A COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECY OF MICAH By EDWARD POCOCK D. D. Canon of Christ-Church and Regius Professor of the Hebrew Tongue in the Vniversity of OXFORD OXFORD Printed at the THEATER M.DC.LXXVII Imprimatur RAD. BATHVRST Vice-Cancel OXON JULY 19. 1676. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD SETH LORD BISHOP OF SARUM MY LORD THE concurrence of severall reasons each of which were sufficient have moved me to offer to your gracious acceptance this Essay First my duty to your Lordship as my Diocesan who may justly challenge from me some account of my employments Secondly that gratitude which obligeth me to acknowledge your Lordships many favors extended to me and mine And thirdly the need of patronage and protection that this Work hath in regard that there is in it much stress laid on such part of Learning the Orientall I mean which of late if not all along hath had that unhappiness as to be scarce able to keep it self not only from neglect but contempt as needless at least of not great use or necessity In some places abroad where it formerly found great encouragement if we may beleive generall complaints it hath now little regard although I doubt not but that it will in good time recover its honor That it may not be so among us at home it must ow to the favour and countenance of men excelling as in authority and dignity so in learning and judgement in which rank none being more eminent so none will be more ready to afford it then your Lordship who have your self alwaies been a lover of those Studies and by long experience know and have made known the usefulness of them I shall not here trouble your Lordship with giving an account of what is in these Annotations done that being the proper work of the Preface I shall only adde that besides the former motives I have a strong encouragement to make this address to your Lordship from an assured confidence that whatsoever it be that I bring being the best that I have at present and proceeding from those intentions with which it is offered it shall by your Lordship be favouredly accepted from the hands of him who is MY LORD Your Lordships most humble Servant EDWARD POCOCK THE PREFACE THE main thing in these Annotations endeavoured is to settle the genuine aud literall meaning of the Text. Seeing it is often very differently rendred by Interpreters according to their different judgments from what we read in our English Bibles and that in them also we have various readings in the Margin I have laboured as far as I could to find out the truth among them by examining such as I have occasion to take notice of by the Original Hebrew which is the standing rule which was at first by the goodness of God for such delivered to us by the Prophets and holy men divinely inspired and hath ever since by his wonderful Providence been preserved uncorrupt and sincere Of any that shall question it we may ask when it was corrupted whither before Christs time or since If it be said before and as an argument alledged for it that there is a Translation of greater antiquity then his time viz. in Greek which so much differs from the Hebrew Copies which we now have as to shew that in the Copy which the Authors thereof had many things were read otherwise then in these we are not to be moved by it except three things be first made evident 1. That the Copy which they had was a truer Copy then any reserved among the Jews which might be derived to us from them 2. That those Interpreters strictly and precisely followed the letter of their Copy and did not give themselves liberty of expressing what they conceived to be the sense and meaning either more largely or in different words or had not some notions of the words which are not now so usually known 3. That the Copies which we have of their Version be genuin and uncorrupted as they proceeded from them without mixture or alteration Which things have not yet been sufficiently proved and I suppose cannot be Againe if it had been before Christs time corrupted it can scarce be doubted but we should have heard of it from him who so often reprehending the Jews for their perverse Interpretations of it by the Glosses of their Traditions we cannot think but he would much more have reprooved them if they had corrupted the Text it self And after his time it is no way probable that it could be altered or corrupted by any concurring malice of the Jews as it must have been done by a general conspiration for corrupting all the Copies or else would have been a vain attempt seeing it cannot be doubted but that among so many thousands of them of whom many were converted to Christ and among them divers others we may well suppose like Apollos mighty in the Scriptures Act. 18. 