Testimony of the learned Jews pag. 12. Chap. 4. Of the publisht Exemplars of the Hebrew Context which are Masoretick Of the Art of the Masorites Of its Original and what Opinion we are to have of it pag. 22. Chap. 5. The parts of the Masora in relation to the Manuscript Copies are weighed and illustrated The true Original of the Masora pag. 28. Chap. 6. Other parts of the Manuscripts in reference to the Manuscript Bible are examin'd Their true Original and the Masoretick Lection confirm'd pag. 35 Chap. 7. Some things unprofitably and superstitiously noted by the Masoreticks are illustrated out of the Manuscript Copies of the Bibles pag. 44. Chap. 8. Some Examples of different Writings are produc'd from the Manuscripts which vary from the Masoretick Versions pag. 48. Chap. 9. Whether the Jews corrupted their Bibles of set purpose The Opinion of the Fathers concerning this matter examin'd pag. 56. Chap. 10. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the Hebrew Manuscripts is examin'd and refuted pag. 71. Chap. 11. Of the Samaritan Bibles their Targumim or Paraphrases pag. 81. Chap. 12. Of the Bibles of the Sadduces and Karraeans pag. 92. Chap. 13. Of the Targumim of the Jews or the Translations of Sacred Scripture and first of the Chaldee Paraphrases pag. 98. Chap. 14. An Appendix of the other Translations of the Bible in use among the Jews pag. 137. Chap. 15. Of the Translations of the Bible of greatest Authority with the Christians and first of the Septuagint pag. 140. Chap. 16. A more particular examination of the Greek Septuagint Translation pag. 150. Chap. 17. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the seventy Interpreters is examin'd The Vindication of St. Jerom. pag. 157. Chap. 18. Of the rest of the Greek Translations of Sacred Scripture and the Hexaples of Origen The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the disposition of the Hexaples refuted pag. 172. Chap. 19. Of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church pag. 186. Chap. 20. Concerning the Authority of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church and first of the Vulgar In what sense it may be said to be Authentick pag. 193. Chap. 21. Of the Translations of Scripture us'd by the Eastern Church and first of the Arabic Coptic Aethiopic Armenian c. pag. 201. Chap. 22. Of the later Versions of the Bible and first of all of Latin Versions done by Catholick Divines pag. 209. Chap. 23. Of the Latin Translation of the Bible made by Protestants pag. 215. Chap. 24. Of the Translations of the Bible in the Vulgar Tongues and first of all of those made by Catholicks pag. 221. Chap. 25. Of the Bible done into the Vulgar Tongue by Heterodox Translators pag. 226. Chap. 26. Of the Translations of the Bible which were writ in the Vulgar Tongue and their rise from the Geneva Schools pag. 233. Chap. 27. Of the Polyglot Bibles pag. 240. Animadversions upon a small Treatise of Dr. Isaac Vossius concerning the Oracles of the Sybils and his answer to the objections in a late Treatise Intituled Critica Sacra pag. 249 CRITICAL ENQUIRIES Into the Various EDITIONS of the BIBLES at several Places and Times CHAP. I. Of the Bibles in general as well among the Jews as Christians THE whole Context of Sacred Scripture is remarkably known among the Christians by the name of The Books that is to say The Books so call'd for their Excellency above all others and these Books contain both the Old and New Testament The Jews however allow of no more than only the Books of the Old Covenant Of the Old Testament and those only written in the Hebrew Language for as for those which the Church has receiv d from the Hellenist Jews in the Greek Language they deny them to be Canonical and therefore will not admit them into their Synagogues Whereas the Church inspir'd with the Holy Ghost admits them likewise to be of Divine Authority As to which difference they who among Christians assume to themselves the Name of Protestants and Reformed rather chuse to take the Synagogues part than to joyn with either of the Churches that is the Eastern or Western And therefore the Christians have only admitted into the Church those Books of the Old Testament which they receiv'd from the Jews As for the New Testament Christ the first Author of it committed nothing of it to writing but his Disciples after his Passion made publick those Books which we call the Books of the New Testament The New Testament Now who were the real Authors of those Books some there are who very much doubt as if the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John were not assuredly theirs For say they they would not then be entitl'd the Gospels according to Matthew Mark Luke and John but the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John had they been wrote by them and thus we generally say the Books of Moses and not according to Moses But the Titles of the Gospels and other Books are plainly different For that the Gospel which Matthew published was not Matthews but Christs and therefore it is rightly inscrib'd According to St. Matthew that is to say the Gospel of Christ according to the Testimony of St. Matthew upon which the Christians ground their Faith Pauls Epist to the Romans But now to return to the Jews with whom the Oracles of God were first entrusted as the Apostle speaks it the Holy Bible among them is called by several Names For sometimes they call it Mickra The names of the Scripture among the Jews or Reading in which sense those words of Nehemiah are to be taken where he says c. 8. v. 8. And caused them to understand the Reading For though it be true that Nehemiah in that place discourses particularly of the Levites reading the Law of Moses yet afterwards that name was not unfitly attributed by the Jews to all the rest of the Books of Holy Scripture Sometimes they denote the Scripture by these words Gâ—esrim ve Arbang or Twenty four under which name they comprehend the number of the Books of Sacred Writ To which St. Jerom seems to have alluded where he says Which are not of the Twenty four Antient Praelections upon Nehem. and Esdr have not equal Authority with Divine Writ Now what is to be understood by the Twenty four Antient the same St. Jerom more manifestly declares in Prolog Galeat Neither is there any thing to be more frequently found than this name of the Sacred Writings which they generally affix to the beginning of their Manuscript Bibles intimating thereby the whole Context of the Old Testament Although Josephus a notable Witness in this Argument affirms the Sacred Books allowed by his Nation to be no more than Twenty Two Which seems to have been so concluded to the end the number of the Books might be the more readidily and stedfastly retained in the memory by the numbers of the Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet which are also twenty two Nevertheless it
be Heretical and unworthy of converse or the communication of the same Letters and therefore after the Captivity he apply'd himself to the Invention of new Characters And a little after he adds When I disclos'd these Conjectures of mine to the Jews they said they were most true confirm'd in writing by most of their own Rabbies However it seems far more probable that the Jews being restor'd to their Country preserv'd the Chaldee Letters to which they had been accustom'd in their Exilement having now forgotten the former Then the same Postellus makes mention of the Silver Coins which seem to be of great Antiquity and of which he had seen not a few among the Jews who valu'd them so highly that he could not purchase one under two Crowns in Gold which they said was as antient as Solomon 's Reign and but of a base Metal Lastly he adds these words which do not a little illustrate the present Argument They affirm that among the deepest Ruines and vastest heaps of Rubbish these Coins are frequently digg'd out and are a most certain proof of Antiquity as having this Inscription Holy Jerusalem into which from Solomon's time the Samaritans never entred nor vouchsafed the City the name of Holy as they ador'd without Jerusalem and worship'd Idols half Gentiles half Jews so that it is not probable they would have celebrated a City which was in Enmity with them Concerning the Samaritan Shekles much more may be read in Villalpandus Morinus and others Villalpand Appar in Ezech. Morin in exercitat in Pentat Samar Altand in Epist ad Morin Buxtorf Dissert de Lit. Heb. Light Hor. Heb. ad c. 5. Matt. Sâ—ick in Jure Reg. Heb. sub â—iâ— Perescius had several Samaritan Coins and Jerom Aleander saith that he met with several at Rome But notwithstanding all that has been said John Buxtorf a most obstinate Asserter of the Jewish Context defends the perpetuity of the Hebrew Letters by many Authorities taken out of the Rabbies Books Lightfoot agrees with Buxtorf tho he acknowledges the Talmudick Doctors to be his opposers Shickard produces many things of the same nature Hebrew Professor in the Academy of Tubinghen together with some other Hebricians But Walton deserts this Opinion which he found to proceed rather from Rabbinical discourse than from sound Theology For which reason that famous person is but hardly thought of among some of the Rabbinists especially Matthias Vasmut of Rastoch who after many severe expressions against him Walton says he quoting the Pontificial Authors against the Divine Authority of Scripture ought not to be endur'd in a Reform'd Church But for the same reason neither ought Drusius Scaliger Casaubon Vossius Amama Bochart and several others to be sufferâ—d among those that assume the Title of Reformed seeing they have all the same Opinion with Cappellus and Walton concerning the Samaritan Letters Moreover Buxtorf seems to have condescended to this Opinion concerning the Diuturnity of the Hebrew Letters not willingly but by constraint that he might refute Cappellus's Book entitled Arcani punctationis Revelati and there he proves the Novelty of the Samaritan from the Antiquity of the Hebrew Characters Buxtorf drew many into his Opinion But they are in the number of those whom Vossius calls Asses clad in Professors Gowns who having little either of Art or Ingenuity meerly instructed by the Writings of single Buxtorf make a great noise with those Rabbies whose Books they never so much as open'd But there is no reason for the Criticks to dispute so fiercely about the first Hebrew Characters For if you more heedfully consider and compare together the Samaritan and Hebrew Characters there is not such a vast difference between them but that they may be thought to have had one and the same Original From whence also the Greek and Latine Capital Letters seem to have deriv'd their first forms Tho being subservient to Custom they have undergone several Alterations according to times and places And thus the Eastern Jews form their Characters after another manner than the Western Postâ—l in â—lphab 12 Ling. R. Azar Inre Bin. c. 56. Blanc in Gâ—am Villalâ— Appar â—n Ezech. Kircher Oâ— dip Egypt par 2. Morin Exâ—â—citat in Pâ—ntat Sam Hortin Exâ—â—citat in Morin Then the Western as the Italian French Spanish Germans c. differ one among another and from all these the Moors or Barbary Jews Nor is there less difference between the Forms of the Samaritan Characters which have lately been Printed in Europe as any one may see who diligently observes the varieties of Letters in the Samaritan Alphabets which have been put forth by Postellus R. Azarias Blancuccius Villâ—lpandus Kircher Morinus Hortinger and others Those Letters which are Printed in the Parisian and English Bibles were transcrib'd from one Copy Which things being granted it is not at all to be wonder'd at that the Letter Tau which Jerom notes to have formerly resembl'd the form of a Cross should now not bear the same figure in the Vulgar Alphabets of the Samaritans because in process of time the Letter was alter'd But Rabbi Azarias sets down in his Alphabet two sorts of this Letter Tau one of which resembles the form of a Cross Jerom Aleander likewise writing to Morinus concerning the Shekels of that Nation which he had seen in Rome has these expressions upon one piece of money You shall see upon both sides of the Coin the Letter Tau in the form of a Cross which being formerly written thus X degenerated at length into this Form Ae. To the same effect Perescius wrote to Morinus Therefore when one and the same Character at the same time in divers places admits of various forms what wonder is it that this Letter the most antient of all after so many Ages especially among several and different Nations should vary from his first figure Who so ignorant as not to know that the Roman Letters after the Goths invading Italy lost their Original and Antient Form neither were they the same with those Letters which were the true Antient Letters and were call'd Lombardick But of this sufficient has been said Now let us come to the Samaritan Targumim or Paraphrases The Scripture first wrote in the common Language of the Country Because according to the Admonition of St. Paul All things that are written are written for our instruction in Antient time both the Old and New Testament were never written in any other than the Mother Tongue to the end the Scriptures might be read by the Vulgar People And yet in our Age there is a certain Parisian Divine who has ventur'd to affirm that the Books of Moses Law seem to be compos'd in a Language which was not then familiar with the People Dr. Mallet and what is hardly to be credited that most Learned Doctor has feigned a hundred monstrous Stories of the Hebrew Language of its Characters and Grammar of which Moses was the first Author But the Paraphrases of
