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
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
have been less polite for suppose it ever so imperfect it had been kept in the Kings Library not altogether unknown to the King with thousands of other Books I pass by other remarks of learned Men especially Joseph Scaliger's of this Suppositious Aristaeus which Gerard Vossius well versed in this matter says are very weighty from whence it may be conjectured Aristaeus to have writ this History perhaps to the Idaea of a pious and a good moral'd Prince and this History ought not to be look'd upon otherwise wherefore the Author of these Fables mistrusting his Cause as being improbable adds farther I believe says he my Readers will suspect my credit but truly as it is not lawful to relate any Vntruth which hath been received so it would be a Crime to be silent in this Affair but as they have been acted so I have related them that I might avoid all Vntruths and for that reason I have endeavoured to receive the Truth from those who were privy to the Kings Affairs Truly he leaves nothing out that may corroborate his Testimony which he feared would be suspected by all But the Authority of the Fathers and other Writers of good Note and Credit who have inserted in their Works the History of Aristaeus as true doth make for it and it will be thought rashness to defend the contrary but we are not to consider what the Fathers have said so much as the reasons of their opinion for in things purely critical Reasons are of more moment than Authorities It is evident the Fathers were moved by the bare Authority of Aristaus or Philo and Josephus who writ from him but they had no reason to examin critieally the History of Aristaeus whether true Seing the Septuagint Translation which at that time the Church used against the Jews who had recourse to the Hebrew in their Disputations with the Christians did greatly support their Cause The Fathers had been ill advised if they had laid by that Translation which the Jews could not totally reject St. Jerom Jerom. a man well versed in all Learning and had studyed this Criticism for this reason contrary to the common Opinion of the Fathers did confute the Cels of the 70. Interpreters I know not says he who first invented the Story of the 70. Cells and then laughs at Justin Martyr who affirmed he saw them and looks upon him as a simple Man easily induced to believe the Jews Stories In like manner he differed in opinion from the Fathers for from the Authority of Aristaeus himself and Josephus he asserts the 70. Interpreters to have conferr'd and not to have prophesyed For says he it is one thing to be a Prophet another to be an Interpreter the first foretels things to come the other from his Knowledg afterwards and Eloquence Translates Neither doth he esteem them more than Tully who translated with a Rhetorical not a Prophetick Spirit Xenophon's Oeconomy Plato's Protagoras and Demosthenes's Oration for Ctesiphen neither was St. Jerom ever of any other Opinion although he may sometimes say they were inspired and that the Learn'd Man did judge this to be taken in an Oeconomical Sense may appear by several Places For the like reason although St. Jerom did seem to be of the same Opinion with Aristaeus Josephus and the Jews of his time that the 70. Interpreters did translate Books of the Law only yet in his Commentaries upon the other Books of Scripture he speaks of them no otherwise than as the Translators of these and this because he would not seem to differ from the common Opinion although in his Judgment less probable But some one will say if Aristaeus's History of the 70 should be look'd upon as a Fable what Foundation had it For certainly the first Author could not invent it without some ground when even the Fables of the Poets carry something of Truth in them The Original of Aristeus's Book Heins Arist sa Exod. 24. Heinsius thinks this Story of the 70. to have its rise from the xxiv chap. of Exodus where we find that Moses Aaron and the 70. Elders went up unto the Lord and from the words which in the Latin Translation are nec super eos qui procul recesserant de filiis Israel misit manum suam the Greek electorum Israel neque unus dissensit Heinsius thinks that number of the Translators and their miraculous Agreement to have risen hence but whatever Heinsius thinks I am of the Opinion that the Interpretors were rather Jews of Alexandria than Hierusalem for there are to this day some Egyptian Words as Abrec Remphan and others and because it was of so great a consequence it is very likely it was approved of by the Sanhedrim and there called the Septuagint Translation from the 70 Elders or Senators of the Great Council for which reason the place of the Talmud otherwise very difficult where the Greek Translation is ascribed only to five may easily be reconciled with the common opinion of 72. by the same Authority it is made authentick to all the Jews especially the Hellenists as the Fathers of the Western Church in the Council of Trent have made their Translation Authentick for as the Ignorance of the Christians in the Greek caus'd Translations into the other Tongues and these Translations became Authentick to the Churches by their use in like manner the Jews Ignorance of the Hebrew Tongue did move the Jews of Alexandria to translate the Bible into Greek for their use which Translation was afterwards read in their Synagogues and Schools and because as very probable it was approved of by the Sanhedrim at Hierusalem upon whom at that time the whole Nation of the Jews had a dependance it hath acquired the Name of the Septuagint Yet I think there is no necessity to have recourse to the Senators of the great Synagogue that the number of the 72. Interpreters to whom that Translation is commonly ascribed may be the better made out but we are only to consider the Form of Speech familiar to the Jews by which they attribute every thing of moment to those 70. Senators that the things thereby may acquire the greater Authority For this reason they ascribe the Vowel Points Accents and many other things of the like nature to the Sanhedrim not so much from the reality of the thing as from that Form of Speech so that it is difficult to distinguish when they speak plain and when allegorically This way of speaking hath led many men and those Learned into various Errors when in reading the Jews Books they consider more what they write than the manner and causes of their so writing We may bring for Example what occur in the Rabbins about the Title of Holy Writ the Keris and Cetibs or various Readings entire defective redundant and six hundred of the like nature All these most of the Jews ascribe either to Moses in Mount Sinai or to the Synagogue or Senate assembled under Esdras all
have said will declare And soon after since that he shall be thought guilty of differing Interpretation and contradictory Sense who in one and the same Work inserts down the Expositions of many Upon the same account in answer to a Letter of St. Austins after he had enumerated those Doctors whose words he had made use of in his own Works he adds Therefore that I may ingeniously confess I have read all these Authors and heaping together the most of their Sentences in my mind I call'd an Amanuensis and dictated either my own or other mens minding neither order nor words nor sometimes the sense In another place writing to St. Austin again If therefore you have thought any thing worthy reproof in our Explanation it became your Learning to examine whether those things which we wrote were in the Greek Authors that if they had not said them you might condemn my Opinion especially having frankly confessed in my Preface that I followed the Commentaries of Origen and dictated either my own or other mens However lest any one should object against him that this manner of Writing was peculiar to him he informs us in another place whom he propos'd to himself to imitate Read says he Demosthenes read Tully and lest those Orators should displease who speak things rather probable than true read Plato Theophrastus Xenophon Aristotle c. Nay he praises Origen Methodius Eusebius Apollinarius Minutius Victorinus Lactantius Hilarius who imitated the same manner of writing and at last after all he adds St. Paul read says he his Epistles chiefly to the Romans the Galathians the Ephesians wherein he seems to be Polemick altogether and there you shall see by his Testimonies taken out of the New Testament how prudently he dissembles his Intention Which passages I have the more prolixly quoted out of St. Jerom because I find many things attributed to St. Jerom which never came into his thoughts First therefore the Oeconomy of St. Jeroms writing is to be observed before Judgment be given of his meaning or that any thing which goes under his name and authority be opposed For frequently he writes not his own sentiments but what he has collected from others Which if they be rightly understood St. Jerome will never be found to differ from himself not so much as in this very subject which we handle at present Therefore in his Commentaries upon Michah he durst not openly accuse the Jews as if they had obliterated the words Ephrata or Bethlehem in hatred of the Christian Religion lest he should be thought to be born of the Tribe of Judah But this he declares to be the Opinion of some of the Doctors of his time affirming nothing only reporting the repugnant Opinions of others Yet Isaac Vossius greedily lays hold upon this Opinion of Jerom a person otherwise learned to shew that St. Jerom durst not deny but that the Jews had purposely obliterated the word Ephrata out of their Copies But it is no difficult thing to apprehend what St. Jerom thought of this Argument while he shews himself so strenuous a Champion of the Hebrew Text which he frequently calls the Hebrew truth CHAP. X. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the Hebrew Manuscripts is examined and refuted THat the Scriptures of the Jews are the only true and original Scriptures is the Common Opinion of all the Divines whom we call Protestants who in their disputes with the Catholick Doctors always have recourse to the Hebrew Roots if the Latin Interpreter will not serve their turn who as they believe has mistaken in many things Hence it comes to pass that those Divines who call themselves Reformed make no reckoning of the Ancient Translations of the Church some very few excepted who have discerned certain Blemishes in the Hebrew context as well as in the Interpreters of it But Isaac Vossius taking a farther leap has departed at a greater distance from the received customs of the Protestants and openly accuses the Jews of Falsification as if they had expung'd several things out of their Scriptures in hatred of the Christians of set purpose and that after the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem More than that he sharply rebukes those that plead the Jews cause and as for the Doctors of their sect who defend the modern reading of the Hebrew Scripture he calls them Epist ad Andr. Colvin Asses void of sight and understanding clad with the Professors Gown and carrying for their shield the Masoretick Bible with all its points Now who would not think but that Vossius had most impregnable reason for such a bold assertion and challenge But how grossly he has imposed upon the World shall appear by that which follows What place is there saith he which treats of the Messiah in sacred Scripture which they have not endeavoured either to corrupt or to enervate by sinister Interpretation And a little after When they perceived that the time of the Messiah's coming was past Dissertat de Sept. Praefat. for it was then full six thousand years from the Creation of the World that they might gain 2000 years they expung'd the whole fourteen Ages out of their Scriptures And to obliterate the remaining five or six Ages they curtail'd the Intervals of the Judges omitting Anarchies and contracting the spaces of the Persian Kings By which means they fin'd the measure of time full two thousand years Vossius blam'd But these are the meer Inventions of Vossius who not only accuses the Jews but impeaches the Samaritans for the same fact tho upon another account Nevertheless the Ancient Fathers of the Church Africanus Origen Eusebius Jerom Austin and others who took notice of this difference of the Jewish Codex from the Hebrew Exemplars in Chronology never thought of laying this depravation to the Jews charge Nay St. Austin in this very particular asserts that the Hebrew Exemplar is to be preferred before the Greek and is of that Opinion that credit should be given to that Language out of which the Interpretation is made into another Justin Martyr who disputing against Trypho teazes the Jews in various manners to vindicate the Greek Interpretation of the LXX which was then of sole repute in the Church speaks not a word of any Chronology by them altered to support their cause Besides had the Jews bethought themselves of corrupting the Hebrew Scriptures lest the time of the Messiah's coming might seem to be elaps'd with much more advantage they might have obliterated the Prophesie of Daniel which points out the time exactly then the Books of Moses or Judges But that the Prophesie of Daniel which for the most part refers to the time of the Messiah remains entire is confess'd by all and Vossius cannot deny but that the Jews are hard put to it by this Prophecy But to ward off the blow he affirms that the Ancient Jews did not only separate Daniel from the Chorus of the Prophets but also denyed him to be
the same sort the Jews should be more accus'd of Falsification than the Greek or Latine Scribes or of whatsoever other Nation who make frequent mistakes in their Transcriptions This change of Letters so alike in shape cannot be avoided sometimes in any Language whence afterwards arises that vast difference in Manuscripts In which particular let Scioppius's little Treatise of the Art of Criticism be consulted who perfectly illustrates all these difficulties Leo Allatius also a great peruser of Manuscripts has cited several places to confirm this Assertion Whose words it may not be amiss to quote from his Animadversions upon the Fragments of Hetruscan Antiquities P. 55. which were publish'd by Inghiramius Moreover says he the Errours of so many Transcripts the changes of so many names of so many Letters in the Antient Monuments proceed from nothing else but from the likeness of the Capital Letters one to another Let us only make use of a few Examples among others for fear of being tax'd of too much curiosity by some idle person or other Joseph Scaliger upon Varro de re Rustica l. 2. c. 3. Mediam non Meliam by reason of the change of L into D familiar to the Antients as on the other side those Hens were call'd Melicae which ought to have been call'd Medicae Godescalcus Stevichius upon the first Book of Apuleius observes the frequent interchange of the Letters D and T and in the fifth Book he attributes the mutilation of the sentence to the likeness of the Letters B and P for that both these and the Letter R frequently are mistaken one for another for which he brings Quintilian and Pliny as Witnesses together with their admonitions concerning the use of Capital and Small Letters Johannes Isaac Pontanus in his Antient French Glossary calls the frequent change of B and P the solemn Metastasis Scioppius of the Critical Art by several Examples proves C in G D in L F in E P in B and R frequently interchanged by reason of the likeness of the Letters In like manner the Greek Capitals have a great resemblance one to another so that the mistakes of B for P Γ for T and Δ for Λ are easily committed without a singular care and such a one that it is almost impossible to take To which we may add that many times a very great confusion happens by reason of likeness of small Letters Thus many times among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mistaken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and among the Latines Orbis for Vrbis Chronologers Historians and others object to one another the various Readings of their own Manuscripts and Editions as for one Example among many others Hitherto it has been commonly receiv'd that Dagobert by the Advice of his Council took to Wife Nanthild a lovely Virgin whom he forc'd out of a Monastery But the most famous Persons of our Age Jacob Sirmond Adrian Valesius and others lighted upon certain Manuscripts wherein it is not written as Aimonius erroneously cites the Text of Fredegardus and taking Nanthild out of a Monastery to Wife he advanc'd her to the Throne but taking Nantechild one of the Virgins from her attendance de Ministerio not de Monasterio Such mistakes as these arising not only from the likeness of the Letters but from innumerable other causes are to be found in all written Manuscripts of whatsoever Language or Condition Whence those Monsters of various Readings have sprung that have so tormented the Brains of the Criticks and caus'd most desperate Wars among the Grammarians So that they who boast themselves the true Imitators of Cicero upbraid themselves with their own Ignorance of Ciceronianism frequently for no other reason but because they made use of several Manuscripts Castigat in Cicer. the nature of which Henry Stephâ—â—s has wittily observ'd But not to stay upon those things which can be only unknown to the Ignorant I will only give an Example of one Edition of Cicero's Printed by Elzâ—vir 1661. and over-lookt by Schrivelius In which Edition the various Readings of other Editions and Manuscripts are added in the Margin to the great benefit of the Reader Were the same thing done in the Hebrew Exemplars no man in his wits would think the Jews had ever been guilty of corrupting their Bibles but out of those various Readings every one might chuse the best as St. Jerom did who in his Commentaries upon the Prophets frequently recedes from the Translation of the LXX Interpreters Thus most addicted to the Lection of his Masters he makes this observation in the second chapter of Hoseah c. 12. Instead of Forrest in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jagnar the Septuagint had translated it Testimony mistaking Daleth for Resch for taking away the Jod and reading Daleth for Resch the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Testimony Again upon the fifth chapter of the same Prophet v. 7. he blames the LXX Interpreters for reading Chasil Rust instead of Chodesch a Month. Again upon the ninth chap. v. 12. putting the Question why when the LXX Interpreters translated the words My flesh from them he