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
though St Jerom sometimes gives a reason of those Notes somewhat different Origen had added also other marks to this Work in the fashion of a small Label concerning the use of which the Criticks of our Age do not agree and which has been hitherto revealed but by a few we are to understand that Greek Edition of the Septuagint with all those illustrating and killing Notes in the Hexaples of Origen was found together with the Translations of Aquila Symmachus and the other Interpreters as the words of Rufâ—inus seem to prove Oâ—igen's Intention was to shew us what manner of Reading the Scriptures was observed among the Jews and wrote the several Editions of them every one in his proper Columes and whatever was added or taken away in any of them he noted with certain marks at the beginning of the Verses and in that which was another mans and not his own work be affixed his own marks only that we might understand what was wanting or superfluous not in respect of our selves but of the Jews that disputed against us Moreover the same Origen illustrated that vast work of his Hexaples with Scholiasts of several sorts which he placed in the Margent of the Book that he might give some Light to that Edition of the Septuagint which appeared in the midst between all the rest For first you might easily apprehend what was the distinction between the Antient or Vulgar Edition of the 70 and his own new Edition by the benefit of this Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which stands for 70 in Greek that Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoting the common Lection Then in the same Scholiasts the Interpretations of Aquila Symmachus and Theodosion were every one demonstrated by their proper Letter A' denoted Aquila Σ ' Symmachus and Θ Theodotion The fifth Edition was marked with E ' and the sixth with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He also set Notes in the Margent of his Book for the verbatim exposition of the words of sacred Scripture which are Printed in his works under the Title of Scholiasts And more then this if we will believe Vossius it is not improbable but that Origen marked in his Hexaples the various reading of the Samaritan Codex If any one will rather choose to believe that Origen did not insert the Samaritan Exemplar into his Hexaples and Tetraples but only marked the various Readings I will not much dispute the Business Thus Vossius fickle in his Judgment sometimes avers sometimes denies and whereas before he had so confidently asserted that the Exemplar of the Samaritan Pentateuch was extant in the Hexaples written in the Samaritan Characters now in a doubt he dares not be positive in a thing wherein he has so little of certainty to make out But as it is no way probable that the Samaritan Exemplar which was the same with the Judaick was extant in the Hexaples so it is very likely that Origen might transfer into his Scholiast the different reading of the Samaritan from the Judaic which he did not take out of the Samaritan Exemplar written in those Original Hebrew Letters but from the Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch corrected by the Samaritans themselves This is the Oeconomie and Disposition of the Hexaples of Origen which Persons the most learned could not comprehend while they do not mind that the Greek Interpretations of Aquila Symmachus and Theodosion were twice set down in one and the same work that is entire in the work it self and part in the Scholiasts in the Margent but Origen who was desirous to be beneficial to all Persons reduced into a Compendium that vast Pile of the Hexaples by the help of Notes and Scholiasts to the end that they who could not buy the Hexaples entire might Transcribe at least the substance of the Text out of the Hexaples themselves and by the same art he published the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common Edition of the Septuagint together with the new Edition which because he thought more corrected he inserted whole into his Hexaples adding in the Margent of the common and the various Sections under the mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore some are grosly mistaken who not understanding this disposition of the Hexaples undertake to maintain that there is in them a double Edition of the 70 Interpreters as well the vulgar as that corrected and pure one of which Origen and St. Jerom so often make mention placed in two distinct Pages and for that reason that the Hexaples did not derive their name from the distinct Columns but the several Versions but these things are apparently untrue and proceed only from the Ignorance of the order of the Hexaples to the Margent of which the ancient reading of the 70 was transferred and thus both Editions of the Septuagint appeared in the Hexaples now because few could purchase those vast volums that had emptied St. Jerom's Pocket most persons transcribed that interlin'd Edition mark'd by Origen with Asterisks and Daggers and other notes of Distinction from whence arose the greatest confusion in the World in the Greek Exemplars and from that time the ancient Interpretation of the 70 was no longer read in the Churches but the interlin'd one of Origen which or another like to it was afterwards transmitted to the Eastern Church by the Care of St. Jerome CHAP. XIX Of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church