are produced from the Manuscripts which vary from the Masoretick Lections AFter that the Hebrew Language ceas'd to be familiarly spoken among the Jews and that the Chaldee Language became the Speech of the Country the Writers made many alterations in their Transcriptions by reason of the Affinity of the Languages Nor were they so curious of neat Letters as they were before From whence without question it came to pass that the Letter Aleph so much in use among the Chaldaeans is many times mistaken for the Letter He and added to words without any reason And from hence I suppose it happened that there are so many Chaldaeisms in the Hebrew Text as Shelechebeth Flame by the Addition of the Letter Schin according to the custom of the Chaldeans Magnath abin and Calabin instead of Magnathabim and Calabim with several others of the same nature which I omit that I may come to those other variations of writing frequent in the Manuscript Copies of most credit and Authority In the writing of these words El Elohim Jehovah Col and the like which are frequently redundant with the Greek Interpreters the Manuscript Copies do not a little vary from the printed Masoreticks Which because they are more frequent in speech are sometimes inserted sometimes omitted by the Scribes Thus in the beginning of the 16. Psalm the word Jehovah is thus repeated in one Spanish Copy Thou hast said Jehovah L' Jehovah Jehovah to Jehovah thou art my Lord but in the modern exemplar only once In the same exemplar Ezech. 30. v. 3. The word Jehovah is thus twice repeated The day of the Lord the day of the Lord approaches But the Masoretick Copy repeats the Lord but once nor does St. Jerom seem to have read it otherwise in his exemplars Neither do the Seventy Interpreters repeat the sentence saying no more then once the day of the Lord approaches On the other side in the same Spanish Manuscript Judges 1.1 The word Col is omitted and the Lection is thus The Children of Israel went forth but in the printed Editions Col Benei All the Children of Israel went forth But it is needless to repeat any more examples of these Variances which nevertheless St. Jerom writing to Sunias and Fretelas very carefully enumerates for the thing it self informs us that those sorts of words might easily have been added or omitted in the transcribing of the Copies Moreover in the Spanish Manuscript already recited toward the end of the 2d Chap. of the 1 Book of Chronicles the Lection is conformable to the Greek Interpreters and to what St. Jerom had read in his Copies Maacha Calebs Concubine brought forth Seber and Thirana The Spanish Copy reads Jaldah brought forth in the Faeminine Gender but in the Masoretick Editions it is written Jahad in the Masculine Gender he begot and so cannot be joyned with the Faeminine Concubina or Concubine Wherefore the modern Interpreters of the sacred Text who follow the Masorites over zealously for fear of erring against the rules of Grammar make use of this Periphrasis Maacha Caleb's Concubine of whom he begat Sebar and Thirana In the 3d Chapter v. 19. of the same Book where we find in the Printed Books Vben Zerubbabel with a Masoretick marking the margent denoting the Opinion of the Masorites that it should be read in the Plural Number Benei and not in the singular Ben in the Spanish Copy it appears to be Benei
Addition of others But because the Eastern people rarely made use of them in writing the Criticks invented pointed vowels for the more quick and easie reading of the Scriptures But Vossius speaks very uncoheringly not so much as to the truth of the business as out of a preconceived prejudice against the Jews CHAP. XI Of the Samaritan Bibles their Targumim or Paraphrases COncerning the Nation Customs and Religion of the Samaritans who by the Jews are call'd Cutheans the sacred Text relates many things in the Books of Kings Chronicles and Esdras which afterwards Josephus explains more at large an ample Testimony in this affair In our Age Johannes Morinus in his exercitations with which he has adorned the Hebrew Pentateuch Hortinger in his Antimorinian Exercitations Walton in his Prolegomena to the Samaritan Text and other most learned men have illustrated the Samaritan affairs and therefore passing by those things in silence I proceed to their Texts of which some of the Fathers as well Greek as Latin have made mention together with the Scholiast of the Roman and Frankfurt Editions of the Septuagint That the sect of the Samaritans makes only use of the Pentateuch of Moses I suppose is known to all For at what time they revolted from the Jews there was one Law among all the Hebrews the other Books of Scripture not being yet compos'd The Samaritan Texts or if they were not yet made publick But what to think of that Samaritan Copy is a thing difficult to resolve Morinus who was the first that published it lashing out into the praise of it after his Custom extols it to the skies For which reason he is much blam'd by the learned Especially by Muisius then Royal professor of Hebrew at Paris who very severely Stigmatizes Morinus's opinion of the Samaritan Pentateuch After that Hottinger set forth his exercitations upon the Samaritan Pentateuch in opposition to Morinus And both reprove a great many things in him which he does not seem to assert he having only praised a little more than needed the Samaritan Text which was then the subject of his discourse after which manner prefacing upon his Edition of the Greek Bible he wonderfully upbraids the Hebrew Text. The most moderate of all are Ludovicus Capellus and Brian Walton who in many things do not reject the credit of the Samaritan Pentateuch But of all others Vsher of Armagh has the worst opinion of it who affirms that the Samaritan Text was of set purpose and in many places new dressed and corrupted by one Dositheus a certain Samaritan Heretick Therefore the Samaritan Codex is one and the same with the Hebrew only few little variances excepted as is observed as well by Eusebius in his Chronicles and by St. Jerom. The Samaritans saith St. Jerom In Prol. Galeat De emendat Temp. write the Pentateuch of Moses with just so many Letters only varying in the shape and in the points Which words of St. Jerom Joseph Scaliger seems not to have understood when he affirms that the Samaritans read the Pentateuch with just as many Letters as the Jews neither more or less For St. Jerom himself sometimes observes the various reading of both Codex's as in his Hebrew Questions upon Genesis and his Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Galatians wherefore St. Jerom when he affirms the Jewish and Samaritan Exemplars to be alike in all things intended only by those Words to distinguish the Samaritan Codex from the Greek and Latin Translations In regard the first is the pure and simple Hebrew context which cannot be said of the Greek and Latin Bibles In the same manner speaks Eusebius upon whom St. Jerom altogether depends That the Samaritan differs from the Hebrew Pentateuch in some things is past all dispute as may appear by the Parisian and English Polyglottons in Print Which Copy the noble Peter à Valle obtained from the Samaritans And afterward Achilles Harlay Sancy the Kings Embassador in Turkey caus'd to be brought to Paris and laid up in the Library of the Fathers of the Congregation of the Oratory near the Loure And that there are other Copies of the same Pentateuch in other Libraries of Europe the Epistles of Perescius Peter à Valle Comberus and Aleander to Morinus apparently Testifie Jerom Aleander thus wrote in the year 1628. I would have you to understand that there is here in the Vatican Library another Samaritan Copy of the Pentateuch written in the same Samaritan Letters which Scipio of Pious Memory Cardinal of Susanna then Library-keeper bought for 300 Crowns Which Copy though it be written in Hebrew Characters yet is it in the Hebrew Language like to ours Certain it is that the Samaritans though they were much inferiour in number to the Jews yet after the Destruction of their Temple at Gerizim retained the Customs and Ceremonies of their Country and read the Pentateuch of Moses in their Synagogues as they do at this day The Samaritan Copy which is come to our hands being examin'd by the Fragments of the Antient Exemplars which are extant in Eusebius St. Jerom and the rest of the Fathers seems to be a true and perfect Copy and the same with those that were read in the Antient Times by the Samaritans However I will not deny but that it is degenerated in some things from its Original Purity and Sincerity But this is the fate of all Books which are not however to be therefore rejected for illegitimate Birth because they do not exactly agree with the Originals in all things For then we could not say that any one of the Antient Authors were come perfect to our hands nor were Homer's Verses so common now-a-days to be receiv'd for his because the most Critical of men Aristotle quotes somethings out of Homer which are not to be found in our Modern Copies Nor were the Jewish Copies of the Bibles now in use to be entertain'd because they do not exactly agree with those which the Seventy Interpreters made use of in their Translations We must therefore assert that the Copies of the Samaritan and Jewish Pentateuch are real and authentick Copies though there may be some difference between them Objections against the Purity of the Samaritan Context as Aristotles Homer plainly appears to be the same Homer which was examin'd by Aristarchus although they do agree in all things However there were not wanting some especially among the Protestants who thought the Codex of the Samaritans to be rejected led thereto chiefly by this reason because the true Worship of God the Succession of the Priests and Doctors remain'd only among the Hebrews not among the Samaritans and therefore the Copies of the Law were to be taken from them alone as being the true People of God But I wonder that the Protestant Divines who make so slight of the Authority of the Church and the Succession of Priests and Doctors should enforce these Arguments For in this particular the Authority of the Church is not
greater than of the Synagogue Who can be ignorant that the Authority of the Church has not been able to make good the Purity of its own Exemplars or to justifie them from being clear from all manner of faults when the Version of the Seventy Interpreters of which the Eastern and Western Church made use has not been entire from the very time of Origen However I readily grant that the Hebrew Exemplar is to be chiefly preferr'd for the Christians borrowâ—d the Books of Scripture from the Jews and not the Samaritans Only the Authority of any Assembly whatever does not make a Book to be without Errour or Fault but only declares it to be receiv'd and fit for practice There are also other faults with which the defenders of the Hebrew Text load the Samaritan Copies For first they enendeavour to prove it mutilated by the Example of some few words and then they say that some words are foisted into the place of others They also object the differences of the Hebrew and Samaritan Texts one with another as also the carelesness of the Scribes who confound the Letters Aleph and Ain He and Heth and other Letters resembling in form But they kill themselves with their own weapons when the same things may be objected against the Hebrew Texts themselves In this the Patrons of the Jewish Text are deceived The Samaritan text vindicated because that out of a preconceiv'd Opinion of some of the Jews they think it to be free from all Errour which is to be only affirm'd of the Originals We have already shew'd you that the manner of writing of the Hebrew Context was very inconstant and perhaps more free than among the Samaritans who never hunted after the Trifles of Jewish Allegories Even in this the Samaritan Codex's excel the Jewish for that many things which Superstition foisted into the one are wanting in the other To this we may add that the Hand and Character of the Samaritan Text plainly proves Antiquity On the other side the Jewish Manuscripts being reform'd by several Ages at length obtain'd the name of Masoreticks Lastly the Jewish Text may in many things be illustrated by the Samaritan Thus Gen. 2. we read in the Hebrew that God finish'd his work upon the Seventh Day but in the other upon the Sixth Day which seems to be the more proper Lection Gen. 4. This Sentence which is in the Samaritan Let us go into the field v. 8. seems to be wanting in the Hebrew and many of the Jews mark this gap in the Margin of their Scriptures in these words pausa in medio versus a rest in the middle of the Verse I know that St. Jerom in his Hebraick Questions upon Genesis has observ'd this Pericope for superfluous both in the Greek and Samaritan Exemplars Superfluous saith he is that in the Samaritan and our Volume Let us go into the field But it appears that St. Jerom in these Questions where he professes himself an Assertor of the Jewish Text did not speak so much his own as the Opinion of the Jews Exod. 12. where we read that the sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years the Samaritan Exemplar