his Brains a work for a more accurate Version though his second attempt was so far from being embraced by the more wise of his followers that Sebastian Munster was not affraid to give his Master the Title of a very Fable Translatour Munst praef on the Bible and Notes on the 2d Chap. of Jonah and no great Conjurer in the Hebrew This made Bucer maintain that Luthers Translation was faulty and Melchior Zanchius write a whole Book of the Authors Errata Hence it was that the Zinglians confided in themselves and turned the Hebrew Bible into the German that sighting Luthers poor endeavours they cast themselves upon one Leo Judas though these proceedings were not well taken by the above mentioned Translator Hence it was that the Low-Country Protestants mighty Adorers of this High-German Translation together with those of Suecia Finland Denmark Ireland and the rest of the Northern People who had formerly stuck close to Luthers Errors openly declare their readinss for a new Translation of the Bible being that That of Luthers was done all in a hurry and that as John Leusden Hebrew Professor in the University of Vtretcht testifies Luthers Works lay under a great many gross mistakes whereof some indeed might inveagle themselves in but that others without dispute arose the sluggishness of the Author slumbring over the Low-Dutch Translation And yet as Mr. Luesden tells us the Anabaptisis stood up Tooth and Nail for this Lutheran Translation resenting it very highly that Johannis Vrtenovis should take upon him to Correct Martin Luther upon the New Testament Though the Protestants of Low-Germany in the Synod of Dort as they call it rejected Luthers Translation which with all kindness they had formerly caressed looking upon it as spurious and degenerate an off spring nothing related to the Mother Hebrew wherefore they were delivered of a Translation of their own and Christned themselves the Revisors and Interpreters of Dort Now 't is our Province to enquire what order and method Martin Luther observ'd in his farewel Translation of the Scriptures Since he publickly asserts that the Hebrew is void and ineffectual that the Jews are not men to be believed and that St. Jerom himself in Translating the Scriptures was not inspired with Christian wisdom jumping into Ruffinus his opinion who gave out that the above named Holy Father was a Jew in heart For he wonders that any Christian will concern himself with the ridiculous Comentaries of the Jews The Jewish trifles saith the same Luther argue their Authors to know little or nothing of Holy-Writ and yet forsooth these are the Idols of our Modern and Famous Divines Divines most dexterous in the Hebrew Tongue and yet the most apt to hunt after such like whimsies He hath likewise a touch upon those Rabbys whose Talent is most commonly employed and laid out in Grammatical affaires decrying them thus That they may know perhaps the Nominal and bare signification but as for the real and intrinsic that they are ignorant of it and that therefore nothing of soundness and solidity may be expected from them Hence it is that he rejects the Hebrew Translators and their adherents as a pack of Fools Ideots who would pretend to shelter the Jewish Translations within the roof of the Scriptures And he thought it much better that the more obscure places of Scripture should be expounded by the Analogy or Rule of Christian Faith than by any Rabinical Books by reason the once lost Hebrew is impossible to be retrieved and that the true signification of a great many words in that Language is yet unknown even by the Jews themselves as well as by the Christians The use and knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue saith Martin Luther is so much lost and estranged that it can never be recovered neither do the words only but also the very Phrases and Construction lye under a most doubtful and various obscurity Hence it comes to pass that we know not the force Figures and Emphasis of a great many words and sentences which if any Christian may ever sift out so as to know their meaning he must necessarily be one of those men who with the help of the New Testament hath acquired to himself the full knowledge of the Scriptures That several particulars in this Method of Luthers may be hooted at is past dispute more especially those objections which he offer'd against the Translators of his Time in that they depended too much upon Rabbinical Books And yet the true reason why he pretended to calumniate these men was because they had spoke against the impropriety of his Translation Luther I surmize was in the fault when he stood dissatisfied not only with the Books of the modern Jews but also with St Jerom and the ancient Interpreters whom when he had strangely disrespected he betook himself as though all the world were Fools but his worship to a certain imaginary rule of Faith upon the faith of his own Brain Moreover being no great Critic in Grammer he was found guilty and condemned of several misinterpretations so that truckling under Prejudice and Opinion he giveth us for these words in the 4th Chapter of Genesis Possedi hominem per dominum I have gotten a man from the Lord. Possedi hominem Dominum I have gotten the man Lord. Certainly Luther was no stranger to the Cabalistical Doctor 's Opinion who out of this place would gladly raise up a Messia Besides Luther in the first Edition of his Translation had rendred these very same words thus acquisivi hominem Domini I have got the man of the Lord which Interpretation was much more disconsonant to the Hebrew Text than the other For truly it was not possible that such a Novice in the Hebrew should not sometimes lye under most palpable mistakes Wherefore his own Disciples were not affraid to revise and correct their Masters Translation a Translation I confess which they allowed some elbow room within the Bible and descended so far as to write their own corrections in a different Character or to imprison them within two stroaks which you may see in the Vinariensian Bible where Luther's Translation and the abovesaid Animadversions are exposed to the view of the World yet how much men of his own principles esteemed it we may easily conjecture since the Corrections added to it procured it the general applause of the Lutherians as the most accurate Edition Paulus Eberus who calleth himself Pastor of the Church at Wittenberg used the Protestants in the same manner as Isidorus Clarius did the Catholicks This man corrected the vulgar Latin and added thereunto Luthers German Translation declaring that in as much as was possible for him he followed the ancient Latin Translator whom notwithstanding you may afterwards find very much ashamed of his Animadversions having so low thoughts of his endeavours that he desired his Bible might not be republished because that being distracted by other business when he compos'd it he had run into some mistakes
the Disputants But now it was not enough for the most Learned Vossius to have feign'd new Prophets much more quick sighted then the ancient ones but he must now produce a new Order of the Books of Sacred Scripture hither to unheard of The Books of Moses according to his own Opinion make five Volums and not one as the Jews believe and to prevent any man from calling this in question he produces most convincing reason 's for this new Distrubution For it is manifest saith He even out of the Sacred Writings themselves that as other Nations so also the ancient Jews wrote their Books not upon folded Paper which is a modern Invention but in rolls and continued Skins What reason there was for Vossius to have recourse to the Antient Hebrews I do not understand when even in our times the Jews make use of Rolls of the same nature as to the Books which they make use of in their Synagogues yet for all that they do not divide the Law into five Volums but comprehend it in one Volum according to that ancient Custom which was observ'd even in Christs time By and by proceeding a little farther the Learned Gentleman affirms that in the time of Aquila whom he calls a most impertinent Interpreter the Jews or else Aquila himself invented a most wicked and idle division of the Sacred Books in hatred to Daniel's weeks and that they perverted the sense and order of Scripture by introducing a New Distribution that is to say of the Law the Prophets and the Hagiographers Now whether a new distribution of the Books so the Books be entire let the perspicacious judge But least I may seem to carp at small things I say it is much more probable that Aquila in his Translation of the sacred Writings observ'd that order which according to the method of that Age the Hebrew Copies set before him when there appear'd no reason for the Charge But he did that says Vossius in hatred of Daniel's weeks whom he cast into the last place almost among the Hagiographers as if the Jews did not give the same Credit to the Prophesies of Daniel concerning the Messiah as the Christians Vossius admires at their simplicity who believe the Rabbins asserting the Ketuvim or Books of the Hagiographers to have been written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost If you consult the Rabbins saith he they will lâ—ugh at ye as such as cannot choose but know what they mean by the Holy Ghost Why has not Vossius now become a Rabbinist cited those Rabbins that we might understand by them what they mean by the word Ketuvim I know indeed the Jews do not agree concerning the genuine signification of that word though all believe that the Ketuvim or the Hagiographers are no less Divine and Canonical then the rest of the Books of the Old Testament The most subtle Abravenâ—l unfolds this Riddle They were call'd Ketuvim because they were written by the Holy Ghost but if it be so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ramb. in More Nev. the word Ketuvim was not design'd that those Speeches were written in a book not receiv'd by word of Mouth but to denote that they were written in the Holy Spirit and in that degree neither was the Divine Spirit with them but at the vory time of their Writing in this Language and Wisdom R. David Kimchi affirms that Prophesie is divided into several Degrees of which one exceeds another Which Degrees R. Moses Ben Maimon more subtlely explains Praef. in Psal But leaving these subtleties which were taken from the Philosophy of Aristotle and Averrhoes it is certain that the Jews agree with Josephus in this particular that all the Books which are extant in their Canon are truly Divine and Prophetical because they were written by the Prophets For which reason R. Don Joseph Ben Jechaia Praef. in Psal who has illustrated the Psalms with his Commentaries and reduc'd them with his Fathers to the Classes of the Kotuvim or Hagiographers compares them with the Law of Moses and thence infers the cheifest Dignity of the Psalms Therefore saith that Rabbi the greater is the Dignity of that Book because it follows the Divine Law and imitates the form and perfection of it Which is confirm'd by the Authority of the Fathers who seem to have preferr'd the Psalms before the Prophets themselves while they joyn them to the Pentateuch of Moses Therefore by the Confession of the Rabbys themselves neither is the Authority either of David or Daniel lessen'd because they are not number'd in the Classis of the Prophets For the last quoted Joseph adds these words in the same place Nor is it a wonder that the Book of Psalms contains several Prophecies of the time of the Messiah seeing that there are several Prophecies extant in the Holy Spirit concerning future things By this means the Jews will easily be reconcil'd with the Jews And which seems to be worthy observation the Talmudic Doctors will have the Book of Job to be written by Moses which nevertheless they place in the Classis of the Ketubim or Hagiographers Who would think that Vossius of a Rabynist should become a Talmudic Doctor He earnestly maintains That the Jews by the Confession of the Ancient Rabbys expung'd many places in the Holy Writings and alter'd the Sense and Words Interest so perswading No Man shall find any thing feigned by me says the Talmudic Gentleman whoever he be that Consults the Talmudic Books wherein he shall read these words in several places It is good that a Letter be pull'd up out of the Law that the Name of God may be sanctify'd But it is not for all Men to have recourse to the Talmudic Books like the most learned Vossius I had thought that decree of the Talmudists might have been rightly explain'd by the Words of R. Moses Ben Maimon who with most of the Jewish Rabbys so far defends the Immutability of the Mosaic Law that he believes that some of its Constitutions may be for a time suspended by the Authority of the Grand Sanhedrim Ramb. More Nev part 3. c. 41. That Talmudic Rabby asserts That God indeed Deut. 4. forbad that any one should add to his Word or detract from it but that he gave permission to the Wise Men of all Ages and Times or to the Supream Judicatory to set bounds to the Judgments to be Established by the Law in some things which they desire to innovate to preserve the Authority of the Law Farther That God gave them Liberty to take away some Precepts of the Law and to permit some things Prohibited upon some certain Occasion and Accident but not to Perpetuity These were taken out of the Latin Edition of the Book More Nevochim Published by Buxtorf After the same manner speaks the Author of the Book Entitl'd Cozri set forth also in Hebrew and Latin by Buxtorf For upon Cozri's demanding the Question How that Power of Innovating any thing in the