THe most contentions in disputes concerning the Bible which have disturbed the Church for these many years have been hammered in the Shops of certain Criticks and Gramarians who being bred in the Schools there is nothing which they do not call to the bar of Controversie presuming to prefer their own wit before the Authority of the Church and as if their Critick Art could by no means brook the Ecclesiastical decrees they presently oppose them with all their might and main but questionless without a cause for that the Church does by no means disallow of such Critical Observations as are every day made upon the Scripture by Persons conspicuous for their Poetry and Learning nor if any one more strictly enquire into the reason of the Biblick Context then another does she reject their Labours so they do not detract from the Ancient Editions And therefore it is lawful for the Protestant Divines in imitation of the Fathers to have recourse to the Hebrew Originals and to make new Translations from them so that they learn from the same Fathers That the Sacred Scripture is the proper possession of the Catholick Church and that they have the same sentiments concerning the Church and her Books which one of their own belief wrote in these words against those who neglect the ancient Versions and long allowed by the practise of the Church Let the Authority of our Mother the Church be preserv'd entire to it self let the Fathers enjoy the honour due to them to whose venerable gray Hairs if any one refuse to rise and contradict their decrees let them not be
Hebrew Tongue and one that had exercised himself very much in this kind of Study as it appears from the Latin Translation of the Old Testament which he adds to his Comment and likewise from his Hebrew Lexicon which he adapted to the ancient Translations which notwithstanding he departed from in his Translation relying too much upon his own parts and catching rather at words and shadows than the substances of things CHAP. XXIV Of the Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongues and first of all of thâ—se made by Catholicks AFter the rise of new Hereticks in the Western Church who casting aside Traditions would acknowledge no other rule and standard of Religion besides the Scriptures there were several warm disputes betwixt Divines of all perswasions about this very thing The more prudent and moderate Catholicks did not absolutely condemn the Translations of the Scriptures into the mother Tongue of every Nation because it was allowed of by the Fathers But they judged it requisite to stop the increase and progress of Heresie which sprung from some misinterpreted and perverted Texts of Scripture to forbid the promiscuous reading of them in the vulgar languages by reason of several inconveniences which attend it without a due regard to the Persons Times and some other circumstances Faith according to St. Paul comes by hearing and 't is certain far more have been converted to Christianity by hearing of the Gospel than by reading it At the first promulgation of the Christian Religion there were no Books of the Gospel from which Men might have learned the Principles of their Religion 't is very probable that if the Apostles had never write any thing about the Christian Faith yet our Religion by the help of Tradition had been transmitted unto us entire and perfect This is the general opinion of the Catholick Doctors who do not positively forbid these Translations if so be all persons in all times and places be not promiscuously permitted to read them for 't is their Maxim Non prosit potius quic quid abesse potest Now 't is easily prov'd that almost all Christians before the rise of the Protestant Innovators had the liberty to peruse the Scriptures in their native Tongues For what other reason should the Grecians prefer the Septuagint to the Original Hebrew but that the Greek was their Mother Tongue Likewise the People of Italy had the Bible Translated into Latin because they naturally spoke it and for the same reason the Eastern People had their Syriack Coptick Arabick and Armenian Translations which for brevity I shall omit 'T is true that some Translations are now read among these People which they do not understand as the Latin is at this day among the Italians but this is no convincing argument that these Translations were never in the Languages familiarly known and understood by the common People Now I pass to the Translations of the Bible into the modern Tongues Jacobus de Varagine is highly esteemed among the Italians for his Translation of the Scriptures into their Tongue But now there are some other Italian Translations much in vogue which carry the names of Nicholas Malermius Abbot of the Monastry of St. Michael de Lern and Anton. Bucciolus and in some Editions there is a Preface in which the Author discourses at large of the Translations of the Scriptures into the vulgar Languages but there is this difference betwixt Brucciolius and some other Interpreters He turn'd the Bible immediately out of the Original whereas they only translated it from the Latin Interpretation which was usually read in the Western Churches There are several Editions of this immediate Translation from the Hebrew the first of which the Author dedicates to Francis the First King of France in the Year 1530. afterwards there came forth three other Editions in the Years 1539 40 and 41 but the Edition