comprehends Their Fathers with the Children or the sojourning of the Patriarchs in the same Egypt Which Lection agrees with the Truth but is not Jewish But it might have been that they supply'd all these things in their Books and that they might have been glosses for the Explanation of the Hebrew Text which is frequently very obscure On the other side there are several things written with more freedom in the Samaritan Codex which seem to have been added for Illustrations sake out of other parts of the Pentateuch by some of the Samaritan Doctors Which Supplements without doubt argue the Copy to be vitious In like manner the word Garizim Deut. 17. which they have put in the place of Ebal which was the Antient Reading shews that the Samaritans were not over-religiously exact in their Copies whence it is manifestly evinc'd that neither the Samaritan nor Jewish Exemplar are free from all manner of Errour so that they are to be lookt upon as Copies of one and the same Book which may be useful to one another yet so that the Jewish Copy though it have its Imperfections is to be preferr'd before the Samaritan not only because all Religion and the Scripture descended from the Jews to the Christians but because the Exemplars seem to be less obnoxious to Errours However that ought to be no impediment but thaâ— the Jewish Copy may be mended by the Samaritan where a manifest Errour shall appear and the Samaritan Lection preferr'd before the Jewish if it be more correspondent to Truth For indeed the Reading of the Hebrew Text among the Samaritans seems to be nothing near so strict in regard their Copies make no use of pointed Vowels which confine the manner of Reading the Hebrew Context And it is certain that Points were a Modern Invention of the Jews nor are they added to those Volumes which are made use of in the publick Synagogues And there I think the Samaritans rather to be commended than blam'd for retaining their Antient form of Letters The Excellenâ—y of the Samaritan Codex Besides they have a Tradition for the Reading of the Text as the Jews had before the Points were invented by the Doctors of Tyberias Lastly The Samaritans excel the Jews in this that they have retain'd the Antient or Mosaick Characters of the Hebrew Language whereas the Jews upon their return from Babylon devoted themselves wholly to the Babylonian or Chaldaean to which they had been accustom'd which was the reason why the Samaritans first accus'd the Jews especially Esdras as a corrupter of the Sacred Text of Scripture But laying these Quarrels aside let us in a few words examine what may be thought of the first Hebrew Letters For the Samaritan Characters the sounder sort of Criticks and the Antient Coins of the Samaritan Nation fairly plead so that Joseph Scaliger gives them the Title of Asses who will not subscribe to the Opinion of St. Jerom where he says That certain it is Prolog Galeat that Esdras the Scribe Doctor of the Law after the taking of Jerusalem and restoration of the Temple under Zerobabel found out other Letters which we now make use of whereas till that time the Hebrew and the Samaritan Characters were the same This Opinion of St. Jerom concerning the Samaritan Characters was renew'd not long since by Guilielmus Postellus Blancuccius Villalpandus Morinus Capellus Mayerus Perescius and among the Jews by R. Azarias and several others Postellus who had long convers'd with the Jews attributes the cause of that change to the hatred which the Jews had to the Samaritans as being Schismaticks That Party says he who intermix'd with the True Religion the Worship of Idols In Alph 12. Linguar c. de Samar is adjudged by a grave and pious person to
the Sacred Text which the Jews and Samaritans compil'd in their Mother Tongues so soon as the Hebrew Language ceas'd to be familiar plainly demonstrate that the Scriptures were written in the Language of the Country Whence arose that Version wrote in Syro-Chaldaick not unelegant neither which denotes its Antiquity This is put forth in the Parisian and English Versions and seems to have been compos'd by the Samaritan Doctors to be read in the Schools and to the end that all the words of the Mosaick Law might be read when the use of the Hebrew Language it self was only among the Learned The Samaritan Paraphrase expresses almost verbatim the whole Hebrew Context from which it swerves in but few things most especially in the names of Rivers Cities and Countries which he accommodates for the most part to the time present Nor does he seem to be free from all praeconceiv'd Opinion for which reason he translates the word Elohim Angels Thus where we read that man was translated in the likeness of God he renders it in the likeness of Angels and a little before instead of these words Ye shall be as Gods as it is in the Hebrew he renders the words Ye shall be as Angels Sometimes he confines the Hebrew words to his own sense as instead of those words in the Latine Edition The Spirit of God was carried upon the face of the Waters he translates it Blew upon the Waters But the Latine Interpreters of the Samaritan seems not so accurate in all things especially in those places where he differs from the Hebrew Samaritan which in some places wants correction There was also a Greek Version of the Samaritan for the use of the Samaritans that us'd the Greek Language Of which Version the Antient Fathers have so frequently made mention in their works In Exercitat in Pent. Samar that Morinus affirms it to have been done by them But in so saying he is extreamly deceiv'd Isaac Vossius is also in an Errour who denies that there ever was any Greek Version of the Pentateuch among the Samaritans but that all those Quotations by the Fathers of the Samaritan Codex were taken out of Origens Hexapla illustrated with Scholiasts where are various Lections of the Samaritan Exemplars I do not deny but that Origen has cited many things by way of Comment in the Margin of his Hexapla But the Fathers who make mention of the Samaritan Codex cite the Translation of the Pentateuch which was read by the Samaritans to whom the Greek Tongue was more familiar And indeed there is no probability that it could otherwise be just as the Samaritan that spake Arabick had a Version of the Pentateuch into Arabick Yet Masius suspects there was no other Greek Version for the Greek Samaritans than the Version of the LXX Interpreters Tho it is much more likely that the Samaritans after the Example of the Hellenist Jews made a new Version for themselves that is to be us'd in Schools and private Houses the Hebrew Samaritan Context being always reserv'd for the use of the Synagogue To which we may add that the Version cited by the Fathers under the name of the Samaritan differs in some things from the Translation of the Seventy as appears by the Chronicle of Eusebius Masius also testifies that Symmachus being an Ebionite was for no other reason induc'd to make a new Translation of the Sacred Text in the Greek but out of meer hatred to the Samaritans whose Opinions he had deserted This Greek Translation agrees in some things with the former Samaritan Version where it differs from the Hebrew Samaritan Text as if the Greek had been taken from thence But in regard they frequently differ among themselves there can be nothing certainly affirm'd in reference to this particular All which is easily illustrated by Examples Thus Gen. 49.23 where the Latine Interpreter rightly expresses the words both of the Hebrew as of the Hebrew Samaritan Having Darts the Author of the Greek Version of the Samaritans translates the same words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which agrees with the Samaritan and the Chaldee Paraphrase Soon after we read v. 24. as well in the Jewish as Samaritan Hebrew Context Beethan which in the Latine Edition is rendred in Forti in the Greek Version of the Septuagint cum Fortitudine but the Interpreters of both the Samaritan Versions have rendred the word in profunditate Which Interpretation does not express the Grammatical sense as they call it yet it may so happen that that sense is commonly receiv'd by the Samaritans Gen. 5.19 We read in the Samaritan Version and in both the Hebrew Texts pro Deo which the Greek Interpreter of the Samaritans renders Timeo Deum as if he had made use of a Copy quite different from all the Modern Exemplars and yet R. Saadias Gaon has the same Interpretation in his Arabick Paraphrase who nevertheless had no other Exemplars than what we use at this day Exod. 9.22 Instead of the word Flies which is read in the Latine Edition in the Greek Samaritan Version the word Crow is made use of the Interpreter mistaking the word Oreb for Erob which signifies a confus'd multitude of Flies or little Insects Which Errour may be imputed to the Interpreter by reason of the various manner of reading because of the want of Points in the Hebrew Samaritan Copy The Samaritans have also an Arabick Version of the Pentateuch which was compil'd for the use of them that spake the Arabick as their Natural Language For tho the Samaritans like the Jews read no other than the Hebrew Text of Moses Law in their Synagogues yet have they several Translations for the several Provinces belonging to it The famous Perescius had a third sort from the Samaritans but defective wherein the Arabick Version was written in a Samaritan Character of which there are some Copies however written in a Samaritan Character Hottinger has inserted the 4th chap. of Genesis out of a certain fragment of that Arabick Translation both in Arabick and Latine in the third Book of his Bibliotheca Orientalis The most Learned Walton makes mention also of the same which Vsher of Armagh communicated to him The Samaritans have also other Arabick Books written out however in a Samaritan Character Thus J. Scaliger makes mention of a Samaritan Chronicle the Epitome of which Hottinger has rendred into Latine with this Title An Epitome of the Chapters of the Book of Joshua Because it begins from the Death of Moses and the Conduct of Joshuah De Emendat Tâ—mp and extends as Scaliger observes to the Reigns of the Antonines Nor do the Samaritans want the History or the Book of Joshua it self which however does not agree in all things with the Hebrew Text nor do they look upon it as Canonical Scripture in regard they acknowledge no other for Authentick Divinity but the Law of Moses I shall not trouble my self with the Lexicons which are now in use for the Samaritan
this place that Reschith is a name of time then he reproves a certain Rabby by the name of R. Jesua who believes that the Angels were from the beginning and opposes to him the Opinion of the Misnick Doctors that the Angels were not created the first day and makes it out from the words of Scripture that there was nothing that day created and that this was the common Opinion of the Interpreters Upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 PLACE = marg Gen. 1. Vâ—haarets and the Earth he observes that the Vau prefix'd to this word ought to be taken like the Phe Raphatum of the Arabick Language and that it is not a servant to the word but the beginning of the word That the name of Elohim is proper to the Judges to which he adds that after the word Eloah was found out then we understood Elohim to be a Plural and then calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leshon Tifearath a word of honour or ornament He explains the properties genuine signification of Tohu Bohu and Coshech and illustrates those by other places of Scripture and refutes a nameless person who believes the word Coshech to signifie the Elementary Fire He says that Merachepeth is of the Dagesh Conjugation or Piel He expounds the force of this Sentence according to the Letter and resolves many difficulties arising as well from the Context as from the Exposition of the Interpreters Upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he makes these Observations the Letter He in the word Laielah is meerly additional and there is the same account to be given of all words ending in He whose Accent is Mileel Where we read in the Latin Interpretation Let us make man and in the Hebrew Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nagnaseh who reproves some Interpreters who thought it was to be expounded I will make as if it were written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because in some places the Letters Ethan Aleph Jod Tau and Nun are chang'd one into another which Rule the Carraean does not disapprove but only here denies it to have any effect Upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mechelbehen Of their Fat which is writ with a Tzeri under Beth he makes this note this word is mark'd with a Tzeri under Beth because it is in the Plural to distinguish it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chelbam their Fat which is written with a Scheva and it happens to be without a Jod which is a sign of the Plural number as in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Becol Phagnalec In all thy works and in many other Examples of the same nature In the third Chapter of Genesis he observes upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where