call it Prospicietur in monte Jehovae since the Person that added it to the Text seems to speak of it as if it were still used in his time But why might not Moses say that this Proverb was in use etiamnum hodie since perhaps this Form was used from the days of Abraham down to Moses This I am certain of that there is nothing in the whole Matter which does not fitly agree with Moses's time There was a convenient distance enough between Abraham and Moses for the latter to take notice that the aforesaid Form of which Abraham was the Author continued till his own time Nay if the Interval had not been quite so great yet Moses might very warrantably express himself after that manner since this Form is sometimes used by those that writ but a few years after of which we find two Examples in St. Matthew Chap. 27.8 Chap. 28.15 as others have observed before me To these we may add such-like passages out of St. Jerom for he speaking of the Ecclesiastical Writers of his own Age expresses himself after the same manner Saebadius Bishop of Agennum in France Vivit usque hodie lives till now or to this day decrepitâ senectute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Interpreter has rendered it Didymus of Alexandria Vivit usque hodie and has passed the eightieth year of his Age 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus Superest usque hodie and in his old Age is writing several Books Eunomius of the Arian Party usque hodie vivere dicitur Priscillianus Bishop of Abila usque hodie to this very day is accused by some of the Gnostick Heresie though others maintain that he was not guilty of what is laid to his Charge Priscillianus was slain by Maximus the Tyrant but seven years before St. Jerom writ this We have touched upon this somewhat largely because several places in the Sacred Historians are illustrated by this Observation 8. Likewise they object the name of Migdal Heder Gen. 35.21 that is The Tower of the Flock by which name is supposed to be meant a Tower upon one of the Gates of Jerusalem which was called the Sheep-gate but this is uncertain however if we may believe latter Ages the Tower of the Flock did not belong to Jerusalem Consult our (g) There was a Tower at Jerusalem or not far from that City of the same name as we are informed by Micah 4.8 St. Jerom following the Tradition of the Inhabitants in his time places it not far from Bethlehem in his Epitaph of Paula who after she had visited Bethlehem Not for from thence says she she descended to the Tower of Ader i. e. of the Flock near which Jacob fed his Flocks and the Shepherds watching by night were so happy as to hear Glory be to God on high c. Which as it might be true so it receives no great Confirmation from so Fabulous a Voucher as Tradition is Observations upon this place of Genesis Nor is there any reason why this place should not retain its ancient name in following Ages 9. They suppose that Moses could not possibly write Chap. 36.31 nor reckon up so many Kings of Edom. Now these were the Kings that reigned in Edom before there was any King in Israel After this follow the names of eight Kings who reign'd successively one after another and make as many Generations as there were from Jacob to Obed Grand-father to David and Contemporary to Saul the first King of Judea since from Jacob to Moses there are only four taking Moses into the account Now some answer That Moses foreknew that the Israelites would set up Kings over themselves to which purpose they cite Deuteronomy Chap. 17.14 But is it credible that God likewise revealed to him how many Kings the Edomites were to have and by what Names they were to be called before the Jewish Theocracy was turned into a Kingly Government Now Moses no where tells us that such a Revelation happened to him and indeed whoever will read over the nine Verses wherein the Succession of the Kings of Edom is contained will soon be satisfied that there is no Prophecy in the case for the Sacred Historian there speaks as of a thing past and gone that nothing can be more clearly express'd For what more evident Testimony can there be given that the thing was already past than these Phrases And he died and there reigned in his stead Some body whose name has escaped me solves it another way for he humbly supposes that these Kings reign'd at the same time in different places and for my part I humbly suppose he never read this Chapter his Head being certainly fill'd with Metaphysical Contemplations To deal ingeniously with the Reader the best way to get clear of this Difficulty will be to own frankly that these nine Verses from V. 31 to 39 were added by some one who lived after the Kingly Government was set up in Israel 10. Some have objected that Canaan is called the Land of the Hebrews Chap. 40.15 which in propriety of Speech could be said only at that time when the Hebrews had possessed themselves of it and that therefore the Sacred Historian who was later than Moses accommodated Joseph's way of speaking to the Stile of his own time But we