in the Year 1540 is accounted the best because there are several very useful Marginal Notes in it together with an Epistle of Antonius Brucciolius to Renata the Wife of Francis Duke of Ferrara in the defence and commendation of the Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongues yet this Italian Interpreter seems to be too weak for the management of so noble and weighty a design seeing he sticks not closely enough to the Hebrew Text but follows other Translations especially that of Pagnin whose very errors he has copied out adding some more of his own in some places which he did not understand For in the 8 Chap. of Nehemiah where Pagnin perverts the Original by rending it In lege Dei expositi he translates it Nulla lege d'Iddio dichiarata differing as much from Pagnin as the Hebrew Text For because he searched not into the Hebrew Copies he did not take notice that the word which fignifies Lex is of the Feminine Gender and that the Participle passive which he render'd by Dichiarata was of the Masculine Gender and so while he pretends without consulting the words of the Context to correct Pagnin whom he did not well understand he falls into a downright error I shall forbear to say any thing of the Translation of Jacobus de Voraign because I never saw it Passevinus who had a Copy of it gives no very great Character of it but others highly commend it But I think I may confidently affirm that very few of those Translations which are taken out of Latin Editions can be accurate and correct seeing it happens very often that the Latin Interpreter cannot be understood without some knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue hence it is that Jacobus de Voraigne Mattermus and others who turn the holy Scriptures out of Latin into another Tongue are often guilty of gross mistakes There were several Translations of the Bible into French long before Calvin was heard of Gall. Vers For before the Catholick Religion was reform'd or rather deform'd by him a French Translation of the Scriptures was read in Geneva and the neighbouring Mountains which was compos'd in the year MCCXCIV by one Guiars des Moulins a Canon of Aria in Artois formerly under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Terovenne a Copy of that Translation is still kept in the publick Library at Geneva and another at Paris in the study of the Famous Henry Justelle and I am of opinion that this is the Translation which is mention'd by Robert Olivetanus Rob. Olivet Praes in Bibl. who sent the first Bible in French to Genevah Likewise there is another French Translation in some Libraries in France which is believ'd to have been done by Orosmes Canon of Rouen in the time of Charles the fifth and Car. Molinaus gives out that he had some loose Manuscript Peices of it Moreover 't is evident that the Divines of Lovaine were not the first as is commonly believ'd who Printed the French Translation of the holy Scriptures We have a Translation publish'd at Antwerp in the year 1530 by Martin L' Empereur with the Priviledge
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
the warlike noise of the Rams-horns in the Hellelian more contracted the Vau being left out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 C. 10. of the same the Hillelian Copy reads v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a Schurec In the same chapter for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Vowel Segol under He it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Camets under He. The rest are more trivial excepting one place of the Book of Joshuah C. 21. where in the Masoretick Copies two whole Verses are wanting which that venerable Exemplar written for the use of Nassi or the Prince has supply'd again But in the Margin of the said Copy these words are to be read as being added by him who corrected that Exemplar in many places according to the Masoretick Lo Matzinou Elau Hashenin Pasikim Be Hilleli We cannot find those two Verses in the Hillelian by which the Masoretick Lection is confirm'd though it seems to be faulty enough We have some reason to suspect Hillel to be a Spaniard by Nation and a famous Rector of some Academy who reformed the Masoretick Edition in sundry places according to the Antient Copies After his death his Copies as being more corrected than the Vulgar became to be high in esteem especially among his Country-men and as Antiquity swells Mole-hills into Mountains after Death Thus the Name of Hillel being become famous was soon made use of to gull the more ignorant afterwards also his Name seduc'd the more Learned Jews less wary than they ought to have been And why I should thus think the very nature of the Hillelian Codex which varies in very few things and those very slight from the Masoretick which at that time was approv'd by the publick Practice and Authority of all Schools which seems to be confirm'd from hence for that then several of the Rabbies especially in Spain even after that tedious Labour which the Masorites undertook scrupled not to write down in their own Books the Variations of Scripture taken out of Antient Copies And hither ought we to refer the Animadversions of R. R. Judas Jonas Kimchi and others who have oft recourse to the Sepharim Midvikim or corrected Copies and hither also belongs that note frequent in the Margin most especially of the Spanish Manuscripts B' Sepher Achar in the other Copy But that