that it is read with a Dagesh between the latter Caph for ornaments sake Now by the quoted Examples I suppose there is no person but may easily collect that the Carraeans observe the Modern Reading of the Hebrew Text and depend wholly upon the Masoretick Copies accurately observing the niceties of pointed Vowels and Accents Frequently in this Carraean Author are read these words Great Pathach Little Pathach Hateph Kamets Cholem Sheruc for so he writes it and no Schurec and many of the like nature which are the Inventions of the Jewish Grammarians Nor does he shew himself less experienced in Philosophy and Theology than in Grammar But I pass by these things as being far from our purpose only I will say something concerning their Theology lest any should hereafter confound the Carraeans with the Samaritans as if both did not acknowledge the Immortality of the Soul Therefore upon these words The Theology of the Carraeans Let us make man in our likeness the Carraean so often already quoted observes That the Soul of man consisted of superiour things but the Body of the form of inferiour things for which he brings this reason For that the Soul of man subsists no otherwise than the Angels and adds at last the World shall be for the sake of the Soul Much to this purpose was observ'd by that Jew who over-viewed the Constantinopolitan Edition of the Book Juchasin For in the first page of that Book Hence saith he it appears thaet the Carraeans are not the Sadduces of our Age for they acknowledge Reward Punishment and Resurrection Lastly This Carraean doing the part of a Learned Interpreter of the Scripture reproves exceedingly the method of the Cabbalistick Rabbies who follow the meer trifles of Allegories In the same manner he most sharply rebukes all those things which are feigned concerning the Tree of Life Every one says he has taken up that Argument as a Parable but then proceeding know says he that all which is there written is literally true And then as an Example of their Allegories he produces what those Cabbalistick Doctors dream vulgarly concerning the Serpent They say says he That the Serpent was as big as a Camel and that Samuel rode upon him And that God sporting with the Camel rode upon him also They farther tell us We must not read Tunicas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Coats of the Skin but Tunicas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Coats of Light Which ridiculous Expositions he utterly exclaims against They depend upon their Ancestors for most of those Expositions and others like to them And then cursing those idle Interpreters that abuse their own leisure Woe be to him that impudently undertakes such a work He also doth refuse several Readings which those Doctors of their own brains frivolously intrude into Scripture To that purpose he rebukes certain Interpreters who in the first words of Genesis for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Resch read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Daleth There are some saith he that change Resch into Daleth but it is a fiction of their little brains In the same manner he girds them severely that divide the word Bohu into two words as if it were to be read in the Text Bo Hu. And thus much for the Sect of the Carraeans Now let us return to the Jewish Rabbanists from whom we made this digression CHAP. XIII Of the Targumim of the Jews or the Translations of Sacred Scripture and first of the Chaldee Paraphrases THE Hebrew Language remain'd so long entire and familiar to the Jews while the Prophets abode in Jerusalem who made their Sermons to the People in the Hebrew Tongue which was then understood by all But being carried Captive to Babylon they forgot their own Language at least all the vulgar people Wherefore upon their return to Jerusalem they could not understand the Law of Moses but with the assistance of the Rabbies who interpreted the same in the Babylonish or Chaldee Idioms To which purpose we read in Nehemiah that Esdras made him a Pulpit whence he spake to the People and together with the Levites read in the Law of God distinctly and with a loud voice to be understood And after that Then spake Nehemiah and Esdras the
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
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
that wherever the Apostles or Apostolic men speak to the People they make use of those Quotations which were divulg'd among the People Why the Apostles us'd the Greek Version And therefore it is not to be thought that the Apostles made use of the Greek Version in their Writings because they thought the Author thereof to be inspir'd with a Divine or Prophetic Spirit or because no other Scripture was read in the Synagogues but only the Greek Version as Vossius erroneously affirms but because it was vulgarly in use and by the Testimony of St. Jerom because when the Apostles spake to the People they made use of those Quotations which were most in use among the Gentiles Quite otherwise then as they us'd to speak to the people of their own Nation who understood the Hebrew Vess Resp ad Critic Sacra But says Vossius St. Luke must of necessity have told an untruth had Stephen express'd any other Sence then what he put down in his Sermon As if there were any necessity for him to tell an Untruth who repeats the substance of a Speech in the same words only with some little Alterations of no moment Nor does the Learned Gentleman seem to reach the sence of the Author of the Critica Sacra as if he thought that Stephen had not preached his last Sermon in the Greek or vulgar Syriac but in the Hebrew Language Were the People says Vossius ignorant of the Hebrew Language in the time of the Apostles did the the Evangelist lye What will remain entire in the Gospel if we admit such Fictious as these But he rather feigns Monsters of his own for himself to vanquish afterwards Stephen preach'd in Syriac not in Greek Stephen Preached in Syriac which was then familiar to the Hierosolymitan Jews but the Quotations which he cites he could not cite in any other Language then the Hebrew because the Hierosolymitan Jews read the Law of Moses in their Synagogues in the Hebrew not the Greek Language and if any other Interpretation were added it was done in the Syriac Speech which was the vulgar Language as Vossius here freely confesses not in the Greek which was only used in the Schools and Synagogues of the Hellenists But in this I confess St. Jerom is to be corrected Comment in c. 6. Isai where he says that Matthew and John took their Citations from the Hebrew of the Old Testament forgetful of that Rule which he sets down in his Hebrew Traditions upon Genesis that is St. Jerom taxed that the Apostles and Apostolick Persons made use of the Greek Exemplars for no other reason then because they were common among the Gentiles But as for the Hebrew Copies they were kept only in the Synagogues of the Jews among whom very few were to be found who understood them On the other side the Greek Language was familiar to most Nations But it is to be observed that the Apostles though they stook to the Greek Copies yet they did not altogether so totally depend upon them but that many times they took more notice of the sence then the words Micha 5.2 Wherefore S. Jerom expounding this place of Michah and thou Bethlehem Ephratah makes this observation Some observe that in all Quotations taken out of the Old Testament there is some mistake or other that either the Order or the words are chang'd and sometimes the very sence it self varies the Apostles or Evangelists not looking in the Books but trusting to their Memories that might sometime fail them These words indeed seem somewhat too harsh nor have I quoted them that Vossius should give any Credit to them And yet he can hardly forbear at the same time to beleive John Calvin who commenting upon the same place of Micha thus observes What necessity is there to wrest the words of the Prophet when it was not the purpose of the Evangelist to repeat the words of the Prophet but only to note the Text. In like manner S. Jerom speaking his own and not the Opinion of others concerning these Quotations which are cited out of the Old Testament into the New Com. in 7. cap. Isai in many Quotations Saith he which the Evangelists or Apostles have taken out of the Old Testament we are to take notice that they do not follow the order of the words but the sence But let us now return to our purpose The first words of the ninth Chapter of the same Prophesie are hardly to be understood in the Greek Version Isai 9.1 when the sence lyes open in St. Jeroms Version St. Jerom produceth both in two distinct Colums after this manner At first the Lard of Zebulon and the Land Naphtali were lightly afflicted This was St. Jeroms Translation The Greek Version runs thus Drink this first do it quickly O Region of Zebulon and Land of Naphtali I am apt to believe the word Drink was taken from some other place which changes the sence A little after in the same Chapter St. Jerom taxes the 70 Interpreters for that instead of these words His name shall be called wonderful Counseller the Mighty God the Father of the Age to come the Prince of Peace they affrighted at the Majesty of the Titles durst not adventure to say so much of a Child that he was to be call'd God but instead of these six Titles they have put that which is not in the Hebrew Again he convinces the Grecian Interpreters of a manifest mistake that not minding the spelling of the words they have put Death instead of the Word God sent Death into Jacob whereas it should be the Word as St. Jerom interpreted it who presently adds the Original of the mistake in these words In the Hebrew Language the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is written with three Consonants according to the propriety of the places where it is used if it be read Dabar it signifies a word or speech but if Deber it signifies Pestilence and Death Not far from the beginning of the 10th Chapter of the same Prophet upon these words wo to Assur Isai 10.5 St. Jerom accuses the Interpreters for not having accurately observed the Hebrew Again in the 28. verse of the same Chapter upon these words He is come to Ajath he shews at large how much they differ from the Hebrew and taxes them of Falshood for interpreting it Rama City of Saul for the City of Saul is called Gallna as it is in the Hebrew Moreover St. Jeroms Opinion concerning the Seventy Interpreters is quite different from that of Vossius who believes there is nothing but Greek in it and that it is hardly call'd a Language that had its Original in the Synagogue For thus he speaks in his sixth Book of Commentaries Instead of stranger that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Seventy have Translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in Hebrew Ger Therefore Georas is no Greek word but an Hebrew word declin'd after the Greek
their sleep of this Samaritan Exemplar written as he says in the Original Hebrew Letters The Samaritans indeed had a Greek Version of the Pentateuch which was well known to the Fathers and out of that Africanus Eusebius and Syncellus took several Readings of the Samaritan Exemplar translated from the Hebrew which they inserted into their Writings As for Origen he studyeth the Hebrew Language under the Instruction of Huillus Patriarch of the Jews and not of the Samaritans and therefore he did not make use of the Hebrew Copies of the Samaritans but of the Jews In which Sence those words of Eusebius are to be understood Euseb l. 6. Hist So great was the care and diligence which Origen us'd in his accurate Examination of the Sacred Writings that he learnt the Hebrew Language and bought up the Originals which were among the Jews written in the Hebrew Characters In Resp ad Object Crit. But Vossius apparently wrests the words of Eusebius to another Sence and to accommodate them the more easily to his own Opinion scrupl'd not to alter the vulgar Reading without the help of any Manuscript Copy For thus he reads the Sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas it is vulgarly read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thus he renders it That he learnt the Hebrew Language and purchas'd to himself those Scriptures which were written in the Original Hebrew Letters Now saith Vossius in Eusebius's Sence the Original Characters are no other then the Samaritan and Eusebius had manifestly contradicted himself if he had meant the Vulgar Letters of the Jews when he had wrote the contrary in his Chronicle I cannot but wonder at the Ingenuity of Vossius to impose upon his Readers in a thing so plain and obvious to all that have but kiss'd the threshold of the Greek Tongue The Books of Eusebius are in every Bodies hands whose intention in the place already cited was no more then to shew the indefatigable pains and unwearied labour of Origen in perusing the Books of Sacred Scripture and searching out their Sence which that he might the more easily attain to he learnt the Hebrew Language from Jewish Masters read over their Books in the Hebrew Characters and compar'd them with the Versions of the