24. many had in their hands true Copies of it by which they would have discovered any forgery And from them that there were Copies imparted to other Christians also we have reason to think when we find that among them for many years after Christ the Scriptures of the Old Testament were read in their Churches in the Hebrew language for that it was so among the Syrians we have from a learned man of that Nation who in a Book that he wrote in Arabick concerning divers heads of the Christian Religion speaking of their manner of reading the Scriptures in the Church saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. In ancient time the Books of the old Testament were read in the Hebrew Tongue till S. Ephraim forbad it which we cannot think was for any other reason but because they looked on the Hebrew as more genuine and authentick then any Translation not that they had not then Translations of the Scripture in their own Language as we shall by and by shew to be more then probable For these and other reasons even the care that the Jews themselves as is by all known and confessed alwaies took of writing it exactly true as that whereon their own preservation depended we cannot on any probable grounds question the integrity thereof Yea a learned man who is looked on to have laboured as much as any to question the integrity of the Hebrew Text doth confess that in Christs time and Ionathans the Paraphrast the Hebrew Books that they then had were the same that we now have And what then have we farther to be sollicitous about in this matter For of those was then the Book that our Saviour stood up to read in the Synagogue and expounded by the same Spirit which first dictated what was therein written Luc. 4. 16 17. c. and the reading of which he justified by asking the Lawyer who would know what he might do to inherit eternal life What is written in the Law how readest thou Luc. 10. 26. Those the Scriptures which he bad the Jews to search as
many hath been said of them that it will be needless to give any account of them but the other viz. the Syriack and Arabick though well and only known in the Eastern parts so unknown among us till the late noble Editions of the Polyglot Bibles at Paris and London that it may seem requisite to give some That the Syriack had anciently a Translation of the Scripture into their Language is manifest and such as may challenge priority of the Greek it self if we may believe them But for making the matter more clear we may observe that they have two Translations the one done out of the Hebrew the other out of the Greek Gregorius Abul Pharajius in his History which was printed at Oxford in Arabick and Latin thus tells us that the Greek Version made by the LXXII Elders in Ptolemeus Philadelphus's time which was received not only by the Greeks but by most Sects of the Christians yet was not followed by the Syrians especially the more Easterly ones For that they had a Translation which was called the Simple or plain Version because the Translators did not in it so much labour for elegance of words which was conformable to the Copy of the Jews but saith he the more Western have two Translations that Simple one which was translated out of Hebrew into Syriack after the coming of Christ in the time of Addaeus or Thaddaeus the Apostle or as others affirm in the time of Solomon the son of David and Hiram and another more florid made according to that of the LXXII out of Greek into Syriack a long time after the Incarnation of our Saviour For better understanding what he saith and the opinion of those of that Nation we may farther take notice of what an ancient Bishop Soaded Bishop of Hadetha cited by the learned Sionita in his Preface to his Edition of the Psalms in Syriack and Latin saies That as to the Translation of the sacred Books it was thus the Law Iosue Iudges Ruth Samuel David or the Psalms the Proverbs Ecclesiastes Canticles and Iob were done in the time of Solomon at the request of Hiram King of Tyrus his friend The other Books of the old and new Testament in the time of Abagar King of Syria by the care of Thaddaeus and other Apostles Their later Version I suppose to have been made by Thomas Heracleensis for so I find in a Syriack MS of which account is given in the Preface to the second Epistle of S. Peter in Syriack Greek and Latin printed at Leiden An. 1630. a distinction made betwixt the Translation which was made in ancient daies and the Translation of Thomas Heracleensis And so in the old Testament in the MS. Syriack Copy is there prefixed to one Version of the Story of Susanna that it was according to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Translation of Heracleensis for there are two Versions of that Story in the Copy but neither of them may be supposed to belong to the ancient simple Version as neither probably any of the Apocryphal Books before some of which as the first book of Esdras is put That they were conformed to the Tradition of the LXXII and at the end of it that it was not found in the simple Version and so likewise before Tobit When this Tho. Heracleensis lived I have not yet met with any certain Narration only I find him signalized in a Syrian Calendar among their Saints or holy men by having his name among those to whose memory the 26. day of Haziran or Iune is consecrated which makes it probable that he is not of late standing which will farther be confirmed if he be the same as I suppose he was of whom Schultingius makes mention in his Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica tom 3. pag. 106. by the name of Thomas Harchalanus giving account of him out of a Catalogue of Missals made by Ignatius Patriarch of Antioch that he translated out of Greek into Chalde as he calls the Syriack the Missals of Iohn the Evangelist and of Clement about four hundred and seven years after Christ. But when the Syrians contend for the Antiquity of their Version we see it is for that other more ancient But besides what they say for themselves wherein perhaps they may seem to go too high we have not only from the Greek Fathers but from all our Copies of the LXXII it self undoubted proofs of the very great antiquity of some Syriack Version In all the Editions that we have of the LXXII except the Complutensian as well