though St Jerom sometimes gives a reason of those Notes somewhat different Origen had added also other marks to this Work in the fashion of a small Label concerning the use of which the Criticks of our Age do not agree and which has been hitherto revealed but by a few we are to understand that Greek Edition of the Septuagint with all those illustrating and killing Notes in the Hexaples of Origen was found together with the Translations of Aquila Symmachus and the other Interpreters as the words of Rufâ—inus seem to prove Oâ—igen's Intention was to shew us what manner of Reading the Scriptures was observed among the Jews and wrote the several Editions of them every one in his proper Columes and whatever was added or taken away in any of them he noted with certain marks at the beginning of the Verses and in that which was another mans and not his own work be affixed his own marks only that we might understand what was wanting or superfluous not in respect of our selves but of the Jews that disputed against us Moreover the same Origen illustrated that vast work of his Hexaples with Scholiasts of several sorts which he placed in the Margent of the Book that he might give some Light to that Edition of the Septuagint which appeared in the midst between all the rest For first you might easily apprehend what was the distinction between the Antient or Vulgar Edition of the 70 and his own new Edition by the benefit of this Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which stands for 70 in Greek that Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoting the common Lection Then in the same Scholiasts the Interpretations of Aquila Symmachus and Theodosion were every one demonstrated by their proper Letter A' denoted Aquila Σ ' Symmachus and Θ Theodotion The fifth Edition was marked with E ' and the sixth with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He also set Notes in the Margent of his Book for the verbatim exposition of the words of sacred Scripture which are Printed in his works under the Title of Scholiasts And more then this if we will believe Vossius it is not improbable but that Origen marked in his Hexaples the various reading of the Samaritan Codex If any one will rather choose to believe that Origen did not insert the Samaritan Exemplar into his Hexaples and Tetraples but only marked the various Readings I will not much dispute the Business Thus Vossius fickle in his Judgment sometimes avers sometimes denies and whereas before he had so confidently asserted that the Exemplar of the Samaritan Pentateuch was extant in the Hexaples written in the Samaritan Characters now in a doubt he dares not be positive in a thing wherein he has so little of certainty to make out But as it is no way probable that the Samaritan Exemplar which was the same with the Judaick was extant in the Hexaples so it is very likely that Origen might transfer into his Scholiast the different reading of the Samaritan from the Judaic which he did not take out of the Samaritan Exemplar written in those Original Hebrew Letters but from the Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch corrected by the Samaritans themselves This is the Oeconomie and Disposition of the Hexaples of Origen which Persons the most learned could not comprehend while they do not mind that the Greek Interpretations of Aquila Symmachus and Theodosion were twice set down in one and the same work that is entire in the work it self and part in the Scholiasts in the Margent but Origen who was desirous to be beneficial to all Persons reduced into a Compendium that vast Pile of the Hexaples by the help of Notes and Scholiasts to the end that they who could not buy the Hexaples entire might Transcribe at least the substance of the Text out of the Hexaples themselves and by the same art he published the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common Edition of the Septuagint together with the new Edition which because he thought more corrected he inserted whole into his Hexaples adding in the Margent of the common and the various Sections under the mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore some are grosly mistaken who not understanding this disposition of the Hexaples undertake to maintain that there is in them a double Edition of the 70 Interpreters as well the vulgar as that corrected and pure one of which Origen and St. Jerom so often make mention placed in two distinct Pages and for that reason that the Hexaples did not derive their name from the distinct Columns but the several Versions but these things are apparently untrue and proceed only from the Ignorance of the order of the Hexaples to the Margent of which the ancient reading of the 70 was transferred and thus both Editions of the Septuagint appeared in the Hexaples now because few could purchase those vast volums that had emptied St. Jerom's Pocket most persons transcribed that interlin'd Edition mark'd by Origen with Asterisks and Daggers and other notes of Distinction from whence arose the greatest confusion in the World in the Greek Exemplars and from that time the ancient Interpretation of the 70 was no longer read in the Churches but the interlin'd one of Origen which or another like to it was afterwards transmitted to the Eastern Church by the Care of St. Jerome CHAP. XIX Of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church THe most contentions in disputes concerning the Bible which have disturbed the Church for these many years have been hammered in the Shops of certain Criticks and Gramarians who being bred in the Schools there is nothing which they do not call to the bar of Controversie presuming to prefer their own wit before the Authority of the Church and as if their Critick Art could by no means brook the Ecclesiastical decrees they presently oppose them with all their might and main but questionless without a cause for that the Church does by no means disallow of such Critical Observations as are every day made upon the Scripture by Persons conspicuous for their Poetry and Learning nor if any one more strictly enquire into the reason of the Biblick Context then another does she reject their Labours so they do not detract from the Ancient Editions And therefore it is lawful for the Protestant Divines in imitation of the Fathers to have recourse to the Hebrew Originals and to make new Translations from them so that they learn from the same Fathers That the Sacred Scripture is the proper possession of the Catholick Church and that they have the same sentiments concerning the Church and her Books which one of their own belief wrote in these words against those who neglect the ancient Versions and long allowed by the practise of the Church Let the Authority of our Mother the Church be preserv'd entire to it self let the Fathers enjoy the honour due to them to whose venerable gray Hairs if any one refuse to rise and contradict their decrees let them not be
was nothing formless and darkness covered the abyss and that the Spirit of God hover'd over the waters God said let there be Light doing it word by word out of the Latin Translation wherefore Theodore Beza mightily complained of it as likewise of the Latin and inveighs bitterly against the Divines of Basil that they should suffer Castalio's French and Latin Bible to be published at that place condemning both those Versions as prophane and the Author himself as no great Proficient in the Hebrew which Beza tells you he Learned from the most Expert Hebricians tho he himself had no skill in the Language And yet Castalio was not so meer a Child in the Hebrew as not to outstrip the Geneva Translators which he did in several places hundreds whereof I omit tho I cannot pass by the Hebrew word Tannanim in the beginning of Gen. render'd by the Latin cete grandia and by those of Geneva Grandes baleines which this Gentleman translated very well and most significantly grands poissonnars The Spanish Translation Here I had almost forgot the Bible Translated into Spanish by Cassiodorus de Reyna and Cyprianus Valerius Reformadoes The one of these men telleth you in his Preface that he followed Pagninus and the Jews The other Gentleman sheweth Himself not so much a Translator as an Animadverter upon Cassiodorus his Endeavours To speak plainly neither of these pretending Translators understood the Hebrew That there was a Translation of the Bible done in Italian by the Protestants may be probable The Italian Translation since Robertus Olivetanus speaketh of two Bibles in Italian whereof he was an Eye-witness That the Author of the one was Antonius Brucciolus we have before observed tho the Author of the other Translation is not yet known CHAP. XXVII Of the Polyglott Bibles BIBLES have the appellation of Polyglott from the several Tongues wherein they are penned Now the Jews of Constantinople are said to have published two Copies of Moses his Law in serveral Languages the first whereof gives you the Hebrew Text the Chaldee paraphrasely Onkelosius the Targum or Arabic Paraphrase by R. Saadius Sirnamed Gaon or the excellent and the Persian Version by Tausus The other presents you with not only the Hebrew Texts and Chaldee Paraphrase but a Translation in the vulgar Greek and another in Spanish and both of them writ in Hebrew Characters with the Rabbinical points which supply the places of so many Vowels And some points may be found both in R. Saadias and Tausus his Persic Translation though it may be worth our while to observe that the Jews who pointed R. Saadias his Translation did therein have a greater regard to the vulgar Arabic Translation than the true and Grammatical which may be seen by the Alcoran and made apparent from these first words in Genesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Compare these with R. Saadias his Copy which in the Bible printed in England is Grammatically pointed though you may perchance find it in a new and different Equipage in the Bible published at Paris and you may easily see the difference of the Judaical method of pointing from the true and Grammatical And I will give you a small Specimen of the Vulgar Greek and Spanish Translations because you cannot meet their true Copies in any Europaean Libraries drawing my example from the 6 Version of the 1 Chap. of Deuteron placing the Hebrew as an unprejudiced impartial Arbitrator between the Spanish on the on side and the vulgar Greek on the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first Polyglott was published by Fran. Ximeniuâ— of Sineros Cardinal and Archbishop of Toledo and was vulgarly called the Complutensian Bible Here you may take a prospect of the Hebrew Text the septuagint and a Latin Translation supposed to be St. Jeroms together with a Chaldee Paraphrase upon the Pentateuch Now the reason of this Illustrious Cardinals attempt is laid down in his Preface to Pope Leo the 10th since that every Language hath its proverbial proprieties whose full energie may not be expressed by the most compleat Interpretation which more especially happens in the Hebrew Tongue it must likewise come to pass that where there is so great variety of Latin Books and so many false readings there must then an appeal be made to the Original Language as St. Jerom St. Austin and other Ecclesiastical Writers are pleased to tell us so that the right reading of the Books of the Old Testament is to be tryed by the Touchstone of the Hebrew-truth and those of the New-Testament by the Greek Copies and yet in another of his Prefaces to the Reader he seems to deny the Hebrew verity to recriminate the Jewish Books an useful method whereby he might with lesser difficulty bring in vogue the Old Translations of the Church for he declares that when he had placed St. Jeroms Latin Translation between the Greek and Hebrew Tongues he fancied he beheld our Saviour or the Catholick Church between two Thieves Certainly a most unworthy similitude and not fit to come out of the Lips of so eminent a Cardinal touching the Chaldee Paraphrase He saith he only published that part which related to the Books of Moses and as for the remainder upon the rest of the Old Testament he looked upon it as corrupt and unworthy to be bound up with the Holy Scripture This is the method observed in the Complutensian Bible and the Author Cardinal Ximenius is to be commended that he did not compose a New Translation different from St. Jeroms and yet would certainly have been more applauded if he had taken notice of the places where the Translatour follows St. Jerom a little too hard and deviates from the Hebrew Text. For truly Criticks go about to remark that St. Jerom's Translation as we have it now is not all of a make but hath some little mixture of the Ancient or Italian Herein I quote the most Learned Cardinal that he rectified the faulty Latin Edition which yet he had the happiness to perform in general namely where he endeavoured to correct the Latin Translator without the help of Latin Books neither came he well off in reforming the Greek Copies with the Hebrew though he solemly declares he had nothing to do with the Vulgar surreptitious Copies but the most ancient and least faulty He published a Book of the words in the New Testament and professes that his sole aim herein was to present the Reader with the bare Letters only without spirit or tone He saith 't was an easie case to mannage That the ancient Greeks never troubled their heads with such like punctillâ—'s Now why he did venture upon the Septuagint after the same method he giveth this reason namely that it was bare Translation and not Text as is the Greek Edition of the New Testament In fine Cardinal Ximenius superadded to these his abovementioned works an Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary which he did not take up upon trust at the Shops of the Rabby's