Seventy Aquila Symmachus and others Whether it be to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will not at present dispute by reason that though Vossius's Lection should hold water it is certain that by Prototype or Original Letters the Hebrew Characters are only to be understood That is to say the Hebrew Context in Origen's Hexaples is written in Hebrew and Greek Letters as has been already observ'd Wherefore Eusebius then bearing in his mind the Hebrew Exemplars which were at that time read by those who did not understand Hebrew because the Characters were Greek asserts that Origen purchas'd an Hebrew Examplar written in Hebrew Characters For how could it otherwise be when the Jews were his Masters and not the Samaritans I will acknowledg that the Examplars of the Samaritan Pentateuch written in Characters different from the Jewish were not unknown to Eusebius Origen and others of the Fathers but because most of them did not understand the Hebrew Tongue where they speak of the Samaritan Codex most assuredly they mean the Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch which was then vulgarly expos'd Nor do Eusebius's words in his Chronicle favour Vossius in the least where Eusebius makes mention of three Exemplars of Sacred Scripture from whence he drew his own That is say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 70 Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Hebrew Exemplar of the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Hebrew Exemplar of the Samaritans For there by the Hebrew Exemplar of the Samaritans of necessity the Greek Version of that Exemplar must be meant no otherwise then as by the Hebrew Exemplar of the Jews most of the Fathers who were ignorant of the Hebrew Language understood Aquila's Version which was Translated Verbatim from the Hebrew Therefore Eusebius knew that the Samaritans preserv'd an Hebrew Copy of the Pentateuch as well as the Jews but because he understood not the Hebrew Language he consulted the Greek Version which was compill'd by the Samaritans and which was at that time usually read by them As formerly Justin Martyr disputing against Trypho the Jew gives the Greek Interpretation of Aquila the Title of the Hebrew Context because it was most in use among the Jews at that time But Vossius never confider'd these things nor many others of the same Nature Now then let us return to the business from whence we made this Digression In the Hexaples of Origen as may be seem by the Scheme already set down the Hebrew Text in the Hebrew Letters obtains the first place the second the same Text in Greek Characters in regard that from thence all the first Versions of Scripture were derived Then followed the Interpretation of Aquila which followed the Hebrew Verbatim and much closer than any of the rest of the Translators The Septuagint was placed in the middle and not in the first place as many thought as the Test by which all the others were to be examined This the Translations of Symmachus and Theodotion accompany on each side as not being much unlike it and because the same method of Translating was observed in all the three Now because that vast Volume containing so many Translations as it were under one line was of a great price and to be purchased but by few insomuch that St. Jerom complained that the Alexandrian Papers had emptied his purse Origen of a most acute wit and unexhausted knowledge bethought himself of a way how he might bring all these Editions as it were into one And because at that time there was no other Scripture received in all the Churches then the Translation of the 70 Interpreters he set forth that apart with certain Notes by the advantage of which all the rest were put to view so that what seemed to be wanting in the Hebrew Context he supplied out of Theodotion's Version with the addition of a mark which the Gramarians call an Asterisk The Hexaple's epitomized as illustrating those words of the Context which were too much curtail'd and as it were abbreviated But if any thing seemed to abound and to be superfluous in the Hebrew Context in those luxuriant places he added another Mark by the Critic's called a Spit or Obelus as of what was luxuriant in the Greek Edition of the Septuagint were to be cut and murdered as extravagant And the chief Design of Origen as Epiphanius testifies in the Disposition of that work was that the Jews might the more easily be convinced by the Christians in their Disputes Because they frequently objected that it was otherwise in the Hebrew Exemplar than in the Greek Edition The same is also testifyed by St. Jerom and Ruffinus
though St Jerom sometimes gives a reason of those Notes somewhat different Origen had added also other marks to this Work in the fashion of a small Label concerning the use of which the Criticks of our Age do not agree and which has been hitherto revealed but by a few we are to understand that Greek Edition of the Septuagint with all those illustrating and killing Notes in the Hexaples of Origen was found together with the Translations of Aquila Symmachus and the other Interpreters as the words of Rufâ—inus seem to prove Oâ—igen's Intention was to shew us what manner of Reading the Scriptures was observed among the Jews and wrote the several Editions of them every one in his proper Columes and whatever was added or taken away in any of them he noted with certain marks at the beginning of the Verses and in that which was another mans and not his own work be affixed his own marks only that we might understand what was wanting or superfluous not in respect of our selves but of the Jews that disputed against us Moreover the same Origen illustrated that vast work of his Hexaples with Scholiasts of several sorts which he placed in the Margent of the Book that he might give some Light to that Edition of the Septuagint which appeared in the midst between all the rest For first you might easily apprehend what was the distinction between the Antient or Vulgar Edition of the 70 and his own new Edition by the benefit of this Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which stands for 70 in Greek that Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoting the common Lection Then in the same Scholiasts the Interpretations of Aquila Symmachus and Theodosion were every one demonstrated by their proper Letter A' denoted Aquila Σ ' Symmachus and Θ Theodotion The fifth Edition was marked with E ' and the sixth with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He also set Notes in the Margent of his Book for the verbatim exposition of the words of sacred Scripture which are Printed in his works under the Title of Scholiasts And more then this if we will believe Vossius it is not improbable but that Origen marked in his Hexaples the various reading of the Samaritan Codex If any one will rather choose to believe that Origen did not insert the Samaritan Exemplar into his Hexaples and Tetraples but only marked the various Readings I will not much dispute the Business Thus Vossius fickle in his Judgment sometimes avers sometimes denies and whereas before he had so confidently asserted that the Exemplar of the Samaritan Pentateuch was extant in the Hexaples written in the Samaritan Characters now in a doubt he dares not be positive in a thing wherein he has so little of certainty to make out But as it is no way probable that the Samaritan Exemplar which was the same with the Judaick was extant in the Hexaples so it is very likely that Origen might transfer into his Scholiast the different reading of the Samaritan from the Judaic which he did not take out of the Samaritan Exemplar written in those Original Hebrew Letters but from the Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch corrected by the Samaritans themselves This is the Oeconomie and Disposition of the Hexaples of Origen which Persons the most learned could not comprehend while they do not mind that the Greek Interpretations of Aquila Symmachus and Theodosion were twice set down in one and the same work that is entire in the work it self and part in the Scholiasts in the Margent but Origen who was desirous to be beneficial to all Persons reduced into a Compendium that vast Pile of the Hexaples by the help of Notes and Scholiasts to the end that they who could not buy the Hexaples entire might Transcribe at least the substance of the Text out of the Hexaples themselves and by the same art he published the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common Edition of the Septuagint together with the new Edition which because he thought more corrected he inserted whole into his Hexaples adding in the Margent of the common and the various Sections under the mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore some are grosly mistaken who not understanding this disposition of the Hexaples undertake to maintain that there is in them a double Edition of the 70 Interpreters as well the vulgar as that corrected and pure one of which Origen and St. Jerom so often make mention placed in two distinct Pages and for that reason that the Hexaples did not derive their name from the distinct Columns but the several Versions but these things are apparently untrue and proceed only from the Ignorance of the order of the Hexaples to the Margent of which the ancient reading of the 70 was transferred and thus both Editions of the Septuagint appeared in the Hexaples now because few could purchase those vast volums that had emptied St. Jerom's Pocket most persons transcribed that interlin'd Edition mark'd by Origen with Asterisks and Daggers and other notes of Distinction from whence arose the greatest confusion in the World in the Greek Exemplars and from that time the ancient Interpretation of the 70 was no longer read in the Churches but the interlin'd one of Origen which or another like to it was afterwards transmitted to the Eastern Church by the Care of St. Jerome CHAP. XIX Of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church THe most contentions in disputes concerning the Bible which have disturbed the Church for these many years have been hammered in the Shops of certain Criticks and Gramarians who being bred in the Schools there is nothing which they do not call to the bar of Controversie presuming to prefer their own wit before the Authority of the Church and as if their Critick Art could by no means brook the Ecclesiastical decrees they presently oppose them with all their might and main but questionless without a cause for that the Church does by no means disallow of such Critical Observations as are every day made upon the Scripture by Persons conspicuous for their Poetry and Learning nor if any one more strictly enquire into the reason of the Biblick Context then another does she reject their Labours so they do not detract from the Ancient Editions And therefore it is lawful for the Protestant Divines in imitation of the Fathers to have recourse to the Hebrew Originals and to make new Translations from them so that they learn from the same Fathers That the Sacred Scripture is the proper possession of the Catholick Church and that they have the same sentiments concerning the Church and her Books which one of their own belief wrote in these words against those who neglect the ancient Versions and long allowed by the practise of the Church Let the Authority of our Mother the Church be preserv'd entire to it self let the Fathers enjoy the honour due to them to whose venerable gray Hairs if any one refuse to rise and contradict their decrees let them not be