that out of the very ancient Copy in the Kings Library as the rest from other Copies expressed we have at the end of Iob these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he is interpreted out of a or the Syriack Book i.e. the Bible for out of no other Book would they have taken words for authentick Text. Which shews that there was a Syriack book or Translation ancienter then any of them and that it was so written in those ancienter Copies out of which any of them were transcribed they all of them though in other things differing between themselves agreeing in it And this plainly gives us to look on the Syriack Version as very ancient which is that which at present we say and withall seems a sufficient proof that as we above intimated there was before S. Ephraims time such a Translation among the Syrians in their own Tongue which they might have used if they had not thought the Hebrew more authentick and as so given that honour to it as to use only it in their Churches If they had not then had any his forbidding them to use the Hebrew had been a depriving them of any use of the Scriptures of the old Testament which we suppose was not his mind to do but only to cause them to be read in a more intelligible Language in which he is said to have written Comments on it But although this be as much as may suffice to our present purpose yet having fallen on the mention of this matter it may perhaps not be amiss by the way to endeavor to give farther some little account of it which if any think not to be of much concernment he may pass it over Whereas the last Chapter of Iob in the Hebrew Text and such Translations as follow it ends with the 17. verse and these words So Iob dyed being old and full of daies in the Greek called the Septuagint are added to the quantity of several verses more and that so anciently that some of the Greek Fathers have commented on them as authentick Text. Olympiodorus saith that they were delivered as so from the Apostles themselves and Polychronius that they were so accounted by the Fathers There is first added It is written that he should rise againe with those whom the Lord should raise Then follows what we mentioned He or this man is interpreted out of the Syriack book dwelling or that he dwelt in the Land of Ausitis
or Vz in the borders of Idumea and Arabia and his name was Iobab with other things concerning his wife and a son and his Genealogy as that he was of the posterity of Esau and the fifth from Abraham and reigned in Edom after Balat c. as likewise concerning his friends that came to visit him after which in the Copy printed according to that very ancient MS. in the Kings Library is repeated again a briefer account of Iob himself having prefixed to it as before He is interpretted out of the Syriack book but in other Copies this is not found What use to make of this we shall after see And it is by diverse ancient and modern taken notice that Aquila and Symmachus who translated the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek concluded that Book as the Hebrew doth but that Theodotion who likewise so translated them and lived about 180. years after Christ concluded it as the Septuagint doth with Additions out of the Syriack Version But here may be objected against what we would thence infer concerning the antiquity of that Syriack Version what is by some of the Greeks said that by the Syriack named in those Additions to Iob is meant the Hebrew Tongue to that purpose makes what in an Anonymous Greek Author whose words were imparted to me by my Reverend and most learned friend D r Thomas Marshall prefixed in a MS Copy to Ioannes Melala is said viz. that it was Origens opinion that it is so Of what credit that Author is I know not for it is not likely that Origen thought or should say so In that Commentary on Iob which goes under his name it is said that that Book was written first in Syriack and then done into Hebrew being polished and completed by Moses If so then the Syriack and Hebrew in his opinion were looked on as different But that Book is looked on as spurious and the opinion a groundless conjecture What Origen thought may easily be collected out of his Epistle to Africanus part of which is set forth before the Text of Iob by the learned Patricius Iunius printed according to the MS copy in the Kings Library where he saith that those words which follow in the Greek after the 17. verse of the last Chapter are not found among the Hebrews and therefore neither in Aquila but in the LXXII and Theodotion Had he thought that by Syriack out of which it is expresly said they were taken had been meant Hebrew he could not have said they had been wanting in the Hebrew Books However by others it is so said For so Nobilius in his various readings o the Greek tells us that the Greek Scholiast saith that he calls the Hebrew dialect Syriack because of the affinity betwixt them and endeavors to prove it Of that Greek Scholiast I can give no account but from him But in Olympiodorus in the Catena on Iob we have the same expresly affirmed who having observed that Aquila and Symmachus end where the Hebrew doth but Theodotion hath the same additions that the LXXII then gives his opinion thus The Hebrew dialâ—ct he calls in this place Syriack then confirms it with those very loose and unconcluding arguments because the Syriack language is of very nigh affinity with the Hebrew having the same number of letters VIZ. 22. and then because Iudea is comprehended under the name of Syria But though this be by him and others who perhaps looked not much into those Tongues affirmed we cannot be much moved by it For besides that no such words are found in any Hebrew copy which he himself confesseth and so destroys what he would affirm if Hebrew and Syriack be one we cannot think it an opinion generally received by the Fathers Some of them certainly knew that to say Syriack and Hebrew were different things and would not confound them by calling one the other Besides what we have already said from Origen S. Chrysostome who living long at Antioch in Syria could not but know what was meant by the Syriack language on the 48. Psalm according to the Greek division in one verse cites both the Syriack and the Hebrew and as distinct readings and so Theodoret on Psalm 115. and on Ionah 3. 