but had it at the best hand of the Ancient Interpreters Arias Montanus at the expences and by the Authority of Philip the 2d King of Spain republished the Complutensian Polyglot with no small augmentation which in process had the spacious Title of Kings Phillips Bible A Book which beside the Hebrew the Septuagint and St. Jerome's Latin Translation of the Complutensian Edition gives you a fair prospect of the Chaldee Paraphrase upon the remainder of those Books in the old Copy which Cardinal Ximenius gave to the Library at Complutensian together with the Syriac Translation of the New Testament done into Latin Neither would Arias Montanus influenced by Ximenius his example suffer his Book to contract acquaintance with any Translation save that of St. Jerome's and yet that a Latin Translation might not be wanting to render the Hebrew Text verbatim he inserted in the end of his Book San. Pagninus his Latin Translation with his own animadversions whereby the Hebrew might be better understood This grand elaborate and princely undertaking tho it was approved of by the Divines of Spain Lovaenium and other learned and pious Men nay even by the Universal Bishop himself Gregory the 13th yet it groaned under the common fate of all Books was carp'd at and pinched by the men of Leeth These were the detracting sort of People who objected that Arias Montanus had put in Execution a most bold rash and nefarious attempt in daring to publish that corrupt and monstrous Paraphrase which Ximenius had ordered to be laid up in the Colledge Library at Complutensia And there were some Jews who thinking that the Chaldee Paraphrase was a great Pillar to keep up the superstitions of their Religions wished all health and happiness to King Philip the 2d a Defender as they supposed of their Rites and Ceremonies In the mean time one Franciscus Lucus of Bruges a great Divine and a man of vast Learning took up the Cudgels ägainst these impertinent Detractors and made an Apology for the Chaldee Paraphrase Besides Arias Montanus declares that Cardinal Ximenius himself had thoughts of publishing the same Chaldee Paraphrase and that he had thoughts of adding a Latin Translation to it only putting out the Fables Doubtless that princely Work deserves to be had in estimation with all Divines though it be defective in some particulars as carrying along with it all those deformities which we took notice of before in the Conplutensian Bible For the Greek and Latin Copies are the same that were published by Cardinal Ximenius Arias Montanus did not so much reform San. Pagninus his Latin Version as he did corrupt and spoil it for pressing the Hebrew which too closely he frequently commits toto casu and making a great noise about a little Sense does often miss of the proper import of the words Besides Arias caused a better method and more Copious Index to be published as containing more Lexicons and Grammars than that of the Complutensian Bible though many unnecessary things might be left out which make nothing for his purpose The liberal expences of Cardinal Ximenius and Phillip the Second were far exceeded by an Eminent Person of this Age Michael Le Jay of Paris who undertaking to Publish the Polyglot Bible at his own charge spent his whole Patrimony in Printing of it before he had finish'd so great and wonderful a work First then they took care to have all that was already extant in the King's Bible reprinted in a fairer Character and to these he joyn'd the Samaritan Books viz. the Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch with the Samaritan Translation and the Syriack and Arabick Versions of the Old Testament distinguished by points with their Latin Interpretation a thing scarce credible ever to have been attempted In this business he was assisted by a very Learned man Gabriel of Sion that came from Mount Libanus in the Holy-Land and in some few Volumns by Abraham an Ecchellensian one of the same Nation But that part which contains the observations of several worthy men upon the various Editions of the Bible is wanting in this work and through the negligence of those that were intrusted with it it happen'd that the Copies of the Greek Translation by the Seventy Interpreters and the Latin one by St. Jerom were both composed anew the very same with those in the Kings Bible the Greek Edition after the Vatican Pattern though corrected and amended was omitted and the Copies of the common Edition were laid aside though they had been by Commissions from the Popes strictly examined after the most ancient and best approved Books and that by the Hands of several Excellent Persons and judicious Criticks However I pass by those faults which occasioned by the Transcribers oversight in the Syriack and Arabick Books do yet in great part remain Besides that the Latin Expositors not perfectly understanding the Syriack and Arabick words have often sailed in expressing the sence Lastly to this vast Work are perfixed certain Prefaces which recommend it's usefulness But in this the brave Mr. Le Jay proves his own Enemy for depending totally upon such men as were partly byass'd in their Opinions by prejudice especially John Morin otherwise a man of competent Learning he extolls the Jewish Books and sticks not to prefer them before the ancient Translations of the Church but what seems scarce 0 credible he possitively asserts that it ought to be granted as a certain and undoubted truth that that common Edition which passes about in the vulgar Tongue of the Catholick Church is the true and genuine Original of Holy Scripture But the Fathers themselves at the Council of Trent durst not pass any such decree concerning the Latin Books To no purpose has that Liberal Gentleman drained his Purse in Publishing such voluminous peices of the Polyglot Bible if it appear that the Latin comprehends the proper and Primitive Scripture and that we must have recourse to him as the true Fountain In like manner vindicating the interpretation of the Seventy Elders he draws an Argument solid enough in his Judgment from a Mahometan Author who as to matter of Chronology rejected the Hebrew Books of the Jews and Samaritans and adhered to the Greek Interpreters from whence Mr. Le Jay concludes that the Seventy Interpreters were in the highest esteem not only amongst the Christians but Mahometans too Indeed 't is very probable that Mr. Le Jay to credit the antiquity of the Arabick Versions which he himself first published would not stick to say that by the help thereof St. Jerom had restored the seven or eight hundred Verses of Job which were lacking in the old Translation and this his assertion he confirms by St. Jerom's own Testimony who before his Translation of the Book of Job had premised that in it were missing about seven or eight hundred Verses and that in compiling it he had not followed any of the ancient Translators but had collected sometimes the words sometimes the sence and often both at once out
overcame the first restorer of the Masora But whether he wasted his Patrimony in maintaining those Centuries that Bombergh hir'd as Vossius eagerly contends I shall neither sollicitously inquire neither is it to the purpose Much more might be added to what I have already produc'd and perhaps proper enough to the business but I am afraid least the learned Gentleman should bring me to the Bar for a Semi Rabby and a Favourer of the Jews Therefore let us come to the Examination of his little Treatise concerning the Oracles of the Sybills where he disputes more learnedly of the Jews and their Books At the beginning of his discourse this Person of an unexhausted Erudition produces some things in reference to the Oracles of the Sybills which the Jews more especially in Spain made use of against the Christians And as for those things which seem to be more remote from Truth then Fiction he refers them to p. 19 or 26. where he handles that Argument but seeing that it has already been demonstrared that the Chronology fetch'd from the Books of the Jews less favours the Jews than that which is taken out from the Greek Translators there is no reason we should spend any more time in rifling the Inventions of the most learned Vossius The quâ—cksighted Gentleman had already observ'd that the Jews in the time of Aquila had for the nonce corrupted the Hebrew Manuscripts and had expung'd above 2000 Years that they might make it out that the Messiah's time was not yet come But in this place more perspicatious then before he believes that the space of that Depravation may be Comprehended within the limits of two and twenty Years at most and this he gathers from the words of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philadelphians That most Holy Martyr according to the report of Vossius relates that he heard some say that if those things which are contained in the Gospels were not to be found in the Ancient Monuments he would not believe them Now saith Vossius since he answered and they denied it is manifest that the Jews had deprav'd the Exemplars or swerved from the Sense of the 70 Interpreters But how this Learned Gentleman can wrest the answer of Ignatius who afferts that Christ shall be to him instead of the Ancient Monuments to his opinion of the Jewish Manuscripts being corrupted about that time I confess I do not understand Neither also are those words to be found in the Genuine Exemplars of Ignatius which Vossius himself set forth Christo velut summo sacerdoti credendum potius quam aliis sacerdotibus Which however the learned Person produces as if they belong'd to the answer of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have heard some say that unless I find the Gospel in the Ancient Monuments I will not believe To these I answer that Jesus Christ is to me instead of the Ancient Monuments But there the discourse is not of the Old Testament compared with the New as Vossius believ'd but of the Hereticks which springing up in the Infancy of the Church denied the Faith which the Exemplar of the Gospel set forth Whence it came to pass that the Ancient Fathers of the Church Tertullian Ireneus and others of the same rank did not undertake to refute the Hereticks out of the sacred Scripture but from certain Tradition or from the Doctrine of Christ propagated by the Apostles and their Successors Apostolick Persons in the Churches of several Nations In which sense Ignatius asserts that Christ or his Doctrine was to him in the place of the Ancient Monuments This unless I am very much deceived is the meaning of Ignatius's words who commends Unity of Doctrine in Christ whose Spirit ought to be preferred before any Ancient Monuments whatever Many other things also Vossius produces in this place concerning the Etymology of the word Aera and concurs with them who believe Era and the Heriga of the Arabians to be the same word nor is it improbable but that which he presently adds of the Arabick word Hegyra as if it were to be deduc'd from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hagger a Proselyte or Stranger seems not so very likely The Learned Gentleman believes that several Jews of the Sect of the Herodians forsaking Herod their Messiah who was also by them stil'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Stranger revolted to Mahomet by them also call'd Haggar When the Jews saith Vossius believed that their Messiah should be a Stranger But these things are little remote from the Fictions of the Rabbies In the next place I would fain know from what Oracle of the Sybills the Learned Gentleman gather'd that the Messiah of the Jews should be a Proselyte and a Stranger according to the true opinion of the Jews for that this Assertion is contrary to the Prophesies of the Prophets and all Evangelical History as all Men well know Certainly the Jews expect one Messiah above all the rest of whom Vossius discourses at present but he according to the common consent of all the Jews is expected to be of the Nation and one of the Tribes of the Jews But they expect other Messias's besides and for that reason they give that Title to some Kings who were well affected towards them And therefore Cyrus is call'd the Messia of the Jews so also Herod and Mahomet might have the Title of Messiah from the Jews And in our age they are ready to salute that Prince or King whoever he be with the Title of Messiah that will but take into his protection their Affairs and the Ceremonies of their Country But these things belong nothing at all to the word Heriga which most certainly is an Arabic and not an Hebrew word Much nearer does that come to the Truth which after some things thrown between the Learned Gentleman adds concerning the Genuine signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that the Apocryphal Books signifie the same with Mysterious Books and inaccessible to the understanding But who can then gather with Vossius that the Books of the Apocrypha that according to his Sentiments were formerly added by the Ancient Jews to the Books of the Old Testament were worthy to be reckon'd as Canonical with the rest of the Prophetick Books that the Modern Canonical Scripture both of the Synagogue and Church is maim'd and lame while the Books of Enoch Elias and some others are left out Prophets are become very Cheap with Vossius who not only numbers the 70 Interpreters among the Prophets but also the most famous Impostors who taking upon them the names of the Patriarchs and Prophets and other Persons of high same and repute among the Gentiles have Printed the Books of Adam Enoch Abraham Moses Esaiah Jeremiah Hystaspes Mercurius Trimegistus Zoroaster the Sybils Orpheus Phocilldes and several others In a short time if it so please the Heavens we shall have