had render'd it When I depart from them He makes this Answer In the place mention'd where we have translated it Woe to you when I depart from you the Septuagint and Theodotius have translated it Wo to them my flesh from them And examining the reason of such a strange difference that in the Hebrew Language Besari signifies my flesh but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besuri when I departed from them For the same cause there was no reason why St. Jerom should depart from the receiv'd Version of the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where thy cause which St. Paul confirm'd by his Authority but that his Copies presented to him another Reading instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ubi where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will be The same transposition it is better to observe in Dakeru they pierced and Rakedu they danced as a thing accidental than with Vossius to reproach the Jews as if they had introduc'd that change into the Text of set purpose Vossius indeed says true in saying that the Manuscripts of the Jews are vitiated in several places an unhappy fate as well to the Greek and Latine as to those So that George Hornius deserves to be hiss'd at when he opposes to the most Learned Vossius the Decrees of Kings Princes and Magistrates forbidding all other Translations to be read in the Churches which were not corrected by the Hebrew Copies as if such Decrees of Princes could preserve or restore the Purity of the Antient Originals Only Vossius is to be condemned for so stifly asserting that some of those Errours were introduced of set purpose by the Jews in hatred of the Christians Thus upon the words of Gen. 49.10 The Scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his feet till be come who is to be sent he makes this observation This place the
seems to make it a point of Conscience to deviate from the Context the Translation agrees so exactly word for word with the Hebrew Text the literal Translation and the obsolete words used no where but in the Synagogues render it very obscure if we may give any Credit to the Preface of this Translation the greatest part of the Translation is Pagninus's but I think the Jews therein had a better opinion of Kimchii Aben Esra and other Rabbins whom Pagninus consulted than of Pagninus when they openly profess they allowed that they thereby might not incur the danger of the Inquisition It is very likely that Abraham Vsque a Portugal Jew did make use for the perfecting this Translation of some old Spanish Rabbins who had long before his time read the Hebrew and Spanish Bible in their Synagogues There is this in that Edition of Ferrara worth observing that the Interpreter was so well convinced of the difficulty of Translating the Bible that he has put Asteries where he finds the sence dubious and could not be definitive in a thing of so great difficulty these words are to be found in the Preface And it is to be noted that in the place marked with an Asterism thus * it is a mark to assist ye in the Exposition of the word and somtimes of various Opinions But the Jews who Printed the Second Edition with Amendment in the Year 1630. have left out most of the Asteries whereas there was more need to augment than diminish that Number but what profit the Christians can reap from a Translation which the Jews scarce understand is not manifest if the ridiculous affectation of Aquila a contentious Translator was reprehended by the Fathers sure none will approve of this affected Translation which has more regard to Grammar than to the sence of the Context Cassiod de Rena Isaiah 9.6 Cassiodore de Regna blames his Exposition of these words of the 9. of Esaiah Vocabitur nomen ejus admirabilis consiliarius Deus fortis pater futuri seculi princeps pacis as they are in the Vulgar Edition in that he forcing the words contrary to the genuin sence attributes these words princeps pacis to the Messia and all the others to God But the Translator here and in other places is byassed by his Countrymen yet in this he is inexcusable in that he hath not kept so close to the Rules of Grammar which he hath profest for he hath prefixt the Article el marravilloso consejero and elsewhere whereas the Hebrew prefix ha the same with the Spanish Article el is not prefixt in like manner he errs in other places whereas he hath Translated the first Verse of the Psalms Psalm 1. v. 1. bien avanturado el varon when according to the Rules of Grammar it should have been Translated bien avanturancas de el varon as it is in the Hebrew but we will pass over these Subtilties CHAP. XV. Of the Translations of the Bible of greatest Authority with the Christians and first of the Septuagint ALtho the Greek Translation of the 70 Elders is publickly read by the Jews in their Synagogues and Schools Various Opinions of the Greek translation of the Bible yet I think it not amiss to rank it among the Translations used by the Christians for the Christians have long since received it from the Jews and to this our time is retained by most Churches But the Disputes about its Authority and Translators not yet decided may be a wonder for there be some who deny its Authority therefore others who highly maintain its Authority in all esteeming the Translators as Prophets inspired by the Holy Spirit Others again of a middle rank between these two extreams do highly value this Antient and to be honoured Translation of Holy Writ yet in some places they think it not Authentick I willingly pass by the History of the Translators as it is in Philo Josephus and in several Greek and Latin Fathers because known to most The Fathers borrowed the greatest part of this History from Aristaeus in his Book The judgment of Aristaeus of the Translation of the Divine Law out of the Hebrew into the Greek by the 70 Interpreters and a part since invented by the Jews The learned Critics have thought Aristaeus's Book in part suppositious suppose the Book that goes under Aristaeus's name were not suppositious I should think them no wiser that quote him for the Truth of this History then he that thinks Xenophons Cyropaedia to be a true History of Cyrus for as Tully upon the first sight perceived that Xenophon did not act the Historian but that in Cyrus he gave a Model or Pattern of a just Emperor so it may easiy be seen in the Reading Aristaeus that he is more Romantick than a true Historian We may easily guess from the Context that some Hellenist Jew writ this Book in favourof his Nation The Writer of this History according to the Genius of his Nation speaks great things and Miracles For he relates when King Ptolomy wondring that the Writers of other Countries made no mention of that Excellent works he bring in Demetâ—ius answering him thus Because says he it is a Holy Law given by God and because that some going about the Translation have been diverted by being punished by God and that Theopompus when he would have inserted some thing out of that Law not so well translated was Distracted for above thirty days and that during some little intermission of his Distraction having prayed to God to let him know the reason of his Distemper God revealed to him in a Dream that what had hapned was because he went about to publish to the World Sacred things and that at length when he had desisted from his Enterprise he was freed from his Disease And he farther tells us of one Theodectes a Tragical Poet who when he had inserted into his Play something of the Laws of Moses was struck blind till he had reflected upon what he had done and had intreated God by his Vows These truly are more a Romance than a History and sufficiently shew the Genius of the Jews which always delighted to invent Miracles there is such another Story of a Voice from Heaven which did frighten the Writer of the Chaldaean Paraphrase from the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures moreover the Supposititious Aristaeus seems to contradict here for where he speaks of Theopompus he tells us That the Law of Moses was before this translated into the Greek Tongue but if it were so why did they so earnestly desire another Translation wherefore Baronius and other learned Men with good reason rejecting Clemens Alexandrinus's Authority chiefly induced by this reason say that the Scriptures were not translated before into Greek and that there was no Translation whatsoever before that of the Seventy Elders Neither can you say Joseph Sealig inaâ—imady Chron. Eâ—seb Ger. Voss lib. 1. The Greek History this first Translation to