the pure Version Translated from the Hebrew into Syriac after the coming of Christ our Lord in the time of Addaeas the Apostle or as others will have it before him in the Time of Solomon the Son of David and Hiram Prince of Tyre and then the Septuagint Translated out of Greek a long time time after the coming of Christ Now though what Abul-Pharajius speaks concerning the double Version among the Syrians be true yet no man will deny but that what he relates concerning the time of the Translation out of Hebrew into Syriac is meerly fictitious Moreover because it was very insipid to attribute some of the Books to the time of King Solomon which were not made till long after his Raign therefore Jehudad Bishop of Adria restrain'd that assertion to the Books of Moses Joshua Ruth Judges Samuel Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Canticles and Job but that the rest of the Books both of the Old and New Testament were Translated into Syriac by the care of Thaddaeus and others of the Apostles in the Raign of Abgar King of Edissa Though as the same Jesudad testifies some were of Opinion that the Old Testament was Translated into the Samaritan Dialect by a certain Samaritan Preist But â—hese things are rather Fabulous then Historical for that they translated only one Book the Pentateuch into their Language which little differs from the Samaritan Then the Syriac Language which the Apostles made use of especially in Judea is far differerent from the Syriac wherein the Old and New Testament was written In Caâ—al Script Chald. Ebed-Jesu Metropolitan of Soba reckons among the Syrian Writers a certain Person by name Mar-Aba or Lord Aba Sirnamed the Great who Translated the whole Testament out of Greek into Syriac But as Alraham Ecchellensis rightly observes before this Mar-Aba there was extant another Translation of the Old Testament from the Greek Septuagint Not in Ehed Jesu as may be prov'd from the Commentaries of Jacob Nisivensis and B. Ephrem It is manifest also that the Syrians translated into their Language a Greek Edition of the Septuagint with Daggers and Asterisks out of the Hexaples of Origen or else accommodated a Syrian Interpretation to Origen's Exemplar which before these times was read in the Churches of Syria The Learned Massius had several of those Books which he never made publick In Josâ—uah except the History of Joshua set forth by him in Greek with Asterisks and Streaks and other Grammatical Marks which Origen had made use of in his Edition The Greek and Latin Fathers also make mention of a Syrian Version of Scripture of which the Christians of Syria made use wherein they take notice of several Readings different from the vulgar Exemplars That Exemplar of the Syriac Version which was Printed in the Parisian and English Polyglotts was taken out of the Hebrew Context and in some places corrected according to the Greek Text of the Septuagint so that is not absolutely the same ancient Version which the Syrians call the Simple or Pure Version This Translation seems to have been made verbatim from the Jewish Exemplar so exactly it follows it in most places But the Syrian Transcribers who being ignorant of the Hebrew could not consult the Hebrew Text from whence that was derived committed many mistakes which nevertheless may be easily corrected without the help of Manuscripts However I do not believe the Syrian Transcribers to be as often under mistakes as they disagree from the Jewish Copy seeing that the Jewish Exemplars vary themselves But I speak of those Errors at present which are without Controversie the meer failings of the Amanuensis I admire the English in their Bibles took no notice of many which they let stand For to omit several others who could have slipp'd this Error in the Syriac Version in the 14th Chapter of Genesis where the Hebrew reads Gojim Nations the Syriac Geloje which the Latin Interpreters of the Syriac renders the People call'd Gelites So in the 22 Chapter where the Hebrew Examplar has it Moria the Syriac reads Omouroje which the Interpreter renders the Amorrhaeans as if there were any thing there mentioned of the Amorrhaeans But these Errors I attribute partly to the Scribes partly to those who pointed the Syriac Version in regard that points supply the place of Vowels as well in the Syriac as Hebrew In like manner Gen. c. 32. v. 32. the Syerans who understood not the Hebrew word Nasche or shrunk have made of the Word Genesio which the Latin Interpreter translates the female Sinew and instead of the Sinew that shrunk upon which the word Genesio appears in Ferrarius's Syriac Lexicon which nevertheless seems to be some corrupted Hebrew word and not to be numbered among the Syriac But I say no more of these nor of six hundred more This is only worthy of observation that the Syrian Scribes have erred in Writing out the Syrian Exemplars far more frequently then the Jews who understood the Hebrew Thus Jos 19. in instead of King Basan the Syriac reads King Mathnin Which diversity proceeds from this that the Syrian Scribe did not distinguish between B and M. In like manner for Kiriath Jearim the Syriac reads Kiriath Naarin and the Latin renders it the City of Naarin So in the 7th Chapter of Judges the Syriac reads Nedubaal for Jerubaal and Chapter 9. Neptha for Jeptha all which might easily have been mended with many more of the same nature Wherefore as to the Syrian Exemplars that have been set forth in Print we may truly affirm what St. Jerom asserted concerning the Greek Copies That some of the words are not only not Hebrew but Barbarous and Sarmatic I could also enumerate those places where the Syriac Translators forsaking the Hebrew follows the Greek Version of the 70 Elders Which variety nevertheless of Interpretation is rather to be laid upon the Scribes who strove to make the Syriack Translation conformable to those other Exemplars either Syriac or Arakick which were Translated from the Greek Edition Thus Gen. 2. both in the Syriac and Greek we find it upon the sixth day whereas in the Hebrew it is the seventh day and the Animadversions of Jerom upon this place prove this Lection of the Hebrew Text to be the most Ancient In like manner Gen. 4. This Clause let us go into the field was Translated out of the Greek Version into the Syriac while St. Jerom testifies that in his time the same was not to be sound in the Hebrew Exemplars Lastly Gen. 8. Where mention is made of the Crow which Noah sent out of the Ark both in the Syriack and Greek we do not find that ever the Crow return'd but the negative particle is not to be found in the Hebrew Context nor was it there in St. Jeroms time as may be easily prov'd from his Writings From whence we infer that the Version which the Syrians call Pure from it 's ancient perfection is much degenerated and now to be call'd
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
will appear that he has given positive sentence in matters which he little understood I will therefore begin from the Epistle which he has affix'd to that little discourse At the first dash in this Epistle Vossius takes several occasions to traduce the person himself as learned as he was in the Hebrew Language for a Fool a half Rabbie and an Egregious Knave as one that produc'd the words of St. Jerom most wickedly dress'd and trim'd for his own turn Gen. 19.33 The place in dispute is extant in these words in St. Jeroms Hebrew Questions upon Genesis The Hebrews as to what follows And he perceiv'd not when she lay down nor when she rose up marke the words at the top as a thing incredible and as a thing not to be comprehended in nature how a Man should lye with a Woman and not understand any thing of it Vossius attests that he has consulted many Manuscript Copies and that he finds it written in all Apponunt not Appungunt they set over or upon instead of they mark with points at the top He would have said truer that he never found Apponunt in any Manuscripts that were of credit or reputation for what sence could be made of these words had Apponunt been set in the place of Appungunt Nor does he tell us where he found these Manuscripts But that we may come to the business there was no reason for Vossius to pervert the words of the Hebrew Text fearing perhaps least from that word Appungunt the Antiquity of points might be made out from St. Jeroms time For the sounder sort of Criticks confess that those points were much later then the age wherein St. Jerom liv'd who nevertheless acknowledge that that sort of points of which St. Jerom here makes mention and which are put upon some words of the Hebrew Context were done upon the same ground that the Samaritans and the Syrians fix certain cross stroaks over some words which were invented by the Grammarians or Criticks And the Jews both Ancient and Modern agree with St. Jerom in this particular Mention is also made of these points in the Talmud in Medraschim or the Allegoricall Comments of the Jews upon Scripture And they are likewise to be seen in the Modern Exemplars of the Bibles and in most upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Becumah when she arose Which is the word at present in dispute there is added this note upon the Margent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nakod gnal Vau a Point upon Vau. An. 1615. In the small Venetian Bibles set forth by Râ—ter Bragadinus in the 37th Chap. of Genesis where the same point is put upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is this note in the Margent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of the fifteen Points which are in the Law Now as for the reasons which are given for these Points by the Jews who are troubl'd with an Itch of vanity I pass them by in silence as being very frivolous It is enough to have observ'd that the Jews retain those Points in their Exemplars by Tradition from their Ancestors When Vossius in his Epistle deplores the miserable Estate of the Accademies in Germany at this day where Rabbinisme domineers without controul and no Theology but Rabbinical is admir'd The Learned Gentleman does not believe that human Learning can be taught or studyed where Rabbinism raigns and the Rabbinical Screitch-Owls bear an ominous sway Nor do I dissent from Vossius in this particular And I would be glad those pedling Priests might be expung'd out of the number of Divines who contemning the Latin and Greek Learning will admit of nothing but the Fictions of the Rabbins But that Persons eminently Learned who after the Example of Origen Jerom Chrysostom Theodoret and others of the Fathers frequent the Thresholds of the Jews should be listed in their Number I can hardly endure For though generally the greatest part of the Books of the Jews are full of frivilous Trifles yet there are not a few of the Rabbies who have wonderfully illustrated Sacred Scripture And this the Commentaries of St. Jerom alone upon the Peophets aparently make out who was not ashamed to consult the most Learned Jews of his Age. But to the nice and squeamish Mr. Vossius St. Jerom seems contemptible and Prince of the Semi-Rabbinical Divines And that Semi-Rabbie as he calls him though he have his failings has far surpass'd all the rest of the Fathers of the Church in expounding the Books of Sacred Scripture And I could wish also that Vossius had first convers'd with those half Rabbins before he began to meddle with their concerns For those half Rabbies can hardly forbear Laughter when they read in his Epistle before his Treatise of the Oracles of the Sybils that it is not above six Centuries since those Vowel points came to be us'd with which the Modern Exemplars of the Jews are loaded That three or four Ages most fiercely contended together while these were of Opinion that the Vowels were thus others another way to be introduc'd And that the Controversie would never have been at an end unless Daniel Bomberg had ended the quarrel having had some Centuries of the Jews and so those Vowels crept into the World out of Bombergs Shop in Venice That person 't is true had a Library well furnish'd with Rabbinical Books from whence he gathered most of his Fictions more Rabbinical But they who have convers'd with Books of the Jews well know that before Bombergs Edition of the Hebrew Bibles and in other parts of Italy especially at Pesaro the Hebrew Bibles were then Printed with pointed Vowels We also meet with Copies of the Bibles in Manuscript written above four hundred years since which have the same Points and Bibles are quoted by the more antient Rabbies wherein the same Points are made use of And it is plain that these Points were in use not only for six but for nine hundred years ago For the Rabbie Saadas Gaon wrote a Grammer about the Year DCCC wherein he disputes at large about the pointed Vowels which were in use among the Jews long before his time Besides those things are all feigned that Vossius affirms concerning the soare contention among the Jews how the Vowels are to be placed upon the Hebrew Context And of the same stamp is that which the Learned Gentleman urges concerning the Editions of Bomberg which according to the Opinions of the Jews are full of Faults And indeed the Jews contemn the first Edition of Bomborgh which was overlook'd by Felix Patrensis in regard the Masoretis Notes are very unskilfully added to the Margent of that Exemplar but they applaud and reverence the second and third of Bombergh's Editions In the adding the Mazoretic notes to Bomberghs Editions great difficulties arose for that there are few among the Jewish Rabbies that truly understand the Masoretic Art which however R. Jacob Ben Hajim with incessant toyl and labour