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
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
Vulgar Distinction in their Commentaries In which particular the Jews agree very well with the Catholick Divines who do not depend so much upon the Masoretick Distinctions as to make it a point of Conscience not to depart from them when the receiv'd Distinctions will not yield a sense so proper and consentaneous to the Context To which we may add the Infinite Variety of Manuscript Copies which differ many times as to these matters as well from themselves as from the Masoreticks The Antient use of the distinction of Verses There is also another sort of Verses of Verses of which they seem not to have made mention who have handl'd this Subject from whence I am apt to believe that all the Masoretick Drudgery drew its Original These the Greeks call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rows the Latines Lineas or Lines These Verses were comprehended under a certain number of words And the setters forth of the Book were wont at the end of their works to add the number of the Verses therein contain'd that thereby they might prevent Additions or Diminutions which might be obtruded upon them Thus Diogenes Laertius tells us the largeness or smalness of the Books which he cites in his History by giving an account of the number of the Verses of which they consist In the same manner were the Volumes of Origen compil'd as St. Jerom seems to intimate where he says that there were seven or eight hundred Verses wanting In the Book of Job according to the Antient Edition of the Latine Interpreter the Verses are frequently reckon'd up at the end of the Samaritan Syriack and Arabick Copies So that 't is probable that the Jews deriv'd this Custom from the Arabians and they from the Greeks which afterwards the subtle Rabbies enlarg'd according as their Fancies prompted them But there was a necessity for them to distinguish other Verses by reason of their Readings and Lessons in the Synagogues to which they put a full stop not according to the number of words or letters but according as the sense guided them For that from the time that the Hebrew Language began to fail the Jews they never read the Law without an Interpreter who repeated it as it was read to the people in the Language they understood And thus the Interpreter follow'd the Reader when he had read one Verse which was such a short Sentence as might easily be deliver'd to the People without oppression to the memory which being read and interpreted then the Reader read another and then another till he came to some new matter so that his Lessons for Morning and Evening were therefore divided into Verses Nor can there be invented any other Original of those Verses which are pointed by the Doctors of Tyberias in the Sacred Context to be seen in the Editions of every Bible Although there were another sort of Verses well known to those of Tyberias because they do sometimes reckon up the Words and Letters of which the Verses consist Another sort of Verses A third sort of Verses the Criticks seem to acknowledge which the Doctors of Tyberias the Authors of the Masora seem not altogether to be ignorant of The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greeks borrowed from Military Discipline does not only signifie a Line but a certain Order or Rank of Lines and consequently of Verses In which sense Hesychius compos'd a Tractate under this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The distinction of the Twelve Prophets To which the word Sita answers in the Masora and from the same Fountain the word Sedarim or Orders seems to have proceeded where it signifies the same with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which distinctions and subdistinctions were invented Cassio de Diâ—in Lâ—â—t that the breath being tired by a long Sentence might recover it self by the means of allow'd Pauses as Cassiodorus rightly observes Of the same nature were those distinctions which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latines Capitula or small heads differing from those which we now call Chapters For these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided the whole Context of the Books into lesser Sections and the Heads of these were placed at the front of the Book This is to be seen in the New Greek Testament Printed at Venice Anno 1538. and in the Greek Edition of the same by Robert Stephanus which was copy'd from the Manuscripts preserv'd in the most Christian King's Library Had the Criticks consider'd more seriously these things and some other things which I pass over in silence while they were making their Animadversions upon the Original of the Masoretick Art they would not have wasted so much time and labour in refuting the Jewish Miracles who talk of nothing but of Moses and Esdras To this I will add something concerning the Notes which the Jews call Taamin the Latines Accentus or Accents which serve in the room of Colons and Comma's to distinguish the Hebrew Context in the same manner as the Greeks make use of points and stroaks However in this the Rabbies seem to have exceeded the Greeks and Latines because they not only found out the marks of Accents for the distinction of Sentences and their Members but also invented other Accents for marks of continued speech as if what was not distinguish'd was not continu'd The Original of those Accents they take from Esdras himself But how vainly any man may judge by what has been already said concerning those other sorts of Distinctions For indeed they have no other Authors but the Doctors of Tyberias who in this particular acted the part of Grammarians Neither are the Jews so strict in observing them as to make it an Article of their Belief that they are not to be departed from especially where another Distinction produces a better sense In Lib. Tsachuth Thus Aben Esra makes mention of a certain Learned Rabbi by name Moses Coheu who took little notice of those Masoretick marks in distinguishing the Sentences of the Biblick Context And yet I have the same Opinion of these De Diviâ— Lect. as Cassiodorus had of the Points that were added to the Edition of the Latine Interpreter by the Criticks These Points saith he are as it were certain Paths of the Senses and Lights of Sentences But they must of necessity dote as the Jews do who look upon those Periods of the Hebrew Context to be the Effects of Divinity and thereby shew themselves absolute strangers to Criticism Nor do I wonder that the whole Nation of the Jews embrac'd those marks as well in transcribing their Copies as in the Explanation of the Context seeing all that profess the Faith of the Roman Church so religiously adhere to the Vatican Edition of the Latine Interpretation with points and stroaks and never swerve from it but when they play the Criticks in their Commentaries which that it was also a thing much practis'd by the Jewish Rabbies their Comments upon the Scripture
by the assistance of the most Ancient Interpreters seeing in things of lesser consequence the Manuscripts may help For the mistakes are very ancient but the Written Copies of a later age and reformed according to the rule of the Masora So that although as well in the Manuscripts as in the printed Copies the 13. verse of the 145. Psalm be wanting it might be easily supplyed out of the Ancient Interpreters which have it in their translations It is not to be doubted says Grotius Grot. in Psal 145. but that this verse was lost out of the Hebrew Copies through the negligence of the Transcribers for there wants a verse which should begin with the letter Nun. And soon after he adds How will they answer this who would have us stand to all the decrees of the Masorites In which words he aims at our Masora worshippers by whom the Hebrew Text is lookt upon to be the same with what it was in the times of the Prophets So obstinate are they in the defence of their Masora But in these and the like defects the versions of the Ancient Interpreters as well Greek as Latin supply the place of the Hebrew Exemplar Nor is it unusual for the Criticks who Translate Greek or Latin into any other Language to have recourse to more Ancient Translations to Illustrate the Lections of those books which they translate Which was successfully observed by some in the Translation of the N. Testament who called the Latin Interp. to their ash stance Lastly That the plenty of Jewish Exemplars of the Hebrew context fell very short toward the assistance of the Jews of Tyberias is prov'd not only by the Testimonies of R. R. Judas Jonas Aben Esra Kimchi and others who sometimes quote the Manuscript Copies and those the most corrected but also by the Annotations of Ben Hajim who first collected into one Body the dispers'd parts of the Masora and set them forth in Print For he has added other Lections besides the Masoretick to the Margent of the Venetian Bible which he assures us he had gathered from most approved Manuscripts Thus upon the word Chesoos as a crane Isaiah 38.14 He has made this extraordinary annotation in the margent In some Copies it is written ch'sis with a Jod and the notes direct it to be read Ch'soos but I found not this in the Catalogue of those words which having Jod in the middle are to be read with the Letter Vau. In like manner the same Rabbi upon the word ch' Ari makes this observation which egregiously confirms the Translations of the Greeks and St. Jerome of the 22. Psal v. 13. In some corrected Copies I have seen the word spelt with a Vau with a note in the Margent that it was to be read with a Jod I search'd the Catologue of words which are written with a Vau at the end and read with a Jod but I could not find this word in the Number nor in the Catalogue of different Writings between the Eastern and the Western Copies Genebrard Comment in Psal 22. Therefore Genebrard mistook in this place who attributes this Critical Animadversion of R. Jacob Hajim restorer of the Masora to the Authors of the great or final Masora There are also many other Examples of such like Discrepancies which that Rabbi produces out of several approv'd Copies of the Bible which were never taken notice of by the Masorites I will here only add to make the business more plain what offer'd it self to his observation in perusing the Manuscripts concerning the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille or He. Now the Criticks of Tyberias were very accurate in their observations how many times and in what places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Feminine Gender was made use of instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Masculine But that laborious toil seem'd to be very unprofitable seeing that the Manuscript Copies so frequently differ from the Printed in that particular no less than the Antient Interpreters of Sacred Writ Thus Judges 14.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was of the Lord is read in the Text without any Marginal Note of the Masorites yet in one Spanish Copy it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the 21th chap. of the same Book the Masoretick Editions constantly read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any Marginal Annotation yet in one Manuscript it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like manner Dan. 2. one Manuscript Copy reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas in the Printed Exemplars it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now if these things and many others of the same nature which at present I pass by had been rightly known to most of the Protestants they had not blamâ—d the Latine Interpreter whom we have read for these many Ages rendring the words in Gen. 5.15 She shall bruise thy head for that only reason because the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sixtim Anam in Antibarb Here saith Sixtinus Amama it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor is the place corrected by the Masora as if the Masorites had examin'd all the Copies in the World The Masoretick Lection seems so much the more probable indeed because that in many Copies of the Latine Interpreter and those in good esteem in other places we find Ipse He and not Ipsa She as in the modern version So that that version Ipsa She was not presently to be condemned because it differ'd from the Masoretick context For it might be that the Latin Interpreter found it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his own Copy for that in the writing of this Pronoun the Transcribers might easily mistake is apparent from the Manuscript Exemplars Now from what has been produc'd concerning the Masoretick Exemplars there is no man but will easily determine what judgment to pass of the Hebrew Bible now so generally made use of by the Christians as well as Jews But here it may not be improper to add a few words more concerning the most select Editions of those Bibles The Hebrew Bibles The most Select Editions of the Hebrew Bibles whose Editions were over-lookt by the Jews are far more corrected than those which were publish'd by the Christians Wherefore Elias Levita rejected the Bible which was set forth by Bomberg in Folio at Venice Anno 1518. Felix Pratensis leading the way as not being well corrected especially in the Masora which Pratensis seems not to have well understood Therefore that Bible was of much more credit which was publish'd by R. Jacob Hajim Restorer of the Masora at the cost and charges of the same Bomberg For in this there is not only Printed the Hebrew Text but the Targum or Chaldee Paraphrase with Commentaries of the most Learned Jews both upon the Scripture and both the Masora's as well the larger as the less The same Bibles were again Printed at Venice