much more happily then the Seventy Interpreters as being assisted by their Labours and Translation as also with the Versions of others as Aquila Symmachus Theodotian by which means he was able to discern the failings and Errors of those men Nor indeed do any who have any thing of Greek and Hebrew Learning think otherwise of Jerom unless it be single Dr. Vossius who in imitation of Ruffinus believes that St. Jerom undertook a new Version of the Hebrew Text with a resolution altogether Jewish and pre-engag'd by the Rabbies For that same Prophetick Spirit attributed to the Greek Interpreters which our Ancestors so much ador'd is long since vanish'd by the Authority of St. Jerow himself But let us return to the business in hand Vossius furiously maintains that there is nothing of solidity in the Expositions of the late Rabbys and their Traditions propagated only by the Ear chiefly induc'd by this Argument for that Traditions which are propagated by the Ear rarely last above two or three Ages If it be so how came it to pass that the Seventy Interpreters after the Hebrew Language being lost for two Ages could make such a Version of the Hebrew Codex in all things so absolute as Vossius feigns it Questionless some will say he avers nothing wonderful as to this particular while he believes them to be Prophets But whom shall we believe Vossius affirming the Greek Interpreters to have been Prophets or Jerome denying it But you will object that St. Jerome was half a Rabby who durst presume to make a new Translation contrary to the general consent of the Church and that Vossius is a Sybillist who has rais'd up new Prophets and Sooth-sayers till now unknown nor ever heard of That same Jewish and Rabbinical Version of Jerome has had many Applauders Conspicuous for their Piety and Learning But there is not one in our Age who embraces Vossius's Judgment for receiving the only Version of the Seventy excepting some Disciples of Socinus who greedily swallowed his Opinion It will not be amiss to inspect the Matter a little more narrowly and to manifest the Nature of Tradition upon which the reading of the Hebrew Context depends I grant that matters of Religion chiefly which belong to Doctrine more remote from the Sences cannot be preserved for many Ages by the help of Tradition without the assistance of writing But as to matter of Discipline and Ceremonies there is a quite contrary Judgment to be made for that those things happen to be in use every day And for this sort of Tradition and Ancient Fathers of the Church give their suffrages Now I say there is the same Qualification of Languages which though they become obsolete and cease to be Natural yet among the Doctors in the School preserve their ancient Vigour and Efficacy and to this sort of Tradition we refer the Tradition of the Hebrew Language among the Jews Hence without doubt it came to pass that in these modern times the Samaritans have the same Books of the Law of Moses which the Jews have some small matter excepted And from that Tradition it comes to pass that not only the Eastern and Western Jews consent among themselves about the reading of the Hebrew Context but also they who bear the Name of Carraim among them because that rejecting the Talmud and other uncertain Traditions they adhere to the Scripture and agree with the Jews in all things as to the Truth of reading the Sacred Context And therefore that Tradition is not rashly to be exploded with the Carraeans who reject most of the Jewish Traditions entirely embrac'd Here I could heap together many other things taken out of the Jewish Books by which they prove that their Ancestors ever since the times of Esdras and Zorobabel had Schools as well among the Babylonians as among the Hierosolymitans But I forbear to insist upon these things and many other of the same Nature because they do not please the Palate of the most learned Vossius who does not by any means relish Rabbinism I am not ignorant that many Jews especially they who are of the Grammarians Form who believe that not only the Sacred Books were variously dispersed and miserably mutilated as Kimchi and Effodaeus were of Opinion but that the Language was almost lost and with these those Jews who are of the Sect of the Carraeans agree Aaron Ben Joseph praef com in pent For thus writes Aaron Ben Joseph upon this Argument The Israelites were exiles out of their own in a forreign Land and Vision and Prophesie were sealed up and there wanted but little but that the Hebrew Language had been quite lost Then certain wise Israclites rose up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom God gave his Spirit and they handed this Scripture to Vs which contains twenty four Books From whence it is manifest that the Hebrew Tongue was not anciently utterly lost though after the return of the Jews from Babylon it was no longer Natural at Jerusâ—lem but only preserved by the Doctors of the Law Thus Esdras performing the Office of a most skilful Scribe is said to have read the Law from a Pulpit before a multitude of Men and Women And châ—â—stâ— from that time the Jews deduce their Paraphrasers Nehem. c. 8. who were to explain the words of the Law in the Language familiarly spoken that they might be understood by all the Auditory Nor do I believe that the Greek Version of the Seventy of which afterwards the Jews feign'd such miraculous Stories had any other Original whose Idle Dreams Vossius so greedily followed as if those Jews were only to be believ'd by the Christians Then again in the Synagogue and Schools belonging to such places where the Greek Tongue was natural there the Greek Translation of the Alexandrinian Jews was read which whithin a short space of time reach'd the rest of the Jews who spake the Greek Language as being the Language of those that were in power However the reading of the Hebrew Text was not left off in whose assistance the Greek Translation was only made use of Neither will Vossius deny that who asserts that both Josephus and Philo who was an Alexandrinian were learned in the Hebrew When then was the Hebrew Language lost was it in the time of Aquila whom Vossius calls a most impertinent Interpreter Hâ—wever he acknowledges that in the time of Origen there were famous Hebrew Schools at Alexandria and in the time of St. Jerom at Tyberias Now that the Schools of Tyberias were kept up after St. Jeroms Death there 's no Man but well knâ—ws to which at length the Family of the Criticks call'd Mazeries was well known And they were call'd Mazorites because they bounded and regulated the Mazora or Tradition of reading the Hebrew Context then receiv'd by all the Jews by the help of certain Marks or Tittles which serv'd instead of Vowels This is the Jewish Tradition to which Simon attributes most credit but
upon which he does not wholly depend while he does not put a small value upon the Tradition or reading of the Hebrew Context which the Greek Interpreters follow'd Nay sometimes he does not scruple to prefer it before the Masoretic because he did not set himself to write with a mind pre-engag'd by the Greek Interpreters as Vossius nor by the Latin as most of the Divines of the Romish Church nor by the Jews as the Croud of Protestants But says the most learned Vossius the Jews are Enemies to the Christians and therefore the reading of the Sacred Scripture ought not to be fetch'd from them as if any Art could be better learnt from any other then they who profess it But then Vossius urges again and Confesses that the reading of the Scripture ought to be fetch'd from the Jews indeed but from those ancient Jews who preceded the time of Christ not from the latter Rabbins who understood it not at all And in this also Simon agrees with Vossius that the Tradition of the Hebrew reading is to be taken from those ancient Jews only in this he differs from him in saving not only from those but from Aquila Symmachus Theodotion Jerome and all other Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture for that no Art can be brought to perfection by one or another but by many together Simon professes himself under the Laws of no Master he denyes that a perfect knowledg of the Hebrew Tongue can be attain'd by the vulgar Rules of the Grammarians as being confin'd within too narrow limits Furthermore he believes it necessary to have recourse to the ancient Interpreters in imitation of St. Jerome who not only Consulted the Rabbys of his own Age but sometimes the Seventy Interpreters sometimes Aquila sometimes Theodotion or any other whose Interpretation seem'd most to the Purpose And we have no reason in our Age of making another Translation of the Bible which may excel all the rest For it is not true as Vossius often inculcates that only one St. Jerome durst presume to vary from the Septuagint For you shall find the rest of the Fathers have frequent recourse to the Versions of Aquila Symmachus or Theodotion because their sense sometimes appears to be better To say Truth they differ more from Vossius who believes that the Seventy Interpreters being taken away all the remaining knowledge of the Hebrew Language is utterly lost and that without them no one word can rightly be expounded That Aquila and other Interpreters fail'd wherever they departed from the Ancient Version that he was an Idle Interpreter who being learned in the Hebrew did not give the Hebrew words new significations from the Greek Translation of the Septuagint but only retain'd those significations us'd by the Greek Interpreters though in a different Order and accommodating other Notions to other places And yet Origen frequently commends that same Aquila whose Version Vossius affirms to be so full of trivial words speaking of Aquila as of a person who searching out the Proprieties of words and dilligently adhering to their significations studyed to give them the most proper Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aquila labouring to Interpret by words that carryed most Authority But if Aquila apply'd the same Notions of the Hebrew Language variously in several and different places those places are to be weigh'd and Judgment is to be given