4. to omit many other testimonies several of which are found in the Greek Scholiast and Nobilius's Notes thereon And whereas as the same Nobilius observes some say that by Syriack is meant Chalde that signifies nothing for it will be no more then to say by Syriack is meant Syriack for these are at most but two Dialects of one Tongue however it hath obtained that that which the Jews retained after their return from Babylon where they learned it and lost much of their own and framed much to the rules of the Hebrew be peculiarly called Chalde as any that would know more of it may see in the learned Preface of Ludovicus de Dieu to his Grammar of the Oriental Tongues To this day divers of the Syrians call themselves Chaldeans and their Tongue Chalde and that which we call Chalde the Jews call ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arami Syriack And what then would if this were granted be thence concluded but that either the book of Iob was written in the Chalde Dialect or else that there was in it a Translation of that Book in which those additions were read as authentick Text when the Seventy translated it into Greek and they followed its authority Neither of which I supposed will be granted for besides that in the Chalde Paraphrast that we now have no such additions are found it is manifest that that is of much later date then Ptolomaeus Philadelphus his time and that there was any other in his time in that Dialect which is now lost none can prove nor will any Christians easily grant although some Jews contend for it and would have the Greek of the Seventy to have been translated out of that and not out of any genuin Hebrew copy which is too great a slurre to be cast upon it There is therefore nothing said except they mean it is the Hebrew which is called Syriack and who should mean so surely not the Seventy who by all are said to have been Jews they would not so far have profaned their holy Tongue as they all call it by way of excellency to distinguish it from all others and peculiarly Syriack as to call it so nor taken for authentick Text any thing that they had not found in it no nor Theodotion himself so long after them having that skill in Hebrew which he had have confounded those names nor any ancient Greek who knew so much of it as to be able to translate it There was a time as we have intimated after the Jews return from Babylon when their Language had so much of Chalde or Syriack mingled with it as that it might have been as well called Syriack as Hebrew yet even then was it rather called Hebrew then Syriack as appears
in reason be due to it but to vindicate to it that which it may justly challenge as to its antiquity To return and proceed We reckon likewise among the ancient Translations the Arabick though all of much later date then the former In that Language there are several Versions some done out of the Hebrew some out of Greek some out of Syriack and perhaps one of late years done and printed at Rome out of the vulgar Latin as I was told by one of that Church was intended and I have seen some Sheets of it but I know not whether it were completed However that is none of those we speak of Those that I had to deal with are two the one that which is found in the Polyglot Bibles which when or by whom done is uncertain it is conformed mostly to the Greek in this part I mean of the Minor Prophets for the whole Bible is apparently not of one Texture but in some parts seems more conformed to the Hebrew as in the Pentateuch in others to the Syriack in others to the Greek as he that peruseth it will find The other is a Manuscript the use of which I had out of the store of my learned and very good friend M r Robert Huntington There is no name of the Author expressed that I find in the Copy Whither it be the work of R. Saadiah Haggaon a Jew famous as for his other Works so for his Translation of the Books of the old Testament out of Hebrew into Arabick I have reason to doubt seeing the Prophecy of Isaiah which is in the same Volume differs from what I find in another Copy of that Prophecy which bears his name And it is certain that others of the Jews besides him did translate the Scriptures or part of them into that Language and therefore if it be any where by me cited as his it is not positively affirmed and I almost think it is not his Whose ever it be it seems to be of some antiquity for it is not of late years that the Jews have used to write in Arabick as formerly they did as is shewed in the Preface to Porta Mosis Whither we should reckon Ionathan who made a Paraphrase of the Prophets among Translators or Expositors I something doubt because taking liberty of a Paraphrast he rather makes his business to give the