have (h) 'T is plain enough says our Author upon this place that after Joshua had led the Israelites into Canaan all that Country might be called and really was called the Land of the Hebrews But if we should take it in this Sence it would follow that this Passage was written after the time of Joshua as some have believed If we would have it written by Moses we must only understand some part of Canaan where the Hebrews generally fed their Flocks without any disturbance For though they were Strangers and wandered from one place to another yet those Fields might properly enough be said to belong to them where they had pitch'd their Tents for several years with the Consent of the old Inhabitants Now it appears by the Book of Genesis that they sojourn'd for the greatest part about Mamre and Hebron as far as Sichem partly by the Permission of the Natives and partly by Force answered this Objection in our Commentary 11. In Exodus Chap. 6. after the Sacred Historian has inform'd us of Aaron's and Moses's Pedigree he thus goes on v. 26. These are THAT Aaron and Moses to whom the Lord said bring out the Children of Israel from the Land of Egypt according to their Armies These are THEY that spoke to Pharaoh King of Egypt to bring out the Children of Israel from Egypt These are THAT Moses and Aaron Now we do not urge the third Person here say some which 't is plain several Historians have used but the Demonstrative Pronouns that and they which Moses would scarce make use of while he was alive and writing of himself But we must here call to mind that Moses
't is impossible to make a Translation of the Scripture without a Man's interposing his own Sence against his Will Though it were to be wish'd that the Sacred Volumes could be so translated that our own Conjectures might not be read instead of the Divinely Inspir'd Author's meaning whether obscure or clear But this is impracticable for the above-mention'd Reasons and therefore after we have done all that we can to explain the Sence of the Scripture as plainly as 't is possible the World must either acquiesce in our Endeavours or every one must study Hebrew in his own defence and take the best Method he can to satisfie himself We have taken that care all along in our Translation as very seldom to interpose our own Judgment where the place was somewhat doubtful but it was impossible to use this Caution every where However we have faithfully set down in our Annotations what Conjunction or Preposition was read in the Hebrew word (f) In the Hebrew 't is and Noah and he staid but M. le Clerk has translated it Noachus tamen Expectavit tamen But with our Author's leave haec videntur esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notata Consult our Notes upon Genesis 6.8 Chap. 8.12 We have also observed that sometimes the true Signification of the Particles is wrested where the Translator did not clearly understand why the Sacred Writers have used them in certain places See our Comment upon (g) Where agreeably to the Hebrew our Author has translated it supra Firmamentum St. Jerom sub Firmamento the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or juxta Firmamentum the English in the Firmament But his Reasons are too long to be set down Gen. 1.20 some have made no difficulty to use Latin Particles not such as exactly answer the Hebrew but such as they would have used if they had been obliged to express the same things in Latin after their own manner which Conduct may throw both Translators and Readers into very shameful Mistakes But we in the Translation of the Hebrew Particles have never receded from the most commonly received Signification of them unless we were absolutely forced to do it although sometimes it was none of the most proper For we are well satisfied that all Nations in the World do not connect their Sentences after the same manner and that we are not to introduce them using the same Thread of Narration if we design faithfully to Copy their different ways of Speaking If this had been duly considered by that Learned Author who has obliged the World with a laborious and useful Book called The Concordance of the Particles he had mightily lessened the Significations which he attributes to them for very often he minds nothing else but how to substitute an agreeable or a more emphatical Latin Particle in the place of the Hebrew The same ingenious Person has observed that these Particles are sometimes redundant and sometimes deficient which he has evinced by several unquestionable Examples though some of them 't is true may be call'd into question For as there are some places where 't is apparent that they either abound or ought to be supplied so there are others where they give us no small difficulty which 't is not in the power of every little Pretender to remove For instance if in Gen. 19.26 where we have render'd it And she became a Pillar of Salt we suppose the two Particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be wanting as they commonly are then the Sence of that