whether he have swery'd truly or falsly from the Interpreters Certain it is that St. Jerome sometimes preferr'd Aquila before the Seventy Interpreters because they seem'd to favour the Jews In like manner Origen thought that Aquila had in several places more properly express'd the words of the Hebrew Context then the 70. There it is a fiction of Vossius's that there was no man among all the ancient Christians upon whom a clearer light of Hebrew truth shone then upon all the Christian Rabbies and Semi-Rabbies of our Age. For as it was most excellently observ'd by Ludovicus Capellus there is nothing that was ever begun and perfected both at one time The Translation of the 70 Interpreters was corrected by Aquila Symmachus Theodotion and Jerom and as St. Jerow's so is that mended every day by persons learned in the Greek and Hebrew Languages In this alone the Septuagint excells all the other Versions of Sacred Scripture for that it was the first of all the Translations from which all the succeeding Interpreters drew many things proper for their purpose Nor do I question but that in the time of Philo there were extant Lexicons of Hebrew words taken out of the Version of the 70 both at Alexandria and other places Nor will I deny but that Aquila might make use of them as great helps in compiling his Translation But for me to believe that he who in the Opinions of Origen Jerom and other Fathers did not consult the Jews of his time is a thing almost impossible and why Vossius should think so there seems to be no other inducement then a pre-engag'd Opinion that the 70 Interpreters are the only persons with whom the knowledge of the Hebrew Language was buried And indeed whatever Vossius throws upon Aquila may be said of St. Jerom though it be most certain that he consulted the Jewish Doctors of his time when he was compiling his Translation and very often rather chose to depend upon them then upon the Greek Interpretation For he often declares in his works that he was instructed by the most learned Doctors of his Age. The same is Aquila's case whom he calls sometimes contentious Interpreter because he sticks sometimes too close to the signification of the words more eager upon the force of the word then the Sence of the Sentence For which reason Jerom accuses him of deprav'd affectation but never of Ignorance which affectation Origen ascribes to his too much dilligence Now Vossius passes to other matters He denies that the Sence of Scripture can be plough'd forth of a Mute Codex which heither any man knows how to read or understand as being half maim'd and furnish'd with no other Vowels then what the Enemies of the Christian Faith have fix'd to it And thus he thought it not enough to traduce the Interpreters of Holy Writ unless he accuse the Books themselves Every Foot and even to loathing he objects in his little Treatise that the Hebrew Codex is mute as if it had been less mute in the Age of the 70 Interpreters then in our time This is the manner of Writing among the Orientals to follow Compendium's Nor is the Hebrew Language more subject to this vice than the Arabic Chaldee and Syriac whose manner of writing is Compendious likewise The Condition of the Exemplars which the 70 Interpreters made use of was no better But there was a certain manner of writing confirm'd by Use and Custom amongst the Hebrews and the rest of the Orientals especially the Rabbies as now it appears For after the Invention of points most of the Oriental Bocks were set
Anno 1618. But this Edition was much inferiour to the rest there being many things reform'd and amended or rather spoil'd by the Inquisitors especially in the Commentaries of the Rabbins Another Bible was also set forth at Venice by Daniel Bomberg but less exact Nevertheless those are not to be contemn'd which the Jews caus'd to be put forth for their own use at Pisaurum Sabionesa Mantua Frankfort and other places Buxtorf also publish'd a new Edition of Bomberg's Bible which was overlook'd by R. Jacob Ben Hajim which he believes to be corrected in many things by himself especially in reference to the Tittl'd Vowel of the Chaldee Text. But as for the Edition Printed at Basil 1608. it seems much inferiour to that of Bomberg out of which it was taken and is contemn'd by the Jews Imperfect also are the Bibles Printed by Robert Stephens in Quarto and Decimo Sexto and by Plantin in Quarto and in other Volumes compar'd with that which R. Menasseh Ben Israel and other Jews caus'd to be Printed at Amsterdam in Quarto 1635. and in Octavo 1661. Moreover the Jews especially they who inhabit the Eastern parts highly commend an Edition set forth at Venice in Quarto in a large Paper by Lombrosus which contains the Literal Notes The Rabbi also himself explains the most difficult places of the Text in the Spanish Tongue To these might be added other Editions of the Bible and those a great many publish'd by the Jews not only in Italy and Germany but at Constantinople Thessalonica and Hadrianople but it suffices to have given an account of the most remarkable We have also said that the Christian Bibles are not so accurate as those set forth by the Jews but the Christian Characters are far superiour to those of the Jews The Five Books of Moses also are set forth apart by themselves with a threefold Targum and the Commentaries of Solomon Isaac Thus was the Pentateuch printed at Hanovia 1611. with verses distinguished by Number according to the Latin Editions CHAP. IX Whether the Jews corrupled their Bibles of set purpose The Opinion of the Fathers concerning this matter examined ALthough there be a very great difference between the Exemplars of the Hebrew Context which are now extant and those which the Seventy Interpreters and St. Jerom made use of and that in our days they very much vary one from another yet we ought not thence to conclude that the Jewish Bibles were by themselves corrupted in hatred of the Christians as some Divines bearing no good will to the Jews Leo Castro have been pleas'd to report Leo Castro a Spanish Divine urges highly for this the common opinion of the Fathers and produces a great train of their Testimonies After the same manner Johannes Morinus shews himself somewhat too severe against the Jews for though he adjudge this Opinion not altogether so probable yet he musters up a long Catalogue of the maintainers of it to impose upon the more ignorant And what seems to exceed all belief Isaac Vossius among the Heterodox has uttered many bitter reproaches against the Jews as adulterators of sacred Writ But if the weight of their reasons be considered rather than the number of their reasons we shall find their accusations to have quite another face True it is that they condemn under the name of the Jews the versions of Aquilas Theodotion and Symmachus in regard that the Jews continually set them up in opposition to the Septuagint Therefore as often as the Fathers question the Jews for corrupting the sacred Scripture they only speak of those versions or of something like them as hereafter we shall make it appear Upon which accompt St. Jerom labouring to excuse himself for having translated the Scripture out of Hebrew into Latin gives this reason Epist 89. I have not so much endeavoured to abolish the Ancient as to produce those Testimonies which by the Jews are either omitted or corrupted that ours might understand what the Hebrew truth contains In which words he sharply taxes Aquilas Symmachus and other Interpreters whom he frequently calls by the title of Semi-Christians For when the Fathers in their disputes with the Jews concerning the truth of the Christian Religion made use against them of no other Scripture but the Septuagint on the other side the Jews still had recourse to the Hebrew Books that is to Aquila and other Interpreters who had made new translations out of the Hebrew for this reason chiefly was St. Jerom induc'd to make a new translation from the same fountains And for the same reason Origen before him had compos'd his Hexapla with wonderful Art Justin Martyrs Opinion explained The first that comes into the field is Justin Martyr who disputing against Tryphon accuses the Jews of false and crafty exposition of the Scripture As when he objects to them their ignorant and malicous applying the words of the Psalm Psal 110. The Lord said to my Lord to Ezechiah which are only to be understood of Christ As also their misapplication of the words of Isaiah Before a child knows to call his Father and his Mother c. To the same Ezechiah which as he demonstrates ought to be interpreted concerning Christ Then he affirms many things to have been taken out of Scripture by the perverseness of the Jews because they favoured the Christian Religion and then that some words were changed into others However in all this there is nothing argu'd against but the perverse exposition of the context or misinterpretation not against the text it self in regard Justin could give no Judgment concerning the Integrity or falshood of that as being one that was utterly Ignorant of the Hebrew Language which is palpable from the Etymology which he gives of the word Israel This name Israel saith he signifies a man overcoming Power For Isra is a man and El Power But this above all the rest is most worthy observation that Justin by the word Scripture understands nothing but the Translation of the seventy Interpreters So that when he accuses the Jews for depraving the Scripture he also taxes the version of Aquila which in many things differs from the Septuagint Which led several learned men into mistake not heeding what Justin meant by the name of sacred Scripture And thus he condemns the Jewish Rabbies for rashly asserting that there was never any such thing wrote by Isaiah as Behold a Virgin shall conceive but Behold a young Woman shall conceive The whole controversie lies about the Translation of the word Gnalmah which the Seventy Interpreters Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 virgo a virgin But Aquila 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 puella and after Aquila the Jews of that Age. Which Interpretation nothing alters the Hebrew Text. But Justin allowing no Scripture but that which was publickly received for the use of the Church that is the Septuagint opposes the Authority of that Translation against the Jews But you saith he in these things