Hillel was a Spaniard is not only to be proved from hence that his Biblick Copy was found in Spain and first extoll'd by the Spanish Jews but because I find several of the Spanish Lections quoted in the Spanish Exemplars quite otherwise than in the German and others In like manner we may affirm that the Exemplars of the Bibles which the Jews extol under the names of Ben Ascer and Ben Narthali were written out by such persons who being Presidents of Publick Academys made it their business to reform Erroneous Copies But in what time they liv'd is a thing not well known to the Jews themselves very little curious of their own Chronology However common fame reports them to have liv'd about the year 1034. long after the Tyberian Masorites R. Moses Tephil c. 8. And this was the Opinion of R. Gedalia R. David Gans and several others among the Christians It cannot be unknown what R. Moses has written concerning Ben Ascer's Manuscript which as he asserts was very well known in Egypt by which the Hierosolymitan Jews corrected their own Books That is the Examplar saith he which they all use because Ben Ascer corrected it labouring at it for many years and correcting it many times quite thorough For the Governours or Presidents of the Academies formerly according to the Custom of the Jews wrote out Copies which afterwards were made use of by the Provinces of which they were Chief Rulers and Princes especially if they were in any esteem for being Learned whence seems to have risen that variety of Readings which is found among the Manuscript Copies of several Provinces and distinct Ages Nor do the Rabbies themselves seem to deny it who believe that the Western Jews follow'd R. Ascer and the Oriental R. Naphtali in the Transcription of their Copies Now they call the Western Jews those that dwell in and about Jerusalem and the Eastern Jews those that live in and about Babylon The Hierosolymitan Codex saith Elias the Levite R. Elias Levita is that which Rabbi Jonas the Grammarian found by the Testimony of R. David Kimchi and perhaps may be that Exemplar which R. Ascer corrected who liv'd a long time at Jerusalem But the Lections about which the Rabbies themselves are at variance are very slight and trivial as they are in the Hillelian Nor will it be worth while to repeat them here in regard there is a Catalogue of them annexed to the large Venetian as also the Basil and English Bibles Let it suffice to observe that the Catalogue of the same Varieties in Manuscript which are fixed at the end of some Manuscript Bibles and to which they might have recourse do not exactly agree with those that are Printed at London Basil or Venice For some which in the Vulgar Editions claim Ben Ascer for their Author belong to those Catalogues which indeed owe their publication to R. Naphtali Such is that which is reckon'd the sixth in number and those which follow Those Manuscript Catalogues also add some and other Variations they omit besides those already Printed For where the Modern Lection makes use of the Accent Maccaph the more recent Manuscripts make use of the Point Dagesh or of some such thing Nor could there be any other way to knit together the series of those slight niceties because they are of little or no use For should we observe all the Variances of this kind which might be found in turning over those Manuscripts with an intention to embody them in one heap such a Collection would certainly swell into a large Volume For I must needs say they had leisure to spare who lookt after the Edition of the English Polyglottons who have not only publish'd those Lections every one in their order as they found them in the Basil and Venetian Editions but have also added the several places of Scripture of which there was hither never any Index before So that I wonder that men otherwise Learned should have no better thought than to employ themselves about such trifles But as to those differences of Readings which before the Times of the Tiberian Rabbies commaculated the holy Text and are of greater moment should be so sluggishly careless And which is worse having little knowledge of the Books of the Ancient Writers but only accustom'd to the Varieties in those Manuscripts of later date already mention'd yet they affirm a wonderful agreement of the Hebrew Copies among themselves Here might be added also those Varieties which are Ben Magnarabei ou Madnachei between the Eastern and Western Jews But in regard they are already publick and very few that are of moment that I may
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
the Jews as being taken out of the Old yet are not there to be found Such are the words Jerusalem Jerusalem who slewest the Prophets and stonedst them who were sent unto thee c. The same story is related of Zecharia slain between the Temple and the Altar which because they do not appear in Scripture he therefore suspects to have been taken out by the Rabbies Wherefore saith he there was nothing more which the Seers and Princes and Elders of the People more desir'd then to blot out those passages which contained their misdeeds among the People And therefore it is no wonder that they who were not much unlike those Elders in their practices should steal and remove out of the Scriptures the true Story of Susanna against whom the lascivious Elders laid their unjust Accusations Many other Examples might be heaped together out of Origens Works to prove the