Vossius himself in the midst of his Prophetick Chiurme forging new Prophesies like that same famous Imposter William Postellus who writes that the Chaldaeans had the true Doctrine reveal'd to them under the first Monarchy and that it was continually renew'd like the sacred Doctrine by the ten Sybils that the world might be inexcusable before the Spirit of God and that Christ the King both of the Sacred and the Sibelline Doctrines might be known to be the Deity that was to be ador'd by the whole World Such Stories as these Vossius produces concerning the Oracles of the Sybills But Postellus yet more quicksighted asserts this Prophetical Doctrine to have had its Original from a Woman who was Princess of all the East and next of kin to Noah Who would believe that Isaac Vossius who spares for no virulent expressions against the Jews and their Talmud should introduce a Talmudic Doctor among the Prophets if it be so I wonder he should be in such a fury against a Person Learned in the Hebrew who expounded the Gospel out of the Talmud Lightfoot He seems to me saies Vossius to commit a less Sin who explains the Gospel out of the Alcoran then by the Talmud But of these things enough and too much Let us now return to the Apocryphal Books I call the Apocriphal Books when we discourse of Byblick concerns those which neither the Church nor the Synagogue has received as Canonical Hence it came to pass that of old St. Jerom personating a Jew and lately Cajetane sentenc'd many Books among the Apocriphal before they were receiv'd for Divine and Prophetic by the decree of the Church In this sence St. Jerom affirms Hieron pâ—aef in Dan. that Daniel among the Hebrews had not the story of Susanna nor the Song of the three Children nor the fable of the Bell and the Dragon Which we saith he because they are dispierced all over the World preferring the truth and withal depressing their Authority have added however least we might seem to have cut of a great part of the Volume In like manner after he had produc'd the Books of Scripture which were held Canonical among the Jews he adds Whatever we meet with besides these is to be accounted Apocrâ—phal Hieron pâ—aef in lio Reg. That is to say the Wisdom of Solomon the Book of Jesus the Son of Syrach Judith Tobit and the Preacher induc'd by this reason Africanus Africanus also believes the Story of Susanna to have been feign'd by a Greek Writer others feigned two Daniels one the Author of the Prophesie that goes under his name and the other the Writer of the Story of Susanna which in the ancient Editions of the Greek Exemplar was placed before the Prophesie of Daniel St. Jerom indeed was the first that transposed it at the end of the same Prophesie because it was not in the Jewish Exemplar which he translated And St. Jerom confirms his opinion concerning the History of Susanna by the Testimony of other Fathers I wonder saith he That certain peevish waspish persons are in wrath with me as if I had cut of part of the Book whereas Origen Eusebius Apollinarius and other Eclesiasticall Persons and Doctors of Greece confess those Visions not to be found among the Hebrews not that they ought to be answerable to Porphyrius for those things which afford no Authority of sacred Scripture Gregory Nazianzen Melito of Sardis and the Author of the Synopsis which goes about under the Name of Athanasius went farther and put the Book of Esther among the Apocryphal Books meerly because not understanding the Hebrew Tongue they found some pieces added to the Ancient History of Esther by a Greek Author for which reason they condemn'd the whole Work It happened saith Sextus Senensis that by reason of those fragments of Appendex's inserted here and there through the rashness of some Writers that Book though written in the Hebrew did not find reception among the Christians Nicholas de Lyra also Cajetan and some others denyed these Additions likewise to be Canonical induc'd as it is most probable by the same reasons These things have been discoursed more at large that it might appear to all what Books were reckon'd to be Apocriphal in the Judgment of the more Antient Fathers But Vossius abusing the word Apocryphal introduces suppositious and Adulterate Books instead of the Old Apocryphal and so imposes upon the simple and unwary For whereas he endeavours to make it out that the Books of the Sybills and others which he calls Fatidical were joyned with the Books of the Old Testament read in the Primitive Church and recommended by the Apostles it is the Fiction of one that has nothing to do but to sit and Romance in Divinity For there were no other Books read in the Primitive Church or added to the rest of the Books of the Old Testament in the Greek Exemplars of the Bible than those which are mentioned by the Fathers Though perhaps some of the Gentiles that they might press the Jews and the Gentiles more home have sometimes quoted the Books of the Sibylls and others of the same stamp which nevertheless no ingenious person will reckon among the Apocryphal Books of which we are now in discourse Vossius is very much griev'd that the Books of the Sibylls and other Sooth-sayer's Books after they were prohibited by publick Edict were made Apocryphal and forbid to be read by any Person when formerly they were openly and religiously made use of by the Jews like the rest of the Books of the Old Testament whence it came to pass that the Canonical Books were reduced to a more certain Number and the word Apocryphal was taken in an evil sense for spurious and of doubtful and suspected Credit In the mean time he never cites the Authour from whence he drew these witty conceits which are so like the Fables of the Jews so that I may presume to ask this Learned Person what the Factious Cardinal Hyppolito d'este demanded of Areosto Dove hatrovato tante cogloonare Where did he find out so many jugling Tricks But I agree with him in what he writes concerning the Apocriphal Books if by them he mean no other then those which passed from the Jews to the Christians with the rest of the Books of the Old Testament for that the greatest part of them are read in the Romish Church especially since the decree of the Council of Trent as Canonical for indeed it might be that those Books which were formerly rejected as Apocriphal because they were not approv'd by the Cannon of the Jews might have had Prophets for their Authors Nor is the Authority of Josephus contrary to this opinion who affirms that from the times of Artaxerxes there was no certain Succession of the Prophets and therefore that these Books which were reckon'd after that were not to be accounted Cononical Nor is it probable that the Function of the Prophets was altogether taken away
much more happily then the Seventy Interpreters as being assisted by their Labours and Translation as also with the Versions of others as Aquila Symmachus Theodotian by which means he was able to discern the failings and Errors of those men Nor indeed do any who have any thing of Greek and Hebrew Learning think otherwise of Jerom unless it be single Dr. Vossius who in imitation of Ruffinus believes that St. Jerom undertook a new Version of the Hebrew Text with a resolution altogether Jewish and pre-engag'd by the Rabbies For that same Prophetick Spirit attributed to the Greek Interpreters which our Ancestors so much ador'd is long since vanish'd by the Authority of St. Jerow himself But let us return to the business in hand Vossius furiously maintains that there is nothing of solidity in the Expositions of the late Rabbys and their Traditions propagated only by the Ear chiefly induc'd by this Argument for that Traditions which are propagated by the Ear rarely last above two or three Ages If it be so how came it to pass that the Seventy Interpreters after the Hebrew Language being lost for two Ages could make such a Version of the Hebrew Codex in all things so absolute as Vossius feigns it Questionless some will say he avers nothing wonderful as to this particular while he believes them to be Prophets But whom shall we believe Vossius affirming the Greek Interpreters to have been Prophets or Jerome denying it But you will object that St. Jerome was half a Rabby who durst presume to make a new Translation contrary to the general consent of the Church and that Vossius is a Sybillist who has rais'd up new Prophets and Sooth-sayers till now unknown nor ever heard of That same Jewish and Rabbinical Version of Jerome has had many Applauders Conspicuous for their Piety and Learning But there is not one in our Age who embraces Vossius's Judgment for receiving the only Version of the Seventy excepting some Disciples of Socinus who greedily swallowed his Opinion It will not be amiss to inspect the Matter a little more narrowly and to manifest the Nature of Tradition upon which the reading of the Hebrew Context depends I grant that matters of Religion chiefly which belong to Doctrine more remote from the Sences cannot be preserved for many Ages by the help of Tradition without the assistance of writing But as to matter of Discipline and Ceremonies there is a quite contrary Judgment to be made for that those things happen to be in use every day And for this sort of Tradition and Ancient Fathers of the Church give their suffrages Now I say there is the same Qualification of Languages which though they become obsolete and cease to be Natural yet among the Doctors in the School preserve their ancient Vigour and Efficacy and to this sort of Tradition we refer the Tradition of the Hebrew Language among the Jews Hence without doubt it came to pass that in these modern times the Samaritans have the same Books of the Law of Moses which the Jews have some small matter excepted And from that Tradition it comes to pass that not only the Eastern and Western Jews consent among themselves about the reading of the Hebrew Context but also they who bear the Name of Carraim among them because that rejecting the Talmud and other uncertain Traditions they adhere to the Scripture and agree with the Jews in all things as to the Truth of reading the Sacred Context And therefore that Tradition is not rashly to be exploded with the Carraeans who reject most of the Jewish Traditions entirely embrac'd Here I could heap together many other things taken out of the Jewish Books by which they prove that their Ancestors ever since the times of Esdras and Zorobabel had Schools as well among the Babylonians as among the Hierosolymitans But I forbear to insist upon these things and many other of the same Nature because they do not please the Palate of the most learned Vossius who does not by any means relish Rabbinism I am not ignorant that many Jews especially they who are of the Grammarians Form who believe that not only the Sacred Books were variously dispersed and miserably mutilated as Kimchi and Effodaeus were of Opinion but that the Language was almost lost and with these those Jews who are of the Sect of the Carraeans agree Aaron Ben Joseph praef com in pent For thus writes Aaron Ben Joseph upon this Argument The Israelites were exiles out of their own in a forreign Land and Vision and Prophesie were sealed up and there wanted but little but that the Hebrew Language had been quite lost Then certain wise Israclites rose up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom God gave his Spirit and they handed this Scripture to Vs which contains twenty four Books From whence it is manifest that the Hebrew Tongue was not anciently utterly lost though after the return of the Jews from Babylon it was no longer Natural at Jerusâ—lem but only preserved by the Doctors of the Law Thus Esdras performing the Office of a most skilful Scribe is said to have read the Law from a Pulpit before a multitude of Men and Women And châ—â—stâ— from that time the Jews deduce their Paraphrasers Nehem. c. 8. who were to explain the words of the Law in the Language familiarly spoken that they might be understood by all the Auditory Nor do I believe that the Greek Version of the Seventy of which afterwards the Jews feign'd such miraculous Stories had any other Original whose Idle Dreams Vossius so greedily followed as if those Jews were only to be believ'd by the Christians Then again in the Synagogue and Schools belonging to such places where the Greek Tongue was natural there the Greek Translation of the Alexandrinian Jews was read which whithin a short space of time reach'd the rest of the Jews who spake the Greek Language as being the Language of those that were in power However the reading of the Hebrew Text was not left off in whose assistance the Greek Translation was only made use of Neither will Vossius deny that who asserts that both Josephus and Philo who was an Alexandrinian were learned in the Hebrew When then was the Hebrew Language lost was it in the time of Aquila whom Vossius calls a most impertinent Interpreter Hâ—wever he acknowledges that in the time of Origen there were famous Hebrew Schools at Alexandria and in the time of St. Jerom at Tyberias Now that the Schools of Tyberias were kept up after St. Jeroms Death there 's no Man but well knâ—ws to which at length the Family of the Criticks call'd Mazeries was well known And they were call'd Mazorites because they bounded and regulated the Mazora or Tradition of reading the Hebrew Context then receiv'd by all the Jews by the help of certain Marks or Tittles which serv'd instead of Vowels This is the Jewish Tradition to which Simon attributes most credit but
