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
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
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
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
Sedarim 33. Verses 1209. Words 16513. Letters 63467. the middlemost words Elohim lo Tehallel Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the Gods The Parshoth of Leviticus are 10. the Sedarim 25. the Verses 859. the Words 11902. the Letters 44989 the middlemost words Hannogeang Bibsar Hazab Leviz 15.7 He that touches the slesh of him that has a running Issue In Numbers Parsheth 10. Sedarim 33. Verses 1388. Words 16707. Letters 62529. the middlemost words Ve Hajah Haisch Asher Ebchar And the man whom I shall chuse Deuteronomy has Parshoth's 10. Sedarim 30. Verses 9055. Words 16394. Numb 17.5 Letters 54892. The middlemost words Ve Gnasitha Gnal Pi Haddabar And thou shalt do according to the Sentences Deut. 19.10 As for the rest of the Hebrew Context there is no number of the words But if we compare this Enumeration of the Letters of the Mosaical Law with that which is set forth in the Venetian and Basil Bibles you will find this to be very erroneous For that allows to Genesis no more than 4395 Letters whereas the former reckons up 78100. and therefore seems to be farthest from Truth But why such an indefatigable diligence in numbring the Letters of the Hebrew Letters with the Masorites should be call'd the hedge of the Law by the benefit of which it is preserv'd entire and uncorrupted from Errour or Mistake I cannot well apprehend Whenas they who were so anxiously laborious number'd in other Letters than those of their own Books which no wise man will look upon to be so free from faults or to be compar'd with the Original Then as Aben Esra rightly observes the Letters Aleph He Vau and Jod are frequently added frequently omitted according to the fancy of the Transcribers Certainly no man that understands any thing of Critical Learning will from thence only because the Masora observes such a word sometimes fill'd up sometimes defective presently infer that all other Biblick Exemplars are not of that value because they vary in their Lections but imbracing both Lections as probable will determine nothing certain in a thing of so much incertainty as being taught by the Examples of the LXX Interpreters Aquilas Symmachus Theodotion and St. Jerom who many times not only vary from the Masoreth but from one another And therefore the Jews and the Idolizers of the Masorites are miserably deceiv'd who believe that the Holy Writ was restor'd to its Antient Form by a bare Enumeration of the Words and Letters made by the Doctors of Tyberias and cry it up in the place of the Authentick Original Than which there could be nothing more fabulously invented especially after such a long succession of years that the Hebrew Language has been as it were buried and the Traditions of the dead almost entomb'd at least most strangely interrupted And therefore the more prudent Aben Esra rightly compares the Masoreticks that have so carefully enumerated the Letters and Words of the Hebrew Context to those who should number the Leaves and Pages of a Physick-Book which would nothing contribute to the health of a sick Patient As for the Distinction of the Verses which appears in the Masoretick Editions I think the same sentence is to be pronounced as concerning the numbring of Letters and Words in regard that the Authors of this Enumeration have observ'd no other than the Rules of Criticism in distinguishing the Verses after the manner of the Grammarians But if we listen to the Talmudists they cry Every Verse which Moses does not distinguish we never distinguish But if that Tradition were receiv'd From Moses wherefore do not the Talmudists agree in all things with the Masorists in this particular Why also was not that Tradition of which Moses is feign'd to be the Author known likewise to those Jews that liv'd in Time of the Greek Interpreters and St. Jerom For they also differ in many things from the Masorites The whole Context of Sacred Writ was formerly in Antient Times written in a continu'd series of words as it had been one entire Verse as Elias Levita well observes As also were the Books of the Antient Greeks and Latines which may be collected from the Proem of Eustathius to his Commentaries Eustath in Iliad Hom. The Poem of the Iliads was and continu'd a well compacted body of words which the Grammarians so continu'd by the command of Pisistratus King of Athens and fitted as they pleas'd themselves The chief of which was Aristarchus and after him Zenodotus But because it was prolix and intricate and by that means irksom to the Reader they divided it into several parts which Sections they would not call the first second and third Book c. as Quintus did in his continuation of Homer But in regard the Composition was large enough for several Sections they thought fit to divide them into Sections under the four and twenty Letters And Illatius commends one Comatas who distinguish'd and pointed the Sentences of Homer's Poem Apud Leon. Allati animadvers in Antiq. Hetrus which never had any subdistinctions before as appears by the following Verses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cernens Comatas hos Homericos Libros Jam putrientes nullibi scriptis notis Punctis not atos Ordinans abscidit putredines Ex quo Periti non errantibus viis Discant quod par est discere In Antient times also the Verses of the Poets were not separated one from another by any such notes of distinction as we find in the Printed Editions Nor can the Grammarians themselves rightly distinguish the Odes of Pindar But why do I spend time There 's no reason why the Jewish Books in this particular should have better luck than the Greek Exemplars of the New Testament which 't is well known were but lately distinguish'd into Verses as is not only to be seen in several of the Manuscript Copies but also in many Editions that are Printed according to the Antient Copies True it is that ever since the time of Ezra the Verses of the Law were distinguish'd in Reading But for all that the Amanuenses never made any distinction in their Transcripts as was afterwards done by the Criticks of Tyberias to whose Laws the Jews are no more oblig'd than we to the Decrees of the Apostolick See which after the Correction of the Latine Interpretation decreed that no other Interpretation should be Printed for the future unless it were examin'd by the Vatican Standard Which Edict was for the procurement of Peace and Concord And to this as much as is possible they who gave the Roman Church her Name will adhere in explaining the Latine Interpretation if they be wise observing the Points and all the marks of distinction in that Edition Nevertheless that a clearer and more probable sense will rise from another manner of distinction they do not scruple to prefer it before the
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