same thing which many Writers abuse to subvert the Hebrew Text not understanding Origens genius and his proper method of writing Which Eustathius was not ignorant of Eustath dissert de Engastr adv Origen Hieron Apol. adv Ruffin who reproves Origen for every where inserting Opinions contrary to his Writings And this Jerom long before had observ'd not only of Origen but of Eusebius Methodius and Appollinarius who sometimes speak not what they think but what is necessary That too much liberty of Origen was the reason that when he prattl'd without judgment whatever he had drawn out of other Authors he was looked upon as a Heretick for delivering the Opinions of others as his own thoughts These things are therefore diligently to be observed if you would reconcile Origen to Origen never to obtrude for Origens what he wrote only upon probability proper for the Times and the Persons to whom he applied himself Otherwise Origen unconstant to himself will be thought to speak alway contrary to himself as by the example of the present controversie concerning the purity of the Hebrew Text it is no difficult thing to make out For the same Origen who never speaks well of the Jews as corrupters of the Sacred Scripture is cited by Jerom for a most eager defender of the Hebrew truth But if any one shall say saith Jerom that the Hebrew Bibles were afterwards falsified by the Jews Comment in c. 6. Isai let him hear what Origen in his eight volume of Explanations of Isaiah answers to this Question that the Lord Christ and his Apostles who severely reprove the Scribes and Pharisees for the rest of their sins never made the least mention of this which was the greatest But if they shall say that the Bibles were falsified after the coming of our Lord Saviour and the preaching of the Apostles I cannot but laugh that our Saviour the Evangelists and the Apostles should produce Testimonies how the Jews would afterwards falsify Here Origen does not play fast and loose but freely and plainly delivers his opinion what he thinks of the Jews But why the same Origen sometimes affirms the Contrary the same St. Jerom who well understood his humour teaches us in these words Prooem Quest Heb. in Genes I pass by Adamantius whose name if we may compare little with great things is the more envyed for my sake who in his homilies which he speaks to the people following the Common Edition in his larger Disputation surrounded with Hebraick verity troops of his own followers sometimes seeks the aid of a forraign Language Thus Origen proceeded one way with the learned and made use of another method with the common sort and as they say wise with a few what he had gathered from many made those things publick Agreeable to this are those things which Origen writes against Celsus For after he had produced some things concerning the Circumcision of Eleazar the Son of Moses according to the Edition published at that time he presently adds the Text it self with this note But these things which seem more nice L. 5. adâ— Cels and not fit for vulgar ears c. That is when Origen had observed many things concerning the power of names in various Languages according to the principle of the Magi Cabbalists had noted something superstitiously concerning the circumcision upon the eighth day the words of Scripture being cited both Greek and Hebrew as it were correcting himself he omits many things which he thought too far remote from the knowledge of the vulgar acting the part of a Doctor whose business it was to teach the multitude according to the principles of Christian Religion not of Judaism Were these and other things which in prudence I omit but rightly observed in reference to Origens Genius and manner of writing it might be easily discerned how he came to be induced to tax the Jews of falsifying Scripture For in his Homilies to the people he was bound to act the part of a vulgar person and so in his epistle which he wrote to Africanus he followed the opinion of the Ancient Fathers concerning the Hebrew and Greek Copies not daring to depart from it lest he might seem to joyn with the Jews as by the words in the same Epistle he plainly intimates Take care therefore lest through imprudence and ignorance we abrogate those exemplars which are received in the Churches and give an ill example to the Fraternity to lay aside those sacred books which are frequent among them and give credit to the Hebrew Copies as those wherein there is nothing of mistake Then he calls to mind what a dammage it would be to Christianity to favour the Opinion of the Jews concerning the Translation of the Septuagint Upon which occasion he farther adds Consider whether it be not good to remember what is written Thou shalt not remove the Eternal bounds which thy Ancestors have appointed These things I say not that I fear to search the Jewish Scriptures and to compare theirs with ours and to see where they differ for if it be not arrogancy to say so much we have done to the utmost of our power to exercise our studies in all Editions and their differences at what time we more sedulously examined the Interpretation of the Septuagint lest we might seem to have introduc'd any thing of false and Adulterate into the Churches under Heaven and should give an occasion to those who seek a pretence to calumniate those which are in the middle between both and to accuse those which are commonly used By which it is manifest that Origen did not entirely approve the Opinion then vulgarly received concerning the Jewish Copies but only for Government and convenience sake in regard that among the Learned he taught the quite contrary nor does he seem much to value the Reasons which he produces in his Epistle For he adds a conjectural expression as it were doubting Which perhaps saith he was done by craft on set purpose by the Jews To all which we may add that the probations of these things which he