by the Hebrew Exemplars and the Translations of Aquilla Symâ—â—chus Theodotion and others Which he could hardly attain to but that had vitiated that Version in many places before especially when Origen set a higher value upon the Hebrew Truth then Vossius is aware of if we believe St. Jerom who well knew the disposition of the Person But as for Adamantius I sâ—y nothing who when he follows the common Edition in his Homilies which he speaks to the People in his Times that is his larger dâ—spute guarded with Hebrew Truth and surrounded with squadâ—ons of his own he sometimes seeks the aid of Forraign Language Oâ—igen therefore carried himself one way with Learned Men another with the Ignorant Multitude and as the Proverb is Wise with a few spake those things which were in common With this agrees what he writes against Celsus for after he has produc'd some things out of the Book of Exodus according to the vulgar Exemplars of the Greek Version he presently adds the Section of the Hebrew Text with this Animadversion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But these things which seem to be more nice and not so fit for vulgar Ears Therefore the Learned Gentleman is in an Errour who believ'd that Origen approv'd no other Exemplars but those of the Septuagint He is ignorant of the Laws of that management which most of the Fathers especially Origen observ'd to the end they might accommodate themselves to the already received opinions of the People which prudence of Origen in our Age the most Eminent Divines of the Roman Church do imitate who granting to the People the use of the Latin Edition reserve to themselves the knowledge of the Hebrew Truth Now because Simon gives no credit to the Prodigious discourses of Aristaeus concerning the 70 Interpreters while he endeavours to give a reason why it was fixed upon the 70 he confesses that he adheres to the opinion of those who believe it to have born that name from the 72 Senators of the Hierosolymitan Sanhedrim who approv'd it by their Sufferage and Authority Yet he affirms nothing but only makes a conjecture upon a thing so obscure and so far remote from our times But notwithstanding all his Modesty Vossius falls fiercely upon him and demands if that Greek Version were approved by the whole Sanhedrim how it came to be so full of faults as if of necessity the Authority of the Grave Sanhedrim which Simon suspects to have allow'd that Version to be publickly read in the Synagogues and Schools had been sufficient to exempt it from all Errour Certainly it could derive no greater Authority from the Decree of the Hierosolymitan Senators then was ascrib'd to the Latin Edition after the Fathers of the Council of Trent had authoriz'd it by their Constitution Was the Latin Interpreter therefore purg'd from all the faults with which it formerly abounded No. In this also appears the greatest equality between both decrees that as it came to pass in the Western Church through Ignorance of the Greek and Hebrew Languages that the Bibles were Translated and read in the Latin Tongue so also the Ignorance of the Hebrew among the Hellenist Jews was the reason that the Alexandrian Jews Translated for their own use the Sacred Writing into Greek which Greek Translation afterwards grew to be currant among all the Jews that understood Greek and was perhaps approv'd by the Hierosolymitan Senators I say perhaps because there is no need to have recourse to their Authority for the Exposition of the reason why this Version was attributed to the 70 Elders But only we are to observe the form of Speech so familiar among the Jews whereby the us'd to refer all things which seemed to be of any moment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Men of the great Synagogue Which kind of Phrase has lead many Learned Men into several Errors while they turn over the Books of the Jews with a Circumspection too remiss whereas we are to heed not so much what those Doctors say as how and for what reason they speak it So the Rabbies eagerly maintain that the Points of the Holy Scripture and such other things derive their Original from the Men of the Great Synagogue speaking according to the Phrase of the Country not according to the Truth of the Thing And thus it is more proper to conjecture that the Greek Version was attributed to the Seventy Interpreters than with Vossius to give credit to the Fictions of Aristaeus Then again the Learned Gentleman is displeas'd that Simon endeavour'd to restore the Hellenistick Language exploded by the Learned men and to obtrude it under the name of the Language most currant in the Synagogue as if among them there had been any more peculiar Language which was neither Greek nor Hebrew that by that means he might make it out that the Seventy Interpreters understood neither Greek nor Hebrew Certainly Simon knew what had been already written by the Defenders of the Hellenistick Language but with the good favour of that Learned Gentleman I may say that while he disputed about the shadow of an Ass he did but raise Contentions about a Name Simon does not lay ignorance to the charge of the Greek Interpreters of the Hebrew and Greek but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a deprav'd affectation natural to the Jews especially in Translating the Scriptures who while they labour to express the Hebrew words too curiously and literally turn a little aside from the common and more receiv'd Idiome and to some words give particular and distinct Notions from the Vulgar This is to be observ'd almost in all the Versions of Sacred Scripture compil'd by the Jews as Simon truly demonstrates by whom it was also most excellently observ'd that the Greek Interpretation of the Seventy Seniors was hardly understood by most of the Greek Fathers because it retain'd something of the Idiom of the Syriac or Hebrew Language And thus the Spanish Translation set forth at Ferrara which was done by the Jews can hardly be read by those who understand not Hebrew though well vers'd in the Spanish And this was the reason why the ancient Interpreter of the Greek Version has but ill rendred not a few Greek words not having attain'd the force and propriety of their signification Some also Jerom himself seems not to have understood though both Hebrecian and Grecian while he seems to adhere more to the Greek then Hebrew whence the Greek were taken Vossius also objects against Simon that he understood not what the Hellenists were I confess that Simon understood not before what Vossius had feign'd contrary to the Opinion of the most Learned men who to shew his Greek Erudition expounds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to side with the Greeks as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fignifie to imitate the Manners and Customs and side with the Romans Mâ—des Persians and Antigonus Now considering the present Argument where the Dispute with Vossius is about Critical
Learning this is as much as if I should say That Vossius is not only a skilful Critick but a Canon of Windsor who quavers forth the English Liturgy most sweetly in the Chappel It is certain that the Jews were of two sorts and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scattering of the Greeks was distinct from those Jews who at that time both in Judea Samaria Babylon and other Neighbouring Regions spoke the Syriac Language and made use of the Hebrew Exemplars They because they were dispers'd among Nations where the Greek tongue was familiar spake Greek and read the Scripture in Greek are call'd in the Acts of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hellenists And in reference to them are these words of the Jews to be expounded in the Gospel of St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will he come to the scattering of the Hellenists Now Simon mending his own subject asserts that the Greek Interpretation of the Seventy was cheifly approv'd by the Hellenist Jews who understood Greek not so by the rest of the Jews to whom the Greek was not so familiar as the Inhabitants of Babylon Palestine Syriac and Judea who all spoke either Chaldee or Syriac Nevertheless Simon does not deny but that there were some Hellenists among them and so there was a Synagogue of Alexandrians at Jerusalem and several Hellenist Jews lâ—v'd at Antiochia as appears from the Acts of the Apostles So that the dispute being only concerning the Hebrew Context and the Greek Interpretation of it therewas no necessity for Vossius to run out of his way in imitation of Vossius to call the Hellenist Jews who being of a peaceful disposition readily paid their Tribute and admonish'd others that the Yoak impos'd by God was to be born with patience and therefore submitted to the Greeks As if at Jerusalem and in other places where the Jews did not go by the Name of Hellenists there were none that carry'd themselves peaceably and readily paid their Taxes Why therefore were not they call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hellenists or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lovers of the Greeks But let Vossius hug himself in his conjecture and give sentence that Hellenism is not to be referred to Speech alone so it may be any way referr'd to his Version 't is enough Christ was also a Hellenist if you will believe Vossius because he understood the Greek Language and because he commanded to give to Caesar that which is Caesar's As to what the Learned Gentleman adds concerning the design'd corruption of the Hebrew Chronologies we shall not need to examin the matter again it having been sufficiently demonstrated in the foregoing Treatise that Vossius was most heavily deceiv'd in this particular nor to repeat what has been said before touching the Prophesie of Daniel already known to the Jews We are now to brush off those things which Simon blames as not so aptly rendred by the Seventy and which Vossius as stifly defends Weighing the words of the first Chapter of Genesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we render it to rule the day Simon says that the Exposition to him seems doubtful because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both Dominion and Beginning Vossius admires that Simon did not also find fault with the Hebrew word which has also a double signification But it is the part of a diligent Interpreter to avoid Amphibologie This place as being better express'd by Aquila then by the Seventy was taken notice of by the Learned Origen before Simon 's Castigation Then Simon had observ'd upon these words of the third Chapter of Genesis Gen. 3.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cursed art thou above all Cattel that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not agree with the place or seem to make any Sence but Vossius much more perspicacious maintains that the place could not be better nor more exactly rendred and that there is no Greek writer that does not so express himself True it is that Simon does not deny but that the words are Greek and that the Hebrew Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Min is rightly rendred by the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Question is whether in this place where there is a Comparative in the Case as the Gramarians call it that Preposition Min be truly rendr'd by the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Greek Writer had put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where frequently the Seventy and Aquila 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly in the same Chapter Simon conjectures that instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall keep and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall bruise and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shalt bruise But the nice Vossius objects that the latter is not Greek because the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the future But the less squeamish Grotius does not disprove the future 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is also in the Edition of Complutum besides some of the Grammarians have noted that from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the future The rest I omit as being of little moment that I may not seem to carp at trifles Only I cannot pass by one thing which the sikful Ship-Carpenter Vossius observes upon these words of Genesis Chapter 6. ver 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Make to thy self an Arch of four square Wood. He denys in opposition to Simon that any Ship can be built of Planks or flat Boards but of square Trees or Timber which are most fit for the building a Ship as being that which not only affords the Materials of Building but also Pitch to Pitch the Vessel I will not deny but that Cedar Firr and Pines which are Vossius's four square Trees may be very proper to Build a Ship but why he should deny that Plank or flat Boards are not to be sastned to the Ribbs of any Vessel I do not apprehend But let us proceed to somewhat of more moment Lastly that draws towards an end Vossius out of his malicious spirit against Simon endeavours to bring an Odium upon him while he equals him to Spinosa the Jew in those things which he asserts concerning the uncertainty of the Old Testament However by and by as it were correcting himself he confesses ingeniously that Spinosa was deservedly condenm'd by Simon as unlearned and with frivolous Arguments denying the receiv'd Authors to be the real Authors of those Books But they shew themselves more unlearned then Spinosa who presently think the Books of Scripture new written by the Persons whose Names they bear The vile and erroneous part of Spinosa is to be condemned but therefore all that he speaks concerning the Sacred Scripture is not presently to be condemn'd because he agrees in some things with men of conspicuous Piety and Learning But whereas in