presume to alter the expositions of your Fore-Fathers who lived with Ptolomy King of Egypt saying that it is not so in the Scripture as they translated it but behold a young Woman shall conceive c. Now there by Scripture is meant nothing but the version of Aquila to which the Jews always adher'd in their disputes with the Christians In like manner Justin accuses the Jews to have eras'd out of their Bibles these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à ligno from the wood Psal 95. But if we consider the matter more attentively those words seem rather to have been obtruded upon the place then omitted And therefore they must of necessity be deceived who too unwarily follow Justin Martyrs opinion too peremptorily giving his Judgment upon things which he did not altogether so well understand I should for my part rather hearken to Trypho the Jew whom Justin brings in answering his Dialogue concerning the mutilation of the Scripture done by the Princes of the Jews The thing seems incredible I say it seems to be incredible it is more horrible then casting the Molten Calf or Children offered to Devils or the killing of the Prophets themselves Certainly the Jews had such a Reverence for their Holy Bibles which would not permit them to corrupt them on set purpose Moreover by the answers of Trypho which Justin supplies it is apparent that the Jews at that time so zealously devoted to the letter of the Scriptures and the subtleties of Allegories adhered the more closely to the Hebrew Text that they might the more vigorously inforce them upon the Christians For which reason they made Greek Translations which might more truly correspond with the Hebrew Text then the Septuagint For which reason Justin also many times praises as well the Jewish as Christian Version to the end that disputing with the Jews he might convince them out of their own Books Lastly there is no reason why the Jews should be called in Question for depraving the Copies of their Bibles if they have translated one and the same Hebrew word in that signification which was most proper for their business as when Justin in the same Dialogue objects against Trypho that the Jews read the 49th of Genesis amiss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 donec veniant quae reposita sunt ei Till those things shall come which are laid up for him Whereas the words in the Greek version of the Septuagint are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 until he shall come for whom this is laid up For the Hebrew Word Shilo may be rightly rendered in either sense neither is it certain whether the version which Justin so confidently avers to be that of the LXX Interpreters was really theirs or no whereas the Roman Edition owns that for the true one which Justin attributes to the Jews where the Scholiast observes that it is the same in Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius Chrysostom Cyrill Cyprian and Austin among the Latin Fathers The next in order is Irenaeus who accuses the Jewish Rabbies L. 4. c. 25. for setting up their Law contrary to the Law of Moses wherein they add some things take away others The Opinion of Irenaeus and other places they interpret as they please But the blessed Irenaeus there explains himself and professes himself only to speak of the Constitutions of the Rabbies who as he says make a mixture of Traditions with the Precepts of God and confirms his meaning out of the words of St. Matthew Why transgress ye the Precepts of God through your Traditions In which place Christ never thought in the least of the depravation of the Bible Nor is there any more weight in any other of the Testimonies of the Fathers which are commonly brought to destroy the Jewish Exemplars Morinus tax'd and I wonder that John Morinus a most Learned person who in reckoning up the Fathers that thought the Hebrew Bibles to be corrupted numbers Irenaeus and affirms it from these words of his Which Jews had they thought there would have been Christians Ireâ—l 32.5 and that they would have made use of Testimonies out of their Scriptures would never have scrupl'd to have burnt their Bibles which make it evident that all other Nations participate of Salvation whereas the contrary may be rather asserted from thence For there by the Scriptures Irenaeus means the Translation of the LXX Interpreters which was made use of in the Synagogues which Translation being before the Nativity of Christ and made by the Jews he blames from thence the Version of Aquila as naught and deceitful and infers the propensity of the Jews to destroy the Bible from that Translation which they allow'd in hatred of the Christian Faith forsaking the Version of the Septuagint which was compil'd by their own Country-men So far was Irenaeus from asserting the Jews to have maim'd the Bible that he rather confirms their entireness and denies them to be really depraved only adding a conjecture of his own of what might have been probable Only this depravation of the Holy Scriptures Irenaeus acknowledges with the rest of the Fathers which got footing in the Hebrew Manuscripts when the Jews remain'd in Captivity and which afterwards was reform'd by Esdras Prince of the Great Sanhedrim the Hebrew Exemplars being restor'd to their former Purity by his Industry The third in order is Tertullian but the Arguments which he brings against the Jewish Manuscripts are so frigid Tertul. lib. de habit mul. c. 3. that they scarce deserve a Refutation First these words of his are produc'd We read that the Scripture being proper for Edification was inspir'd from Heaven that afterwards it was therefore rejected by the Jews as all other things that savour of Christianity Neither is it any wonder that they rejected any Scriptures speaking concerning him The Judgment of Tertullian when they would not receive him speaking to them However there is not a word of the Corruptions of the Text in this Testimony of Tertullian Only Tertullian endeavours to vindicate a Book of Enoch's which most men deservedly suspected to be an Imposture and they correspond with the proof which was taken from the Authority of those Jews who did not reckon that Book among the Canonical and therefore he says those Doctors condemned many things as Apocryphal which afterwards the Church receiv'd as inspir'd I know saith he that this Treatise of Enoch which attributes this Order to the Angels is not receiv'd by some because it is not admitted into the Jewish Magazine Nor did Tertullian say as his words are cited by Morinus that the Scripture was resected or mangled but rejected by the Jews For there is no mention there made of the Scripture mutilated but of whole Volumes which the Jews suspicious of their credit rejected And this is confirm'd out of the Editions of Tertullian's Works by Rhenanus Pamelius and others Nor is there any more strength in those other words of Tertullian This Heresie will not admit of certain Scriptures