a Prophet But the learned person never understood the reason why or in what sence the Jews did separate him from the rest of the Prophets However concerning this matter the Christians in vain dispute with the Jews For both willingly acknowledge that in the Book of Daniel there are many Prophesies of the Messiah to come and that that Book was written by divine inspiration as the other Books of Scripture were The Jews also feign the same things of David as of Daniel however they do not deprive him of holy inspiration Quite the contrary they publickly assert that there are many things in the Psalms which foretel the coming of the Messiah so that if there be any difference in this particular between them and the Christians the controversie is meerly about the name as has been already prov'd in regard they otherwise methodize the Books of Scripture than the Christians But Vossius stabs himself with his own Sword while he goes about to prove the Jews guilty of falsifying their Chronologie in regard the modern Chronologie of the Hebrew Text presses harder upon the Jews then that which is drawn out of the version of the LXX Interpreters nor do the Jews deny in their Talmudick Books but that the time is fulfilled and past within which the Messias was expected but they add that their own sins retard his coming These are the words of the Talmudists Talm. in Tract Sanhed in Avoda Zara This is the Tradition of the House of Elia The World shall consist of six thousand years Two thousand shall be of emptiness that is before the Law Two thousand shall be spent under the Law And two thousand years the Messiah shall reign But by reason of our iniquities those years are already elaps'd Vossius endeavouring to draw this Tradition of Elias to his purpose has err'd in many places For first he seems to applaud it as being delivered by Elia the Prophet or taken out of his Book which formerly as he says was numbered among the Books of the New Testament But this Elias was a Talmudick Doctor like Rabbi Hillell R. Schammai R. Johanan and several others whose names are set down in the Talmud Then it is a fiction to say that the 2000 years that preceded the Law of Moses ought not to be numbered from the beginning of the Creation but from the Flood or from that time that God told Noah that he would destroy the World For the Opinion of the Jews concerning the six thousand years Duration of the World according to the Tradition of R. Elias is in this place far different For the Foundation of that Prophesie is deriv'd from the six days of the Creation for that as God created the World in six days so the same World should endure six thousand years So that the computation of the years of the World must be taken from the first Creation of all things The Commentators upon the Talmud reckon two thousand years from the first man created to the time that Abraham abandoning the worship of Idols embrac'd the true Religion of one God Dissertat de Sept. Praefat At what time according to their computation he was two and Fifty years of Age. But those are frigid Arguments which Vossius produces to prove out of the Epistle of St. Peter that the beginning of the World is to be reckon'd from the Flood because the Apostle call'd that the Old World which preceded and the Earth which we now inhabit the other World I say these are very sorry Arguments and quite from the purpose But enough of Elia's Prophecy concerning the duration of the World Nor is there any heed to be given to that Book of the Prophecies of Elias which Isaac Vossius cajoll'd by the name of Elias the Talmudist believes to have been receiv'd into the number of Canonical Books Now let us examine his other proofs brought against the Jews whether they be of any more moment In the next place Vossius brings a load of Arguments to prove that the Jews have mutilated not a few Texts of Scripture and first he calls Justin Martyr for a Witness who writes that several Exemplars were corrupted by the Jews But as to what may be borrowed from Justin we have already made a plenary answer Justin never consulted the Hebrew Text neither could he as being one that understood not the Language as is manifest out of his own Writings But saith Vossius how bravely had the holy Martyr foil'd Trypho and the rest of the Jews with whom he liv'd had not those Crimes been true that were laid to their charge Vossius reproved But this way of arguing does not become a Learned man who in perusing Justin's Books might easily have perceiv'd that he had mistaken in many things But Vossius goes on The Prophecy of Christ which occurs Psal 22.16 where instead of they digg'd as a Lion is put in the room most of the Christians except Phanaticks and Semi-Jews acknowledge to have been deprav'd by the Rabbies True it is indeed that the Jews are call'd in question by most Divines for having purposely corrupted this place But far be it from me to pronounce those people Phanaticks or Semi-Jews who clear the Jews of this offence when Rabbi Jacob Ben Hajim Restorer of the Masora publickly testifies that in some Manuscripts of the Hebrews he has met with Caru they digg'd or pierc'd which is in favour of the Christians Nor is it a wonder that the Masorites chose that reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Lion which was most for their purpose I acknowledge the Translation of the Greeks and St. Jerom to be the truer yet the Jews are not to be accus'd of falsification for having made choice out of two Readings of that which was most for their turn In the words Cari and Carou all understanding Criticks know there is but little difference and how easily and frequently the change of Jod for Vau and Vau for Jod happens Besides that there are several other Examples of the redundancy of the Letter Aleph which were not unknown to the Mazoreths so that the Letter Aleph may as well fall out to be superfluous in Carou as necessary in Cari. Wherefore the Greek Interpreters and St. Jerom past it by as ridiculous or else perhaps it might not be in their Copies but the Masorites who acknowledge it made use of it Vain are also those things which Vossius alledges out of Zachary c. 12. v. 10. as if the Jews had purposely chang'd the Antient Reading which the Old Interpreters found in their Copies But there is no skilful Critick but will discern that this diversity happen'd from the varaince in several Copies while in some it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they have pierced in other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they have danced by reason of the easie transmutation of Resch into Daleth and Daleth into Resch Nor do I see any reason why for that or five hundred more of
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
rather mix'd then Pure Those variations which arise from the different marking of the Numbers I pass by as for example Judges 16. Where the Hebrew and the Vulgar read 1100. the Syriac Version numbers 1300. 1 Sam. c. 6. for 50070. in the Hebrew Greek and Latin the Syriac reckons 5070. But no man can be ignorant that there are frequent variations of numbers in all Books of the same nature There are other Examples of different Readings of more moment in the Syriac Translation which altogether alter the Sence such are some in the Book of Joshua especially in the division of their Allotments to the several Tribes Another Alteration there is in the Syriac Exemplar where all the Inscriptions of the Psalms are left out on purpose to put others in their places The reason of which seems to be for that anciently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Argument of the Psalm was prefix'd at the beginning of every Psalm Whence it came to pass that the Hebrew Inscriptions of the Psalms which did not explain the Psalms to the liking of the Syrians were omitted and others added by the Syriac Rabbies As to the Syriac Language and it's various Dialects I shall say nothing at present in regard that many have already learnedly handl'd that Subject We are only to discourse of those things which concern the Syriac Version Therefore what before we have observ'd touching the Jewish Exemplars to which the Rabbies of Tiberias added the Points that supply the place of Vowels that is now to be noted as to the Syriac Exemplars to which the Syrian Doctors have added the Pointed Vowels which now appear in their Coppies Therefore Walton is in an Error who believes that Gabriel Sionita the Maronite of Mount Lebanon was the first that inserted pointed Vowels into the Syriac Exemplar He was the first saith he speaking of this Gabriel who pointed it and added the Latin Interpretation of the same For before all the Manuscripts were either destitute of points or if any word or vowel happen'd to be pointed in another it was omitted one Syllable pointed and another naked as we see at this day in the Manuscript Copies That this is partly true I will not deny for that the Syriac written Copies some have more some have less points at the pleasure of the Transcribers who nevertheless seldom omit the Principal Yet I have met with Manuscripts that have been exactly pointed Abraham Echâ—llensis In Ebed Jesu a Maronite of Mount Lebanon testifies also that he had by him some Books written in the Syriac Language above 300 or 400 years before compleatly furnish'd with all the Points Then again in most Copies they never omit any Points but only such as are of no use in reading which may be easily supply'd by the Reader As we find in the Syriac Edition of the New Testament which was first publish'd by Vuidmanstadius wherein some Points are omitted which are of little use And therefore the Industry of Gabriel Sionite a most learned person is not so much to be applauded for his adding points to the Copies but he is rather to be commended for this for that with great labour and toyl he corrected the most of the Errors which are extant in those Manuscripts though that Edition does not seem to be so absolute and perfect neither Of the Arabic Translations The Arabick Translations seem to be of much less Authority which are read at this day by the Easiern Christians Nor do they seem to be so ancient as the Syriac For the most of them were made publick among the Syrians as well Jacobites and Maronites as Nestorians when the Syriac Language ceas'd to be familiar when they were subdu'd by the Saracens who introduc'd the Arabic among them The Coptic also or the Christian's that inhabit Egypt had their Bibles written in the ancient Coptic Language which they still retain but because that Coptic Language was known to very few there was a necessity to make new Arabick Versions which might be understood by all So that the most of their Books which are made use of in their Churches are written both in Coptic and Arabic Therefore it is very probable that the Syrians Translated the holy Scripture out of the Syriac into â—â—abic such as were those Arabick Exemplars at the end whereof we find the Arabic Version to have been Translated from the Hebrew that is from that Syrian Translation which the Syrian's call unmixt By the same reason we might affirm that the Exemplars of the Arabick Versions which follow the Greek Copies of the 70 were not so much Translated from the Greek of the 70 Interpreters as according to the Syriac which was Translated from the Greek though it be probable that the Sect of the Melchites took their Version from the Greek Copies as they did most of those other Books of which they make use But whether there were any Version of the Scriptures before that time I shall not now enquire it being certain that most of those Versions now us'd by the people that inhabit the Eastern Regions are not now the same which in former times were made use of in the same Country And indeed should that Arabick Version publish'd in the Parisian and English Polyglots be throughly examin'd it would be found very imperfect full of faults and Errors Thus the Arabic Book of Joshuah though toward the end it may be said to be Translated out of the Hebrew yet it appears to be a mixture of Greek and Hebrew or rather Syriac Besides the Author of that Translation many times shews himself a Paraphraser not an Interpreter and he makes no scruple of altering the Sence of his Text. In the Book of Chronicles we find the names of Greece Turkie Chorasan Sclavonia France Cyprus and the like Yet all the Errors of that Version are not to be imputed to the Arabian Translator the most without doubt being committed by the Scribes Thus Jos 11. We read in the Arabic Version Nabin King of Caesarea whereas in the Hebrew Text and ancient Translations it is Jabin King of Hasor In the same Arabic Version Joshua is said to have assail'd the City of Caesarea which was the Metropolis of several other Cities and Judges 3. instead of the Hebrew word Pesilim which signifies Idols the Arabic reads Palestine Lastly some Errors have crept into the Arabic Exemplars through the incertainty of the pointed Vowels For the points are no less defective in the Arabic then in the Hebrew and Syriac The Coptic Versions The Coptic Versions of the Bible which were anciently made by those Christians that inhabited Egypt seem to be of more Credit then the Arabic For they carry a semblance of more Antiquity And if we may believe Kircher who had by him some Exemplars of those Versions we may look upon 'em to be as ancient as the Council of Nice But not to content about their Antiquity certain it is that they were read in the Churches