meaning then the particular signification of the words which is more the business of a strict Translator although every such Translator too may not amiss be looked on as an Expositor or Commentator This Paraphrase is of great authority with the Jews and is constantly affirmed to have been made much about Christs time and I know not why we should question it For those allegations against it whcih are brought out of that Paraphrase of the Law which goes under the name of Ionathan and hath besides the difference of the style many things in it savouring of greater novelty signify nothing that being confessedly none of this Ionathans work and therefore is as the other Paraphrases on the other Books of much less authority if any at all then that of Onkelos on the Law or the true Ionathan on the Prophets Besides these ancient Versions it was convenient to look on others more modern such are those of Pagnin the Tigurin Munster Castalio Iunius and Tremellius in Latin and Diodati in Italian c. which will be found sometimes cited These often differing among themselves and from the ancienter and from ours give us occasion to examine the words in the Hebrew and to enquire more narrowly into the grounds of the difference and to see what the Original will bear that so we might be able to judge between them which not seldom will be an hard matter to do and force us to leave the Reader to prefer that which seems to him best in his own judgement seeing that will bear more by reason of the different use and signification of the words that occur in it and all making a good sense When I have occasion to cite the vulgar Latin I have mostly chosen to give it in the words of the Doway Translation into English out of it as that which perhaps would be judged more authentick then any rendring of mine own In the use of our English Translation I would desire the Reader to have an eye to the marginal reading together with what is in the Text. Now for finding of the signification of the Hebrew words besides the ordinary Dictionaries which are more common the Reader will somtimes find cited R. David Kimchi's Radices or Roots a Dictionary in Hebrew by him compiled for the words used in the Scripture from whom our ordinary Lexicographers borrow much and again Abu Walid an ancienter Author then he whom he often cites by the name of Rabbi Ionah as Aben Ezra doth by the name of R. Marinus his name at length being Abu Walid Marun Ebn Iannahi Cordubensis a very learned man and of great credit among them called Prince of Grammarians who wrote divers Tracts about Grammatical matters the last of which is his Book of Roots or Dictionary expounding the Hebrew in Arabick in which Language he wrote all There is nothing of his that I know printed that which is cited is Manuscript so is also another Dictionary of R. Tanchum which we made use of though not properly composed for Scripture words but for such as occur in the Misnaioth or Text of the Talmud and Maimonides and an old Hebrew and Arabick Glossary Add to these the Heads of the Hebrew Concordance compiled by R. Nathan which have been translated into Latin by Antonius Reuchlinus and also by the learned M r Nicolas Fuller whose Translation is not printed but in his own hand writing remains in the Bodleian Library Under this Head may come also some Arabick Lexicons which it was necessary to make use of for seeking after the signification of divers Hebrew words by comparing them with the same Roots in the Arabick a way necessary to be taken in regard that that copious Language continuing in greater latitude then the Hebrew from which it had its original and retains that affinity to that in the opinion of some of the learnedest Jews it may pass rather for only a Dialect of it then a distinct Language from it affords often the genuine significations of divers Roots which are now lost in the Hebrew and of severall words which occur so seldome in the original Text which is all that we have left of that Language in its purity and cannot contain all words that it will be hard to find the right meaning of them without that help which therefore the most learned of the Rabbins take and direct to by making search into that neighbouring Language wherein they will be often found more common and the meaning of them be manifestly declared by the known use of them therein What is said of the Arabick Language is to be said of the Syriack and Chalde
in the new Testament But sure the ancient proper Hebrew such as we now speak of none could so call who had any insight in those Tongues except for some design so that to say that by Syriack is meant the Hebrew must be the assertion of some Greeks who were either ignorant of those Languages or else were unwilling to attribute too much to the Syriack or give preference to it above the Greek Version as ancienter then it They might as well tell us that Iacob spake Syriack when he called the heap Galeed as well as Laban who called it Iegar Sahadutha But if it be granted them that by Syriack in those words in the Greek was meant Hebrew how then will they unriddle how that which according to them was anciently a part of the Text in the Hebrew and thence as so taken into the Greek is now wanting in all the Copies in that Language and was likewise omitted by Aquila and Symmachus who undertook the Translation of the whole that was looked on as authentick they will not be able to give any rational account of this But to us who look on as meant by Syriack that Language properly so called