greater than of the Synagogue Who can be ignorant that the Authority of the Church has not been able to make good the Purity of its own Exemplars or to justifie them from being clear from all manner of faults when the Version of the Seventy Interpreters of which the Eastern and Western Church made use has not been entire from the very time of Origen However I readily grant that the Hebrew Exemplar is to be chiefly preferr'd for the Christians borrowâ—d the Books of Scripture from the Jews and not the Samaritans Only the Authority of any Assembly whatever does not make a Book to be without Errour or Fault but only declares it to be receiv'd and fit for practice There are also other faults with which the defenders of the Hebrew Text load the Samaritan Copies For first they enendeavour to prove it mutilated by the Example of some few words and then they say that some words are foisted into the place of others They also object the differences of the Hebrew and Samaritan Texts one with another as also the carelesness of the Scribes who confound the Letters Aleph and Ain He and Heth and other Letters resembling in form But they kill themselves with their own weapons when the same things may be objected against the Hebrew Texts themselves In this the Patrons of the Jewish Text are deceived The Samaritan text vindicated because that out of a preconceiv'd Opinion of some of the Jews they think it to be free from all Errour which is to be only affirm'd of the Originals We have already shew'd you that the manner of writing of the Hebrew Context was very inconstant and perhaps more free than among the Samaritans who never hunted after the Trifles of Jewish Allegories Even in this the Samaritan Codex's excel the Jewish for that many things which Superstition foisted into the one are wanting in the other To this we may add that the Hand and Character of the Samaritan Text plainly proves Antiquity On the other side the Jewish Manuscripts being reform'd by several Ages at length obtain'd the name of Masoreticks Lastly the Jewish Text may in many things be illustrated by the Samaritan Thus Gen. 2. we read in the Hebrew that God finish'd his work upon the Seventh Day but in the other upon the Sixth Day which seems to be the more proper Lection Gen. 4. This Sentence which is in the Samaritan Let us go into the field v. 8. seems to be wanting in the Hebrew and many of the Jews mark this gap in the Margin of their Scriptures in these words pausa in medio versus a rest in the middle of the Verse I know that St. Jerom in his Hebraick Questions upon Genesis has observ'd this Pericope for superfluous both in the Greek and Samaritan Exemplars Superfluous saith he is that in the Samaritan and our Volume Let us go into the field But it appears that St. Jerom in these Questions where he professes himself an Assertor of the Jewish Text did not speak so much his own as the Opinion of the Jews Exod. 12. where we read that the sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years the Samaritan Exemplar comprehends Their Fathers with the Children or the sojourning of the Patriarchs in the same Egypt Which Lection agrees with the Truth but is not Jewish But it might have been that they supply'd all these things in their Books and that they might have been glosses for the Explanation of the Hebrew Text which is frequently very obscure On the other side there are several things written with more freedom in the Samaritan Codex which seem to have been added for Illustrations sake out of other parts of the Pentateuch by some of the Samaritan Doctors Which Supplements without doubt argue the Copy to be vitious In like manner the word Garizim Deut. 17. which they have put in the place of Ebal which was the Antient Reading shews that the Samaritans were not over-religiously exact in their Copies whence it is manifestly evinc'd that neither the Samaritan nor Jewish Exemplar are free from all manner of Errour so that they are to be lookt upon as Copies of one and the same Book which may be useful to one another yet so that the Jewish Copy though it have its Imperfections is to be preferr'd before the Samaritan not only because all Religion and the Scripture descended from the Jews to the Christians but because the Exemplars seem to be less obnoxious to Errours However that ought to be no impediment but thaâ— the Jewish Copy may be mended by the Samaritan where a manifest Errour shall appear and the Samaritan Lection preferr'd before the Jewish if it be more correspondent to Truth For indeed the Reading of the Hebrew Text among the Samaritans seems to be nothing near so strict in regard their Copies make no use of pointed Vowels which confine the manner of Reading the Hebrew Context And it is certain that Points were a Modern Invention of the Jews nor are they added to those Volumes which are made use of in the publick Synagogues And there I think the Samaritans rather to be commended than blam'd for retaining their Antient form of Letters The Excellenâ—y of the Samaritan Codex Besides they have a Tradition for the Reading of the Text as the Jews had before the Points were invented by the Doctors of Tyberias Lastly The Samaritans excel the Jews in this that they have retain'd the Antient or Mosaick Characters of the Hebrew Language whereas the Jews upon their return from Babylon devoted themselves wholly to the Babylonian or Chaldaean to which they had been accustom'd which was the reason why the Samaritans first accus'd the Jews especially Esdras as a corrupter of the Sacred Text of Scripture But laying these Quarrels aside let us in a few words examine what may be thought of the first Hebrew Letters For the Samaritan Characters the sounder sort of Criticks and the Antient Coins of the Samaritan Nation fairly plead so that Joseph Scaliger gives them the Title of Asses who will not subscribe to the Opinion of St. Jerom where he says That certain it is Prolog Galeat that Esdras the Scribe Doctor of the Law after the taking of Jerusalem and restoration of the Temple under Zerobabel found out other Letters which we now make use of whereas till that time the Hebrew and the Samaritan Characters were the same This Opinion of St. Jerom concerning the Samaritan Characters was renew'd not long since by Guilielmus Postellus Blancuccius Villalpandus Morinus Capellus Mayerus Perescius and among the Jews by R. Azarias and several others Postellus who had long convers'd with the Jews attributes the cause of that change to the hatred which the Jews had to the Samaritans as being Schismaticks That Party says he who intermix'd with the True Religion the Worship of Idols In Alph 12. Linguar c. de Samar is adjudged by a grave and pious person to
Scripture do not agree among themselves The ancient Jews as R. Solomon testifies will have Solomon so call'd as if we should say a Collector or Assembler of Sentences for that Agar in Hebrew signifies to Collect the Sense of which the Latin Interpreter has render'd in Translating it the Words of the Collector or Assembler The same Opinion R. Levy Ben Gerson illustrates where he says Solomon seems to have given himself the Name of Agur in respect of the Sentences which he has Collected in this Book But perhaps Aben Ezra and Grotius following him with more reason suspects this Agur to have been the Theognes or Phocylledes of those Times out of whose writings Solomon might Collect some Sentences which he digested into one Volume with other Proverbs Lastly there is a fifth part of the Proverbs of Solomon contained within the 31st Chapter which is the last and that under the Name of King Lemuel who that Lemuel was is not known Most of the Jews believe that Solomon is meant thereby as Christ is intended by the word Immanuel as Aben Ezra asserts and the reason of that Appellation he takes from hence for that Lemuel signifies God with them because that in the Reign of Solomon as Aben Ezra testifies one God was worshipt among the Hebrews But there is no reason we should be sollicitous about the Word Lemuel especially when the Seventy say nothing of it and as they read so they have Translated the words of the Context quite after another manner As for the Book which in the Hebrew is call'd Cobaleth and by Us Ecclesiastes in Latin it is call'd Concionator or the Preacher though most of the latter Jews will have Cobeleth to signifie a person that Collects because that Book contains several Proverbs upon sundry Occasions Of this Opinion are R. Solomon and Aben Ezra and as he says Solomon in another place is call'd Agur for the same Reason as David de Pomis speaks In Lexi Heb Titolo del libro nomato Ecclesiastes composito da Salomone significa Congregatore per Congregareâ—e raccore in quel trattato diverse opinioni de gl' huomini la Maggior parte de quali sono false The Title of the Book called Ecclesiastes composed by Solomon signifies a Gatherer together from Collecting and gathering together in this Volume the opinions of Men the greatest part of which are false But some of the Jews according to the Testimony of R Salomon agree with the 70 in the Interpretation of the word Cobeleth believing it to signifie a Person that Preaches in some Congregation But as to the Author of that Book the Rabbies do not agree among themselves For the Talmudic Doctors ascribe it to Ezechia the later Rabbins to Solomon and these are back'd by the words of the Text in which there are some Passages that cannot well be meant of any other than Solomon therefore it is most probable that the Talmudics only meant that that same Writing was tak'n out of Solomon's Works by King Ezekiah or by Men appointed by him The Christian Interpreters also acknowledg no other Author of Ecclesiastes excepting some few among whom is Hugo Grotius who affirms that Book to be of a later date composed under the Name of Salomon for proof whereof he alledges that he has many words collected thence which are not extant but only in Daniel Esdras and the Chaldee Interpreters St. Jerom writes that the ancient Jews had some thoughts of obliterating this among the rest of Salomon's Works thrown by because he asserts the Creation of God to be vanity wherein St. Jerom agrees with the Talmudists and later Jews Jerom. Com. in 12. Eccles but every one knows that it is the Custom of those Doctors to feign many things of their own Heads By who the History was written that is entituled Esther is uncertain but as to the time when it was written almost all the Jews and Christians agree For whether the Authors of it were the Senators of the Grand Synagogue as the Talmudic Doctors believe or Esdras which is the Opinion of the Fathers or Mordecai as Aben Ezra more probably believes and the Book it self seems to testifie there is no dispute