of Egypt long before the Arabian which were taken from them The word Coptus or Cophtus seems to derive it's Original from a City of the same Name which was heretofore the Metropolis of Thebais of which both Strabo and Plutarch make mention And very probable it is that that same Coptic Language was the ancient Language of the Egyptians not pure but having some mixture of the Greek especially from the time that they were under the Dominion of the Macedonians so that they chang'd the ancient Characters of their Language into the Greek which they partly retain to this day But in regard that Language surceas'd by degrees to become familiar and only remain'd among those who had something of Learning and Education the Egyptian Rabbies added to those Books which were then read in their Churches in the Coptic Language the Arabic Explanation after they became subject to the Saracens They have also Lexicons and Grammars for that Coptic Language which Kircher publish'd in Print by which we find that the Ancient Coptic Tongue besides the Greek words which it had learnt under the Graecian Princes retain'd also something of the Arabic But no man ought to doubt but that the Coptic Version was taken from the Greek Translation of the 70 Interpreters in regard that the Jews of old some of the Syrian Churches excepted always read the Hebrew Text or Versions taken from thence The Ethiopic Versions As to the Ethiopic Version of the Bible written in the Ethiopic Language we shall make some few observations This Version as all other Books which are read in the Ethiopic Churches was Translated out of the Coptic into the Ethiopic Tongue Therefore the Ethiopic Bibles are the same with the Coptic render'd only into Ethiopic Neither do the Ethiopians acknowledge any other Patriarch but only him who assumes the Title of Patriarch of Alexandria being an Egyptian and the Ceremonies of their Church are borrow'd from the Egyptians or Coptics But the ancient Ethiopic Language wherein their Bible is written has something of mixture both of Hebrew Arabic and Chaldee Especially of the Chaldee so that the Ethiopians call their Language Chaldaic or Babylonian as if it were the same with the pure an ancient Babylonic from which however it differs very much But the modern Ethiopic now familiar among the Ethiopians differs little from it Nevertheless they do not use any Points like Hebrews Chaldeans Syrians and Arabians but every Letter makes a Consonant and a Vowel which is peculiar to that Nation The Persian Veâ—sions There seems to be nothing at all at present remaining of that same ancient Persian Version which beyond all Controversie was taken from the Greek Translation of the Seventy The ancient Persian Language also has admitted much of mixture by reason of it's being jumbl'd with the Arabic from whence it has borrow'd all it's terms of Arts and Sciences together with the Arabic Characters the ancient Persian Letters being lost and no where to be seen but in some Antique Copies But as for that same Version of some part of the Sacred Scripture publish'd in our Age it does not seem worthy of any great esteem as being but of late years The Armeniâ—n Translation If we will believe the Armenian Doctors the Version of the Bible which they now read in their Churches in the Armenian Language was not made by John Chrysostome as some believe out of the Greek into the Armenian but by some Doctors of their own Nation who studied the Greek Language more especially by one Moses Sirnam'd the Grammarian and one David vulgarly call'd the Philosopher and this happen'd to be much about John Chrysostomes time The Armenians also deny that John Chrysostome was the Inventor of the Armenian Characters which they attribute to a certain Hermite whose name was Mescop who invented them in the City of Balu not far from Euphrates who also liv'd much about the time that Chrysostome flourish'd But because there were hardly any Exemplars of those Bibles to be found entire and those very dear to boot in our Age Jacob Caractri Patriarch of the Armenians sent into Europe Vschan Yuschuavanchi a Bishop that by his care and industry the Ancient Bible might be printed Whereupon the Old and New Testament was Printed in the Armenian Language and Character at Amsterdam anno 1664. But certain it is that this Armenian Translation and I had it from the mouth of the Bishop himself was taken from the Greek Version of the 70 Interpreters The Versions of the Muscovites Georgians and other people Lastly the Muscovites Iberians or Georgians a people inhabiting the Regions of Câ—olchis have also their Translations of the Holy Scripture and it is not long since that the Bible was printed in the Muscovitic Language and Character But there is no question to be made but that they were all taken from the Greek in regard those Nations deriv'd their Christian Faith and their Ecclesiastic Ceremonies from the Greeks And thus much concerning the Bibles made use of by the Eastern Nations CHAP. XXII Of the later Versions of the Bible and first of all of Latin Versions done by Catholick Divines The Bibles of Cardinal Ximenius THOUGH Francis Ximenius of Seneros Cardinal and Arch-Bishop of Toledo has given us no other Latin Version of the Hebrew Text in his Complutensian Bible than the vulgar or that of St. Jerom yet he may be deservedly rank'd amongst the Catholic Interpreters of the Holy Scriptures For first of all he publish'd in that excellent work the Chaldee Paraphrase upon the five Books of Moses with a verbal Version into Latin as also the Seventies Greek Version of all the Books of the Old Testament with an interlineary Latin Translation In the year 1515. And because every one has not the perusal of the Complutensian Bibles it may not be improper in this place to give some account of the design of that learned Cardinal in this new Edition of the Bible He affirms in his proaemium to Leo the tenth that every Language has it's peculiar Idioms and Properties of expression which the most accurate Translation is not able to render and especially the Hebrew and a little after subjoins these words †In his Prologue to Leo the tenth Moreover wheresoever the Latin Translators differ or a reading is suspected to be corrupt we must have recourse to the Original in which the Scriptures were writ as St. Jerom and Austin and other Ecclesiastical Writers direct so that the sincerity of the Versions of the Old Testament must be examin'd by the Hebrew and the New by the Greek Copies But who would believe that this Cardinal who speaks so great things of the Hebrew should by and by in another Epistle to his Readers so basely detract from it so that we have reason to suspect these passages were foisted in by others We have plac'd says the Cardinal The same Cardinal in his Prologue to the Reader the Latin
Version by the command of Philip the Second was had in esteem beyond all others and was likewise approv'd of by an unanimous consent of many Parisian Divines in the praise of which they spake as follows we saw the holy Bible of Philip the Second set forth in Hebrew Syriac Greek and Latin after the manner of the Complutensian Bibles formerly Printed in Spain We approv'd of the same and in a word thought it fit to be read by all Catholicks in opposition to all false and heretical Translations with which men endeavour to impose upon those that have not arriv'd to the knowledg of the Tongues This Work was likewise approv'd of by two Popes as Franciscus Luca Burgensis relates and Gregory the 13th in his Epistle to Philip the Second of Spain calls it opus verè aureum a work truly great This is farther corroberated by the Authority of 42 Spanish Divines notwithstanding all which Arias Montanus has but an ill repute among many of the Clergy in Spain particularly for that he set forth a Chaldee Paraphrase not only on the Pentateuch as Cardinal Ximenius had done but on all the rest of the Bible except some few Books Of this Andrews de Leon Zamorensis a Minor of the Regular Clerks complains in an Epistle which he wrote to those that Printed a new Polyglot at Paris where concerning the Chaldee Paraphrase publish'd in the Royal Bibles he speaks thus What shall I say of the Chaldee Paraphrase which the Rabbins call the Targum T is vitiated and extreamly corrupted 't is degenerated from it's ancient purity and candour full of Talmudical Fables and Sacrilegious Impostures In this all men agree even Cardinal Ximenius himself in his Preface to the Complutensis asserts it Nay Cajetan himself gives a free account of his method of Translating Hebrew in these words I assure you that whilst I was about this work Interpreters would tell me the Hebrew word sounds thus In his Preface to the Psalms but the Sense thereof is not evident unless it be chang'd into this having heard all the significations I answer'd do not trouble your selves if the Sense be not clear because it is not your Province to explain but interpret as the words lay before you and commit the care of understanding the Sense to Expositors The Cardinal confesses ingenuously that though he was ignorant of the Hebrew yet he Translated the Old Testament into Latin out of the Hebrew Cajetan's method in translating the Bible and in order thereunto made use of two very learned men in that Tongue the one a Jew and the other a Christian and gives this as the principal reason why he did so because unless the Text be just as in it's Original the Text is not expounded but by guess but the Text is expounded as 't is understood by such or such an Interpreter And at last wishes the Fathers had had such an Interpretation though it be lame and imperfect because then says he we should have the genuine Text of the Scripture explain'd and not a Text of Interpreters making But Cajetan who says almost all the Hebrew words are aequivocal could never arrive at a perfect and compleat Interpretation and yet I dare affirm that that most learned Cardinal though an utter Stranger to the Hebrew Tongue has been very happy in expressing the words of the Text and that there is less barbarism in his Version than that of Arias Montanus Gabriel Prateolus who is very free in bestowing the name of Heretic ranks the judgment he has pass'd of the ancient Interpreters as being a little too bold amongst the Heresies Nor was Cardinal Palvacino a little dissatisfied therewith who animadverts thus upon it quel grand ' intelletto alfre opere fuamâ—â—mirato History of the Counsel of Trent l. 6. c. 17. in questâ— per la sciaersi egli trasportar dalla guida di ehi meglio intendeva laâ—grammatica Hebrea chi misteri divini resto in gloriosâ— Malvenda's method I omit the Dominican Thomas Malvenda's Version of some Books of the old Testament who so rigidly affects the Grammatical Sense that it looks like one entire piece of barbarism and had been utterly unintelligible had he not a little illustrated it by his Notes Melchior Canus openly declares against Isidorus Clarius Melchior Canus of wheol places l. 2. c. 13. whose emendation is nothing but a reprehension of the old Interpreter For in the Front of his Works he promises says the same Melchior the old Edition correct and after he has thus excus'd himself from the odium of Novelty he inserts a great many things adds some and changes others the humour and Interpretation of Isidorus Clarius The Bible of Isidorus Clavius Monk of Cassinum who in many places which he corrects in the Latin Interpreter shews himself ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue could not be more oppositely described But this Edition of the Bible is prohibited at Rome and is extant in the Index of prohibited Books under this Title the Vulgar Edition of the Old and New Testament the one whereof is most dilligently corrected according to the Hebrew the other according to the Greek Original so that a new Edition need not be desired and yet the old One may here be found in the year MDXLII The Version extant under Vatablus his name Lastly there are several Latin Copies of the Bible extant under Vatablus his name which yet all the World acknowledg are not his Robert Stephens has put upon the unwary Reader under the name of that learned and most understanding Professor of the Hebrew Tongue in the University of Paris For the Edition which Stephens gave us in the year MDXLV as if it had been exactly taken from the Lectures and Notes of Vatablus affords us only the Version and Annotations of Leo Judah a Zuinglian which for the most part were borrow'd from the Jews particularly Rabbi David Kimchi from John Calvin and other Protestants this Interpretation of Leo Juda Robert Stephens has preferr'd before all others and especially before that of Santes Pagninus because 't was more clear and done into purer Latin Yet the same Stephens in an Edition which he Publish'd in the year MDXLVII chose Pagnine's Translation before all the rest but such as if we may believe him was revis'd and corrected by Pagnine himself therefore neither was Vatablus nor Stephens Authors of any Version of the Bible Yet both of 'em great Masters of Hebrew Learning CHAP. XXIII Of the Latin Translations of the Bible made by Protestants THere are yet greater differences betwixt the Protestants in their Translations of the Bible than the Catholicks Sebastian Munster who turned the Old Testament out of Hebrew into Latin shews the reasons and method of his Translation at the very beginning of it where he plainly tells us how that he followed the Rabbins therein and not the old Interpreters So that if there happened to be any faults in it they were to be imputed