this part Simon has not only distasted the most Learned Vossius but also some other persons of no less Note who have not forbore to Vomit forth their most virulent Poyson against his Critiea Sacra it will not be amiss to clear the truth of that Argument a little more plainly In the first place there is nothing that Simon has written concerning the publick Notaries of the Hebrew Nation but what these Diminitive Saint and nice Stomack'd Scholiasticks are extreamly offended at For those publick Registers they together with Eusebius and some of the Fathers call Prophets who not only committed to Writing the Transactions of their own Times but also took care of those Books which were written by the former Prophets and were kept in the publick Registries almost in the same manner as Esdras is said to have reveiw'd the Sacred Writings after the return of the Jews from Babylon and to have put them into that method which is still observ'd both by the Jews and Christians There is nothing in this Assertion of Simon which has not been approv'd by most of the Fathers and them the most Learned amongst the Rest Read but the Preface of single Theodoret one of the most Eminent Divines of the Eastern Church to the Book of Kings where he explains the whole matter and freely and without any scruple asserts that there were several Prophets among the Hebrews of which every one was wont to Write the Transactions of his own Age and that the greatest part of those Books are now wanting as is easie to be found in the History of the Chronicles He adds that those Books which we call the Books of Kings were a long time after taken out of those Books with Theodoretus Diod. in lib. 1. Sam. Mas praef Com. in Jâ—s Sanct. praef in lib. Reg. Perer. praef in Gen. Diodorus Procopius and others not a few consent To whom I may add the most Learned Masius whom Pierius Sanctius Cornclius a Lapide and other Jesuits long and much conversant in the Sacred Writings have follow'd whose words it is needless here to cite since their Works are every where to be had But to make this matter yet more plain it may be perhaps from the purpose to run over the several Books of Sacred Scripture and to take a short hint from every one The First that appears is Moses whom the constant Tradition both of Jews and Christians make to be the Author of the five Books of the Law But as to him the Jewish Rabbies seem to be the more religious who maintain that there is not so much as one word nay not so much as one syllable which did not proceed from God and was dictated to Moses Quite otherwise the most part of the Christians who affirm that some of the Books of Moses were added a long time after either by Esdras or some others who had the overveiwing of them Neither does St. Jerom presume to attribute to Moses some words of the Pentateuch as it is now extant following in this particular the common Opinion of the Doctors of the Church who constantly affirm that the whole Law was review'd and corrected by Esdras a most learned Scribe Whether you will saith St. Jerom that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuch or Esdras the restorer I will not gain say But whether Moses committed to Writing the whole History which we have under his Name or in part commanded it to be transcrib'd by the Notaries that Register'd the publick Transactions of his time is the Question However be it how it will Moses shall still be thought the Author and Writer of the whole Law as has been most excellently observ'd by Simon because those Scribes if there were any in his time were wholly at his Devotion And indeed we find nothing in the whole Law that does fix the Authority of those sort of Scribes And yet had they not been constituted by Moses from that very time the Hebrew Common-wealth had been deficient in what neither the Egyptians nor any other Eastern Nation wanted Now that there were Writers of Annals ever since the time of Moses the most Learned Jesuit Sanctius endeavours to prove in these words Proleg 4. in Paralip I beleive there were in the former Ages the words of Dayes Commentaries Ephemerides and that there was diligent and sedulous care least oblivion of Time should obscure the Nativities and Posterity of Men considerable which seems to me to have been certain from the very time of Moses I spare the names of others who have the same Sentiments And I wonder that a late Writer of the Order of the Seraphris enflam'd with a Seraphic Zeal should condemn in his Biblic Inquisitions this Opinion as Impious and curse the Authors of it But as I am inform'd that Seraphic Doctor though he understands neither Latin nor Greek is a person of most insolent ignorance and of the Sect of those who blaspheme what they understand not Jude 8. Some are offended and perhaps the more delicate Vossius for that Simon in his Critick's affirms that some of the Books of Moses were added afterwards But Simon is no Innovator in this particular as one that has to back him the most skilful Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture Masius and Pererius who has transferr'd all Masius's words into his Preface to Genesis Bonfrerius Cornelius a Lapide and many others Their Opinion also pleases me says Pererius who believe that the Pentateuch a long time after Moses was as it were fill'd up and render'd more plain by the Interlineation of many words and sentences and better methodiz'd for the continuation of the History In like manner Bonfrerius considering some words of Genesis which he suspects could not be written by Moses Com. in Cap. 36. Gen. v. 31. has these Expressions I had rather say that some other Hagiographer added somethings afterwards then ascribe all things to Moses performing the part of a Prophet Not much unlike to this speaks Cornelius a Lapide upon the same place Com. in c. 36. Gen. These words seem to be added after Moses 's time by some who digested the Diaries of Moses Nay Huetius himself in answer to Spinosa objecting that some things were added to the Books of Moses Dem. Evangel prop. 4. c. 14. so replies that he seems not to gainsay We confess says he that Esdras the Restorer of Scripture if any places more obscure or difficult then others occur'd stuft here and there into the Sacred Writings for explanations sake some things of his own Moreover seeing the Sacred Writings are propagated by so many Disputations that never so many Exemplars were ever known of any one Book no wonder if what has happen'd upon other occasions to other Books should happen to this that some Notes added by Pious and Learned Men in the Margin should at length creep into the Text. Lastly those relations at the end of Deutronomy concerning the Death and Burial of Moses by
Scripture do not agree among themselves The ancient Jews as R. Solomon testifies will have Solomon so call'd as if we should say a Collector or Assembler of Sentences for that Agar in Hebrew signifies to Collect the Sense of which the Latin Interpreter has render'd in Translating it the Words of the Collector or Assembler The same Opinion R. Levy Ben Gerson illustrates where he says Solomon seems to have given himself the Name of Agur in respect of the Sentences which he has Collected in this Book But perhaps Aben Ezra and Grotius following him with more reason suspects this Agur to have been the Theognes or Phocylledes of those Times out of whose writings Solomon might Collect some Sentences which he digested into one Volume with other Proverbs Lastly there is a fifth part of the Proverbs of Solomon contained within the 31st Chapter which is the last and that under the Name of King Lemuel who that Lemuel was is not known Most of the Jews believe that Solomon is meant thereby as Christ is intended by the word Immanuel as Aben Ezra asserts and the reason of that Appellation he takes from hence for that Lemuel signifies God with them because that in the Reign of Solomon as Aben Ezra testifies one God was worshipt among the Hebrews But there is no reason we should be sollicitous about the Word Lemuel especially when the Seventy say nothing of it and as they read so they have Translated the words of the Context quite after another manner As for the Book which in the Hebrew is call'd Cobaleth and by Us Ecclesiastes in Latin it is call'd Concionator or the Preacher though most of the latter Jews will have Cobeleth to signifie a person that Collects because that Book contains several Proverbs upon sundry Occasions Of this Opinion are R. Solomon and Aben Ezra and as he says Solomon in another place is call'd Agur for the same Reason as David de Pomis speaks In Lexi Heb Titolo del libro nomato Ecclesiastes composito da Salomone significa Congregatore per Congregareâ—e raccore in quel trattato diverse opinioni de gl' huomini la Maggior parte de quali sono false The Title of the Book called Ecclesiastes composed by Solomon signifies a Gatherer together from Collecting and gathering together in this Volume the opinions of Men the greatest part of which are false But some of the Jews according to the Testimony of R Salomon agree with the 70 in the Interpretation of the word Cobeleth believing it to signifie a Person that Preaches in some Congregation But as to the Author of that Book the Rabbies do not agree among themselves For the Talmudic Doctors ascribe it to Ezechia the later Rabbins to Solomon and these are back'd by the words of the Text in which there are some Passages that cannot well be meant of any other than Solomon therefore it is most probable that the Talmudics only meant that that same Writing was tak'n out of Solomon's Works by King Ezekiah or by Men appointed by him The Christian Interpreters also acknowledg no other Author of Ecclesiastes excepting some few among whom is Hugo Grotius who affirms that Book to be of a later date composed under the Name of Salomon for proof whereof he alledges that he has many words collected thence which are not extant but only in Daniel Esdras and the Chaldee Interpreters St. Jerom writes that the ancient Jews had some thoughts of obliterating this among the rest of Salomon's Works thrown by because he asserts the Creation of God to be vanity wherein St. Jerom agrees with the Talmudists and later Jews Jerom. Com. in 12. Eccles but every one knows that it is the Custom of those Doctors to feign many things of their own Heads By who the History was written that is entituled Esther is uncertain but as to the time when it was written almost all the Jews and Christians agree For whether the Authors of it were the Senators of the Grand Synagogue as the Talmudic Doctors believe or Esdras which is the Opinion of the Fathers or Mordecai as Aben Ezra more probably believes and the Book it self seems to testifie there is no dispute about the time when it was written Therefore Hugo Grotius does not conjecture amiss when he says that Esdras added to his own and the Book which Nehemiah wrote The History of Esther which happened in the middle of those Times of which the Transactions are related in those Books and which Grotius also acknowledges to have been written by Mordecai That the Song of Songs had no other Author than Salomon the very Title it self declares and it is certain from the third Book of Kings that the same Salomon composed both Proverbs and Songs But this because it was the best of Salomon's Songs was therefore called The Song of Songs that is to say the most Excellent Song Yet some do question whether it were written by Salomon as it is now extant or whether it were cull'd out of the whole Volume of his Songs However for that Song wherein Salomon is introduced discoursing with the Sunamite as a Bridegroom with a Bride is very difficult to explain not only by reason of the Expressions somewhat over confident and frequent Similitudes which our Customs will by no means endure but also because the Names of the Interlocutors are not set done for besides Salomon and his Spouse there are two Chorus's of young Men and Virgins But 't is a strange thing how the Rabbies differ among themselves about the Book of Job The Talmudics believe it to be no relation of real matter of Fact but that it is a Fiction or Parable to set forth a most exact and high Example of Piety and Patience and with these some of the Christians agree Nay there were some who did not only believe the Argument of the work to be feigned but will have the Name of Job to be taken out of those Letters of the first Verse of the third Chapter of the Book where we read Jobad Jom he curst the day For all that went before they looked upon only as a Prologue But the Testimony of Ezekiel who makes mention of Noah Daniel and Job demonstrates that the Name of Job is not fictitious and the prudent Aben Azra most sharply rebukes those who are of that Opinion He also believes him to have been of the Posterity of Esau which he gathers from the Name of the Place Com. in 1 cap. Job where he was born Besides the Names of Job and his Friends and other Circumstances plainly evidence that the story was really true according as it is related though it contains many things which are much more like Parable than Truth of History But as to the Author of it there is no certainty some apply it to Moses some to Isaiah others to Job himself and his Friends Nor do they agree among themselves who make Moses to be the Author of it some believing that it