passage will be And she became like a Statue in a saltish Soil which seems to be the genuine Sence of the words as we have observed in our Dissertation upon that subject 'T is undoubted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood Gen. 24.23 Ch. 38.11 and perhaps 't is understood in the abovemention'd place rather than express'd to avoid the harshness of the Sound which would happen there if the foregoing word terminated in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have likewise shewn upon (h) Where Ishmael is said in the Original to be Onager homo instead of instar Onagri So Job 11.12 Pullus Onagri nascitur homo instead of rudis instar Pulli Onagri Gen. 16.12 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Similitudinis as the Grammarians use to call it is frequently wanting However least we should forcibly seem to fasten our own meaning upon Moses's words we have rendred it verbatim as 't is in the Original See a farther instance of an Ellipsis of the like nature (i) In the Hebrew 'tis The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor the God of their Father where the Particle and is wanting after Nabor Gen. 31.53 We have brought some (k) As that of Levit. Et Postridie E T reliquiae ex to comedentur Where the Particle Et is certainly superfluous See other Examples in Ch. Noldius where he handles this Particle Numb 74. Examples upon Gen. 20.16 where Vau abounds and if we did not know that it was redundant the meaning would be perplex'd and obscure It is manifestly redundant Gen. 22.4 Nay sometimes it abounds in the beginning of a Book as in the first Verse of the Prophet Jonah And the Word of the Lord c. who for all that is no more tacked to Obadiah than Obadiah is to Amos. This occasion'd a certain Person to conclude absurdly that all the Books of the Old Testament were the Collections of one and the same Man connected together after that manner VII To this may be added their everlasting way of forming their Narrations by Preterperfect or Future Tenses joyn'd together by the Conjunction Vau which gave us no small trouble 'T is very certain that no Emphasis is design'd by it and that it may best be express'd by Latin Participles or other Particles with which the Latins use to joyn the parts of their Sentences together as all Interpreters have done although some of them have used this Liberty more sparingly than others However 't is an eternal Drudgery in a strict Translation frequently to change the structure of the Phrase nor indeed can any thing excuse our so doing but mere Necessity Therefore in the first Chapter of Genesis we were often forced to omit the Conjunction and exchange it for the Latin Particles verò autem deinde tum enim postea dein quoque etiam at que and such-like At other times we used Participles as the Reader will discover in abundance of places if he comparts our Translation with the Hebrew For instance the two and thirtieth Chapter is thus joyn'd together 1. AND Jacob went AND they met him 2. AND Jacob said AND he called the name of the place 3. AND Jacob sent 4. AND he commanded them 6 AND the Messengers returned 7. AND he was afraid AND was in distress AND he divided 8. AND he said c. Which would be insupportable in Latin There are several Versions of the
of this Opinion and St. Austin de Civ Dei lib. 16. cap. 5. Lastly Some Christians believe that the Hypostasis of the Son and the Holy Ghost are here spoken to by the Hypostasis of the Father 'T is indeed certain that several Christians even immediately after the times of the Apostles imagined that in that famous passage of Genesis Let us make Man God the Father spoke to the Son Thus Barnabas in the fourth Chapter of his Epistle according to the Paris Edition but in the fifth of that of Oxford Our Lord says he vouchsafed to suffer for our Salvation though he is Lord of the Universe to whom his Father said before the Creation of the World Let us make Man Hug. Menard upon this place of Barnabas has proved that some of the later Fathers after him as Justin Irenaeus Theophilus and several more were of the same opinion But after all several Men of the greatest Reputation in the Learned World think that neither of these two Passages are to be urged too positively against the Jews as if they amounted to the force of a Demonstration V. The Hebrew Root balal which we have Englished to confound properly signifies to mingle things of a different nature but what it means in this place is not agreed among the Annotators Some are of opinion that God utterly extirpated the Memory of the Primitive Language out of the Minds of Men and sent a new one to each Clan or Family Others maintain that this happen'd neither to Heber nor any of his Progeny who still kept up the use of the Primitive Language viz. the Hebrew And lastly others pretend that only the Memories of Men were disturbed so that they fell upon new Dialects of the first Tongue but invented no new ones wholly different from the first and these support their Hypothesis by the Signification