Vossius himself in the midst of his Prophetick Chiurme forging new Prophesies like that same famous Imposter William Postellus who writes that the Chaldaeans had the true Doctrine reveal'd to them under the first Monarchy and that it was continually renew'd like the sacred Doctrine by the ten Sybils that the world might be inexcusable before the Spirit of God and that Christ the King both of the Sacred and the Sibelline Doctrines might be known to be the Deity that was to be ador'd by the whole World Such Stories as these Vossius produces concerning the Oracles of the Sybills But Postellus yet more quicksighted asserts this Prophetical Doctrine to have had its Original from a Woman who was Princess of all the East and next of kin to Noah Who would believe that Isaac Vossius who spares for no virulent expressions against the Jews and their Talmud should introduce a Talmudic Doctor among the Prophets if it be so I wonder he should be in such a fury against a Person Learned in the Hebrew who expounded the Gospel out of the Talmud Lightfoot He seems to me saies Vossius to commit a less Sin who explains the Gospel out of the Alcoran then by the Talmud But of these things enough and too much Let us now return to the Apocryphal Books I call the Apocriphal Books when we discourse of Byblick concerns those which neither the Church nor the Synagogue has received as Canonical Hence it came to pass that of old St. Jerom personating a Jew and lately Cajetane sentenc'd many Books among the Apocriphal before they were receiv'd for Divine and Prophetic by the decree of the Church In this sence St. Jerom affirms Hieron pâ—aef in Dan. that Daniel among the Hebrews had not the story of Susanna nor the Song of the three Children nor the fable of the Bell and the Dragon Which we saith he because they are dispierced all over the World preferring the truth and withal depressing their Authority have added however least we might seem to have cut of a great part of the Volume In like manner after he had produc'd the Books of Scripture which were held Canonical among the Jews he adds Whatever we meet with besides these is to be accounted Apocrâ—phal Hieron pâ—aef in lio Reg. That is to say the Wisdom of Solomon the Book of Jesus the Son of Syrach Judith Tobit and the Preacher induc'd by this reason Africanus Africanus also believes the Story of Susanna to have been feign'd by a Greek Writer others feigned two Daniels one the Author of the Prophesie that goes under his name and the other the Writer of the Story of Susanna which in the ancient Editions of the Greek Exemplar was placed before the Prophesie of Daniel St. Jerom indeed was the first that transposed it at the end of the same Prophesie because it was not in the Jewish Exemplar which he translated And St. Jerom confirms his opinion concerning the History of Susanna by the Testimony of other Fathers I wonder saith he That certain peevish waspish persons are in wrath with me as if I had cut of part of the Book whereas Origen Eusebius Apollinarius and other Eclesiasticall Persons and Doctors of Greece confess those Visions not to be found among the Hebrews not that they ought to be answerable to Porphyrius for those things which afford no Authority of sacred Scripture Gregory Nazianzen Melito of Sardis and the Author of the Synopsis which goes about under the Name of Athanasius went farther and put the Book of Esther among the Apocryphal Books meerly because not understanding the Hebrew Tongue they found some pieces added to the Ancient History of Esther by a Greek Author for which reason they condemn'd the whole Work It happened saith Sextus Senensis that by reason of those fragments of Appendex's inserted here and there through the rashness of some Writers that Book though written in the Hebrew did not find reception among the Christians Nicholas de Lyra also Cajetan and some others denyed these Additions likewise to be Canonical induc'd as it is most probable by the same reasons These things have been discoursed more at large that it might appear to all what Books were reckon'd to be Apocriphal in the Judgment of the more Antient Fathers But Vossius abusing the word Apocryphal introduces suppositious and Adulterate Books instead of the Old Apocryphal and so imposes upon the simple and unwary For whereas he endeavours to make it out that the Books of the Sybills and others which he calls Fatidical were joyned with the Books of the Old Testament read in the Primitive Church and recommended by the Apostles it is the Fiction of one that has nothing to do but to sit and Romance in Divinity For there were no other Books read in the Primitive Church or added to the rest of the Books of the Old Testament in the Greek Exemplars of the Bible than those which are mentioned by the Fathers Though perhaps some of the Gentiles that they might press the Jews and the Gentiles more home have sometimes quoted the Books of the Sibylls and others of the same stamp which nevertheless no ingenious person will reckon among the Apocryphal Books of which we are now in discourse Vossius is very much griev'd that the Books of the Sibylls and other Sooth-sayer's Books after they were prohibited by publick Edict were made Apocryphal and forbid to be read by any Person when formerly they were openly and religiously made use of by the Jews like the rest of the Books of the Old Testament whence it came to pass that the Canonical Books were reduced to a more certain Number and the word Apocryphal was taken in an evil sense for spurious and of doubtful and suspected Credit In the mean time he never cites the Authour from whence he drew these witty conceits which are so like the Fables of the Jews so that I may presume to ask this Learned Person what the Factious Cardinal Hyppolito d'este demanded of Areosto Dove hatrovato tante cogloonare Where did he find out so many jugling Tricks But I agree with him in what he writes concerning the Apocriphal Books if by them he mean no other then those which passed from the Jews to the Christians with the rest of the Books of the Old Testament for that the greatest part of them are read in the Romish Church especially since the decree of the Council of Trent as Canonical for indeed it might be that those Books which were formerly rejected as Apocriphal because they were not approv'd by the Cannon of the Jews might have had Prophets for their Authors Nor is the Authority of Josephus contrary to this opinion who affirms that from the times of Artaxerxes there was no certain Succession of the Prophets and therefore that these Books which were reckon'd after that were not to be accounted Cononical Nor is it probable that the Function of the Prophets was altogether taken away
and the rest of Syria but also in Judea where from the time of Alexander the Great no other Language was heard to be spoken but the Greek especially in Cities and great Towns nay that in Jerusalem it self no other then the Greek Language was spoken and that if the Hebrew Scripture were read first the Greek Explanation followed But so many words as Vossius has published so many fictions hath he spread abroad For first it is manifest that before the Version of the Seventy Interpreters from the time of Esdras there was no other Scripture read in the Jewish Synagogues then the Hebrew Context For the Jews had not so far forgot their Language in the Jewish Captivities but that it remain'd among the Prophets Priests and Persons of Principal Note as Josephus Albo a most eminent Jewish Divine informs us and that not unwillingly Vossius acknowledges who believes that the Seventy interpreted the Bible at what time the Hebrew Language was in a flourishing Condition and familiarly spoken Then again that the Hebrew Text was read at least in some Synagogues after the Translation of the Seventy Interpreters neither can the Learned Person deny who writes that Flavius Josephus Interpreted the Law of Moses in the Hebrew Language and set forth his History of the Jewish Wars in Hebrew before he wrote it in Greek With which Argument Vossius had refuted those who objected against him that he knew not his own Language nor ever saw an Hebrew Exemplar against whom he opposes the words of Josephus who writes of himself that he excell'd the rest of the Hebrews in the Learning of his Country but that he had only learnt the Greek Tongue Grammatically and wanted an acurate Pronunciation Therefore according to the Testimony of Vossius himself who speaks contradictions not only the common People who liv'd in the Country and in Villages made use of the Syriac Dialect but the Principal persons among whom was Josephus who calls the Hebrew or Syriac his Native Language the pronunciation of which being a little harsh and rugged was the reason that he could hardly pronounce the Greek which was much more smooth and Polite Now then if the Greek Language were so naturally spoken in Citys and Greek Towns why did Josephus who was not bred up in the Country Villages learn the Greek Grammatically I forbear to prove that Christ and his Apostles spake Syriac in Jerusalem as is manifest out of the Books of the New Testament Therefore it is a meer Fiction which Vossius asserts concerning the Hierosolymitan Synagogues that there was no other Language us'd therein then the Greek For saith the Learned Gentleman if the Hebrew Text were read first the Greek Interpretation followed because the ancient Hebrew was only understood by the Learned Certainly Vossius is a most wonderful Argumentator who from thence that the Learned only understood the Hebrew Language concludes that the Greek Interpretation followed He had spoken much more truly had he said in those places where the Syriac Language was natural to the Inhabitants that the Syriac Interpretation followed the Hebrew Text but where the Greek was more familiar Greek Interpretation came after Thus also at Jerusalem in the Synagogue of the Alexandrinians who spake Greek I make no question but the Sacred Text was read first in Hebrew according to the ancient Custom of the Synagogue then in Greek by some Interpreter according to the ancient use of the Jews who since their return from the Babylonish Captivity after the Hebrew Language ceas'd to be familiar had Interpreters appointed to turn the Hebrew words into the Vulgar Language that they might be understood by all the common People In which sence I should think the words of Justinian are to be expounded by which the Learned prove that in the ancient times the Greek Version of the Seventy was publickly read in the Synagogues of the Jews who are vulgarly call'd Hellenists For if the words of Justinian are but attentively considered it will be apparent that in those Synagogues the Greek Translation was only made use of to assist the Hebrew Context by way of Interpretation as at Jerusalem and other more neighbouring places the Chaldee-Syriac was joyn'd with the Hebrew Lectures for the same purpose Nevertheless I willingly acknowledge with Vossius that the Greek Tongue had in some measure got a great footing in Judea especially among the Persons of chief Quality and Magistrates yet so that the Chaldee-Syriac which their Ancestors brought from Babylon prevail'd And to believe this I am not only induced by the Authority of Josephus but by many testimonies of the New Testament from whence it is plain that Christ and his Apostles spake Syriac But we shall have occasion to speak of these things hereafter again There are some other Objections which Vossius has heap'd together in his little Treatise concerning the Oracles of the Sibylls but because the Learned Gentleman repeats them again in his answer to the late Critica Sacra it will be sufficient to examin them being collected altogether Let us see therefore whether he be more successful in that part In the first Front Vossius praises the Author of the Critica Sacra which he attributes to Simon Vess in Resp ad Object Nuper Crit. because the ancient Interpreters that is the Seventy and the Observations of Capellus please him He also extols and admires Simon 's diligence or rather patience in turning over so many Writings of the Rabbins But because he believes there may be something of solidity in their Expositions and Traditions propagated only by the Ear and so much that sometimes he scruples not to prefer them before the Greek Version of the 70 therein Vossius openly professes that he cannot agree with him Nor does he believe that any ingenious person will consent to Simon in that particular Certainly Capellus whom Vossius so much admires may be listed for an ingenious Gentleman and that deservedly too And in this dispute Simon has not swerv'd from Capellus the least Tittle who sharply girds Morinus and his Ape Vossius as immoderate Persons who out of a perverse and damnable ill custome prefer the ancient Translations to others far more acurate In this moreover Simon displeases Vossius for writing that sometimes St. Jerom receded judiciously from the ancient Interpreters as if those ancient ones had been free from all Mistake and Error Nor does Capellus forsake Simon in this particular For where Capellus in the place above cited has observ'd several Childish Mistakes frequently taken notice of in the Greek Version of the Seventy Interpreters he compares this and that of St. Jerom tother and prefers that of St. Jerom as that which produces better sence In Apol. adv Boot and lastly he adds these words Six hundred yea innumerable are the places that might be produced in which from the same Copy with that in use at this day St. Jerom has expressed the sence of Sacred Scripture much otherwise and