about the time when it was written Therefore Hugo Grotius does not conjecture amiss when he says that Esdras added to his own and the Book which Nehemiah wrote The History of Esther which happened in the middle of those Times of which the Transactions are related in those Books and which Grotius also acknowledges to have been written by Mordecai That the Song of Songs had no other Author than Salomon the very Title it self declares and it is certain from the third Book of Kings that the same Salomon composed both Proverbs and Songs But this because it was the best of Salomon's Songs was therefore called The Song of Songs that is to say the most Excellent Song Yet some do question whether it were written by Salomon as it is now extant or whether it were cull'd out of the whole Volume of his Songs However for that Song wherein Salomon is introduced discoursing with the Sunamite as a Bridegroom with a Bride is very difficult to explain not only by reason of the Expressions somewhat over confident and frequent Similitudes which our Customs will by no means endure but also because the Names of the Interlocutors are not set done for besides Salomon and his Spouse there are two Chorus's of young Men and Virgins But 't is a strange thing how the Rabbies differ among themselves about the Book of Job The Talmudics believe it to be no relation of real matter of Fact but that it is a Fiction or Parable to set forth a most exact and high Example of Piety and Patience and with these some of the Christians agree Nay there were some who did not only believe the Argument of the work to be feigned but will have the Name of Job to be taken out of those Letters of the first Verse of the third Chapter of the Book where we read Jobad Jom he curst the day For all that went before they looked upon only as a Prologue But the Testimony of Ezekiel who makes mention of Noah Daniel and Job demonstrates that the Name of Job is not fictitious and the prudent Aben Azra most sharply rebukes those who are of that Opinion He also believes him to have been of the Posterity of Esau which he gathers from the Name of the Place Com. in 1 cap. Job where he was born Besides the Names of Job and his Friends and other Circumstances plainly evidence that the story was really true according as it is related though it contains many things which are much more like Parable than Truth of History But as to the Author of it there is no certainty some apply it to Moses some to Isaiah others to Job himself and his Friends Nor do they agree among themselves who make Moses to be the Author of it some believing that it
Jews have maim'd not only in the Gr. Version but also in all the Hebrew Manuscripts through the writing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is observ'd by several whose Opinion is confirm'd by the Samaritan Copy But who does not well know that before the invention of Points the latter Jod serv'd sometimes instead of e sometimes of i which Letter as well as those other Vowels call'd Ehevi were carelesly written as the Scribes themselves thought fit And therefore whether it be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Modern Masoretick Editions or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Seventy Interpreters seem to have read it the Jews are not therefore to be accus'd of Falsification because they retain'd Jod in their Exemplars And it may be probable also that the Greek Interpreters read it in their Exemplar when the sense is the same whether it be pronounced with a Jod or without one for that Jod is as often pronounc'd like an e as an i. But the Masorites who conjectur'd that it was to be read Schilo retain'd the Antient Jod which does not hinder but that with the Greek Interpreters we may now read Schelo as some of the Rabbies do These things Vossius ought not to have been ignorant of that so often impeaches the Jews and farther writes that they who deny this place to have been corrupted by the Jews obliterate same both before and after the coming of Christ Nor is there any reason if there were any depravations before the coming of Christ why Vossius should attribute them to the carelesness of the Scribes and as for those which were intruded into the Hebrew Exemplars after the coming of Christ why he should ascribe them to the wickedness and malice of the Jews Vossius too much detracts from the Masorites of Tyberias when he calls them Barbarians and Strangers to their Native Language from whom nothing could proceed but what was vicious and void of reason For with Vossius I readily grant them to have been no Prophets nor do I doubt but that they were the first Inventors of pointed Vowels and Tittles But from thence to infer that they were Barbarians De Scriptur Interprit c. 30. and unskill'd in the Hebrew Language and that the Scriptures were burden'd rather than adorn'd with pointed Vowels and Tittles was a piece of extravagance If those things are true which Vossius boasts of himself that he had seen above two thousand Hebrew Manuscripts it is not probable that he was altogether ignorant of the Masoretick Art That was the Industry of the Jews of Tyberias who ascertain'd the Reading of the Hebrew Text as it was then publickly in practice by the assistance of Points It was callâ—d the Masora because it contain'd the Tradition or Method of Reading the Hebrew Text approv'd by long use The same Judgment ought to be given concerning their Criticks and of the Greek and Latine Books examin'd and corrected by Learned men The Doctors of Tyberias were the Masters of the most famous Academy among the Jews who collecting the Exemplars and Copies of the Bible from all parts publish'd an Accurate Edition out of all together Nothing was here done by them that deserv'd to be blam'd or upbraided And besides this correction of theirs was no hindrance to others but that they might examine the same Exemplars again and I believe the same Exemplars may be re-examin'd in our Age according to the Greek Version of the Septuagint and the Latine Translation of St. Jerom in such places where it shall appear that their Copies differed from the Masoreticks However we will not accuse the Jews of Falsification as Vossius does because their Manuscripts were not the same with those which the Greek Interpreters made use of in their Translation But we must say this that various Readings are no less to be found in the Hebrew Exemplars than in the Copies of the Greeks and Latines and other Nations Vossius believes there can be nothing of solidity in the Traditions of the Rabbies Respons ad nuper Critic that are only propagated by the Ear And such Traditions saith he which are only propagated by the Ear He is refuted seldom out-last above two or three Ages But what does this concern that Tradition which is now in dispute There is no Controversie about the Oral Traditions of the Jews which he acknowledges to be deservedly exploded by the more prudent but only about the Masora which the verry Carraites who condemn the greatest part of the Jewish Traditions as Old Womens Fables have however cordially embrac'd If Vossius rejects this he must of necessity reject the Lection of the Chaldee Syriack and Hebraick which have nothing of Antiquity For to all these in like manner as to the Hebrew are added pointed Vowels which make their Lection certain But that Text saith Vossius is mute which no man knows how to read or understand as being defective in one half part nor furnish'd with other Vowels than the Enemies of Christ have added Was the same Codex or Text less defective in the days of the LXX Interpreters when there appear'd no pointed Vowels at all in it Such is the nature of the Hebrew Tongue as of all the other Eastern Languages that it makes a shew of the fewest Vowels So that the Reading of those Books which are Printed in the Hebrew Chaldee Syriack and Arabick does not a little depend upon use which as the Jews do we here call Tradition or the Masora Now from whom could that use of Reading the Hebrew Text be borrowed but from the Jews But says Vossius They are Enemies of the Christian Faith Have they therefore forgot to read their own Books because Jews Certainly unless they were Jews they would never read the Hebrew Text in their Synagogues Neither could the Reading of the Books be derived by any other means to the Christians Besides the Seventy Interpreters were Jews upon whom Vossius altogether depends and they followed no other Lection of the Hebrew Text than what was receiv'd among the Jews by the publick practice of those times So that all the obloquy that Vossius throws upon the Hebrew Text that it is defective in the half part may be affirm'd of the Hebrew Codex which the LXX Interpreters made use of Nor ought the Text so much to be accus'd as the Idiom of the Hebrew Language and upon that account all the Eastern Languages may be accus'd for half Languages Nevertheless Vossius inculcates it over again even to loathsomness that the Hebrew Text is mute and by the acknowledgment of the Rabbins a half Language as being destitute of true vowels But what were the true ancient vowels of the Hebrew Text he confesses he does not understand while he so confidently avers the Language to be destitute of them Yet as he himself makes no question the Ancient Hebrew Vowels are Aleph He Van and Jod To which St. Jerom makes an