of the word Balal which signifies to mingle and not to create However most of them are agreed that it happen'd in an instant by a Divine Miracle For my part I see no reason why we should believe this Confusion was wrought in a moment Though this History indeed is related in the compass of a few lines and the event that followed upon God's Determination is immediately subjoined yet no rational Man will from thence conclude that it was all transacted on the sudden Don't we find that Moses delivers the Original of Mankind in a short Compendium and that the Occurrences of several Ages are related in a few lines And therefore 't is more credible that a Spirit of Discord was sent among Men upon which they abandon'd this foolish Undertaking and dispersing into the neighbouring Countries and removing their Habitations from one place to another as they happen'd to be straitned for want of room till in process of time living at a great distance from one another and maintaining little or no Correspondence their Languages came to be changed Now because these Passages are related by the sacred Historian in a compendious Narration the Interpreters erroneously believed that they were done in as short a time as the Verses in which they are set down may be read As we have already shown that those Persons may be said to speak one Tongue who live amicably and like Friends together so the Jews say of those that are at variance that their Tongues are not only confused but divided Thus David in the 55th Psalm v. 10. when his Enemies concerted together how to destroy him Lord says he divide their Tongues that is make Discord and Dissention arise among them that they may no longer unanimously agree to act against me and contrive my Destruction VI. As we have already observed these Persons who attempted to build a Metropolis for all Mankind may rather be charged with Imprudence or Folly than any Impiety Let us now see whether we may be able to conjecture for what reason God disliked and frustrated their Undertaking 1. Two celebrated Rabbis Aben Ezra and Levi ben Gersom who deny that the Builders of Babel were guilty of any Sin because they design'd nothing more by this Project than to perpetuate the Society of Mankind and hinder them from dispersing are of Opinion that therefore God was pleased to frustrate their Attempt least if they all lived within the limits of one Country all Mankind might at once be destroy'd by an Earthquake Conflagration Hail Deluge or any Accidents of the like nature 2. Since Empires are at first possess'd by those that are not the best of Men but such as either by Fraud or Strength aspire to a Soveraignty above their Fellows all Mankind wou'd have been subject to the Arbitrary Will of one Tyrant as Nimrod is not long after said to have been which might have proved the occasion of innumerable Calamities For when there are several Republicks or different Kingdoms if the Inhabitants of one place happen to be oppress'd by Tyrannic Power those that are able to endure the Yoke no longer may fly into other Countries which if there was only one Governour of the Universe they could never do because they cou'd not go to desolate uninhabited places without apparent danger Therefore all Men would be obnoxious to the Cruelty of one wicked Tyrant if there was no more than one Monarchy in the World 3. If the profligate Lives and Immoralities of the supream Governors are copied by the common People as we find it true by a thousand Examples then the Vices of ill Princes had in a short time been the Vices of all Mankind On the other side when several Kingdoms are on foot at the same time if the Infection of Vice prevails in one place Vertue and Good Manners flourish in another If the truth of this Assertion wanted to be confirmed from Citations drawn out of History we cou'd easily convince the Reader that both under the Persian Empire which possessed a great part of Asia and under the Macedonian which succeeded it and lastly under the Roman Monarchy when it was in its greatest extent there was more Wickedness of all sorts committed and the Manners of Men were generally more debauched and irregular than when these conquer'd Countries set up several Republicks and Kingdoms of their own 4. Josephus Ant. lib. 1. cap. 4. who thinks that God would have them dispersed into several Colonies for the greater Increase and Propagation of Mankind immediately adds this Reason which is not to be despised least they should quarrel among themselves while every one would pretend to make himself Master of the nearest and most fertile Lands but that cultivating a greater space they might enjoy a proportionable Increase of the Fruits of the Earth Therefore to close this Dissertation for these Reasons or some others of the like nature it was by no means expedient that Mankind should live together in one Society and Government Dissertation VII Concerning Circumcision I. The Question debated whether the Jews borrowed this Ceremony from the Aegyptians or they from the Jews