it will be no difficulty For if it be asked how it should come to pass that those additions should so anciently come into the Greek Version being not in the Hebrew but said to be taken out of the Syriack book the answer I suppose will be easy Some anciently among the Syrians whose custome of inserting Notes or Scholias in their Copies may be perceived out of such as are taken notice of in the various readings of the Syriack in the Polyglot Bibles gathered by the learned M r Thorndike had somewhere in his Copy of the Syriack Translation to the book of Iob added for explication sake according to what he had either by Tradition or out of some History then extant received concerning the person of Iob that brief account of him not unlike to which though not quite the same there are found prefixed to it in two Copies in that Language which were made use of in the Edition of those Polyglot Bibles two in something different terms and one shorter then the other as he that pleaseth may see in the various readings of the Syriack in that Book This those that copied out anciently those Versions of the Septuagint and Theodotion for it will be too much to say the Authors of them themselves especially of the first if they were truly the Seventy who commonly bear that name finding in some such old Syriack copy thought worth while to translate into Greek and add in their own at the end Yea so as if in differing Copies they found such account given in differing terms to take notice thereof also as appears by what is done in the ancient MS of the Kings Library as we have mentioned Which other transcribers after continued till what was so added was in time taken in as part of the genuine Text with inanimadvertency enough seeing the Appendix as is well noted in the various Lections to the Francfort Greek Edition doth not redolere stilum Canonis savour of or any way agree with the style of the Canonical Text. And this being observed the meaning of those words He i. e. Iob his person not the book as the Author of the Comment called Origen's seems to think is interpreted will be account â—is given of him in the following words out of the Syriack Book or Version That expression is agreeable as to the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to be interpreted in the new Testament and other Authors so to what is usual among the Eastern People and peculiarly in the Arabick Writers to call the account given of the Genealogy name and History of any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tarjamatoho his interpretation as often in that famous writer of lives Ebn Chalican and others and perhaps in the Syriack book might be written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Methtargam He is thus interpreted i. e. account is thus given of him This conjecture is abundantly confirmed by what we read in Polychronius forecited who witnesses that those additions to Iob however by many received into the Text whose opinion himself followed because of the authority of the Fathers yet were by others rejected They saith he reject the Genealogy which is in the end because it is not in the Hebrew and the Book is concluded with those words And Iob dyed being old and full of daies and say that the likeness of the name in the Genealogy of Esau which is in the book of Genesis where mention is made of Iobab gave occasion of error to some and of making that Scholion or Note and that in tract of time afterwards that which was written in the Margin or elsewhere was by others taken into the Text. However it were yet these things which have been said taken at the least advantage give testimony to the antiquity of the Syriack Version That which was mentioned in the ancientest Copies of the Septuagint and Theodotion which were seen and used by the Greek Fathers and had such credit when they were written as to be taken notice of as of great authority and little less authentick then the Text it self must needs be ancient I hope none will think this to be eluded by saying that Iob alone was then translated into Syriack and not other Books of the Scripture this would be a supposition contrary not only to the testimony of Syriack Writers and others which ought not rashly to be contemned but to all reason Something to this purpose may be collected also out of the conclusion of the Book of Iob in the printed Arabick Version in which that which makes the 18. verse in the Greek viz. It is written that he should rise c. is not found nor that which follows He is interpreted out of the Syriack Book but most of the rest after a breach made is though somwhat different from what is in Greek for whereas in it is said that he was the fifth from Abraham the Arabick saith he was the sixth with some other differences in the Arabick it self but made more by the mistake of the Latin Translator as he that shall look into it shall easily perceive as where instead of Asom a proper name he puts nomen because the word so signifying hath the same letters with the other And then he concludes saying that the Author of the Copy out of which he wrote it saith that this Book was translated out of Syriack into Arabick Whether that Author meant it of the whole Book or only of the additions may be doubted as also some other things which cannot be farther determined without sight of his MS Copy However it appears that the Syriack Version was then in great authority and veneration I have been long in this digression not seeking to attribute more to the Syriack Version then may