Now there is extant a German Translation done by the Doctors of Tigurino and chiefly of Leo Judas who was most particularly concerned therein which Translation openly opposes that of Luther And yet the same Doctors of Tigurino forged a new one as though the former Version had not been found and good The Authors of this late Translation are are as I hear Hottinger Heideker Mulerus and others who have translated the Hebrew words almost verbatim Piscator a man of great account among the Calvinists is reported to have done a Bible into the German tongue who though he relyed upon Junius and Tremelius their Latin Version yet he did not hang back but kept a full pace with the above named Translators The low German Translation which was taken into consultation at the Synod of Dort in the year of our Redemption 1618 came forth in the year 1637 and by orders of the higher Powers was done into Low-Dutch immediately out of the Hebrew and not from Martin Luthers High Dutch Translation was found errouneous Neither doth the Low-Dutch Translation want its faults arising from a more than ordinary dependance upon the Expositions of the Modern Jews who were rashly supposed by them to understand the Hebrew better then all the World beside And thereupon this Translation met with brisk opposition from some of the the Protestant Faction and Low-Germany the Country wherein it was hatcht was quickly markt out with the brand of novelty and affectation Mr. Leusden Hebrew Professour in Vtrecht a man before commended taking upon him to argue for the Low-Dutch Translation among the rest of his proofs produces as arguments the Corrections of the vulgar Latin by Sixtus Quintus and Clement Octavus Popes of Rome But the true reason why these two Prelates should Correct the vulgar Latin was far different from that of the Low-Country Protestants The former Animadversions without vain affectation desired only to make the vulgar Latin answerable to its ancient Copies whilst the latter sort of men magnifying the Hebrew varities which they pretend always to stand by set out every day and jump't up new Translations of the Bible which as soon as they come a little in vogue the Authors of them presently perkt up show their faces and ridicule the Old Translatour making it their end and aim to build up their Yesterday Opinions upon these new and unheard of Translations being the sole way they make use of to thrust their monstrous Doctrines into the Church and which they do openly acknowledge saying That the Sun of the Eastern Languages arising they betook themselves to the Hebrew Fountains the better to find out and confute the errours of Popery the better to establish their Religion That the English Protestants was cloy'd and overcharged with the numerous Translations of the Bible the bare words of the Bishop of London in his conference at Hampton-Court may be of sufficient evidence If each man begins the Bishop had his peculiar fancy we could never expect an end of Translation wherefore the good will and pleasure of his most Excellent Majesty 't is that some uniform Version be thought upon adding moreover that then he had never met with an English Bible well Translated and was very well satisfied that among the bad ones that of Geneva was the worst where he then thought expedient that the most Learned in both the Vniversities should confer notes together and make up a Translation which being first revised by the most Learned Bishops and Privy Council should at last be established by the Kings Authority The which being done the Church of England will be confin'd to one Translation and no more We may easily from hence conclude with what noyse bustle and dispension the diversities of Bibles came accompanied into England under the different Names of Tâ—ndal and Coverdale Thâ— Matthews Tonstal and Hethe Parker Archbishop of Canturbury and other Bishops the last named persons being the Author of a Bible Entituled the Bishops Translation Now the Geneva Translation which King James will have to be the worst is the same with the French Bible Printed at Geneva the which was made English and Read in Great Britain by some of the Geneva Profession As for the History of these and such like Bibles you may have it in Durel and Fuller's State of England Most wisely therefore did King James the first of the Name of the Kings of England Establish That rejecting and making void all other Translations which were then us'd in the Nation some new impartial and unaffected Translation should be composed Likewise he made a Law for Interpretation and ordered those who had the overseeing of it to go from the Bishops Translation as little as possible willing that some particular words which were in a manner Consecrated to the use of the Church should be retained as the word Church it self which signifies a public meeting and by the Decree he reprimanded the Geneva Reformadoes who had foisted in other Names commanding for these mens sakes that all Marginal Notes and Annotations at the beginning and end of the Bible should be struck out as things of bad consequence and the snares of the common People These and a great many more particulars of the like Nature were order'd by the Kings Royal Authority and accordingly effected so that to this intent there is no Translation made use of in the Church of England than the English one only set forth by his Majesties especial command To which Translation truly their Book of Common Prayer may bear some resemblance which Book except the Version of the Psalms hath been so far from the least alteration that it hath been used in their Publick Worship ever since their Reformation in the Reign of Edward the Sixth Though it be a general Opinion that the English had a Translation of the Bible in English done by Wiclift and that before the above named King began his Reign which Translation together with that which was abroad in England in the Reign of King Henry the Eighth was done into English out of the vulgar Latin Also Cochlaus will tell you that Luther's Translation of the New Testament was made English Besides all this there is a common report that a Bible was published at London in Welch that James Vsher the Bishop of Armaugh turn'd a new Copy into Irish and Mr. William Bedd an old one and that both of them are supposed to have been burned CHAP. XXVI Of the Translations of the Bible which were writ in the vulgar Tongue and their Rise from the Geneva Schools WE find not any French Translations of the Holy Scriptures and done out of the Hebrew and Greek which went not to School at Geneva neither do I omit that Translation which may seem to be composed by Renatus Benedictus one of the Parisian Divines since the Geneva Translation and the aforenamed piece are most nearly related as I shall hereafter make evident Robertus Olivetanus born in Picardie and a nigh kinsman of Jo.
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
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
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