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
be Heretical and unworthy of converse or the communication of the same Letters and therefore after the Captivity he apply'd himself to the Invention of new Characters And a little after he adds When I disclos'd these Conjectures of mine to the Jews they said they were most true confirm'd in writing by most of their own Rabbies However it seems far more probable that the Jews being restor'd to their Country preserv'd the Chaldee Letters to which they had been accustom'd in their Exilement having now forgotten the former Then the same Postellus makes mention of the Silver Coins which seem to be of great Antiquity and of which he had seen not a few among the Jews who valu'd them so highly that he could not purchase one under two Crowns in Gold which they said was as antient as Solomon 's Reign and but of a base Metal Lastly he adds these words which do not a little illustrate the present Argument They affirm that among the deepest Ruines and vastest heaps of Rubbish these Coins are frequently digg'd out and are a most certain proof of Antiquity as having this Inscription Holy Jerusalem into which from Solomon's time the Samaritans never entred nor vouchsafed the City the name of Holy as they ador'd without Jerusalem and worship'd Idols half Gentiles half Jews so that it is not probable they would have celebrated a City which was in Enmity with them Concerning the Samaritan Shekles much more may be read in Villalpandus Morinus and others Villalpand Appar in Ezech. Morin in exercitat in Pentat Samar Altand in Epist ad Morin Buxtorf Dissert de Lit. Heb. Light Hor. Heb. ad c. 5. Matt. Sâ—ick in Jure Reg. Heb. sub â—iâ— Perescius had several Samaritan Coins and Jerom Aleander saith that he met with several at Rome But notwithstanding all that has been said John Buxtorf a most obstinate Asserter of the Jewish Context defends the perpetuity of the Hebrew Letters by many Authorities taken out of the Rabbies Books Lightfoot agrees with Buxtorf tho he acknowledges the Talmudick Doctors to be his opposers Shickard produces many things of the same nature Hebrew Professor in the Academy of Tubinghen together with some other Hebricians But Walton deserts this Opinion which he found to proceed rather from Rabbinical discourse than from sound Theology For which reason that famous person is but hardly thought of among some of the Rabbinists especially Matthias Vasmut of Rastoch who after many severe expressions against him Walton says he quoting the Pontificial Authors against the Divine Authority of Scripture ought not to be endur'd in a Reform'd Church But for the same reason neither ought Drusius Scaliger Casaubon Vossius Amama Bochart and several others to be sufferâ—d among those that assume the Title of Reformed seeing they have all the same Opinion with Cappellus and Walton concerning the Samaritan Letters Moreover Buxtorf seems to have condescended to this Opinion concerning the Diuturnity of the Hebrew Letters not willingly but by constraint that he might refute Cappellus's Book entitled Arcani punctationis Revelati and there he proves the Novelty of the Samaritan from the Antiquity of the Hebrew Characters Buxtorf drew many into his Opinion But they are in the number of those whom Vossius calls Asses clad in Professors Gowns who having little either of Art or Ingenuity meerly instructed by the Writings of single Buxtorf make a great noise with those Rabbies whose Books they never so much as open'd But there is no reason for the Criticks to dispute so fiercely about the first Hebrew Characters For if you more heedfully consider and compare together the Samaritan and Hebrew Characters there is not such a vast difference between them but that they may be thought to have had one and the same Original From whence also the Greek and Latine Capital Letters seem to have deriv'd their first forms Tho being subservient to Custom they have undergone several Alterations according to times and places And thus the Eastern Jews form their Characters after another manner than the Western Postâ—l in â—lphab 12 Ling. R. Azar Inre Bin. c. 56. Blanc in Gâ—am Villalâ— Appar â—n Ezech. Kircher Oâ— dip Egypt par 2. Morin Exâ—â—citat in Pâ—ntat Sam Hortin Exâ—â—citat in Morin Then the Western as the Italian French Spanish Germans c. differ one among another and from all these the Moors or Barbary Jews Nor is there less difference between the Forms of the Samaritan Characters which have lately been Printed in Europe as any one may see who diligently observes the varieties of Letters in the Samaritan Alphabets which have been put forth by Postellus R. Azarias Blancuccius Villâ—lpandus Kircher Morinus Hortinger and others Those Letters which are Printed in the Parisian and English Bibles were transcrib'd from one Copy Which things being granted it is not at all to be wonder'd at that the Letter Tau which Jerom notes to have formerly resembl'd the form of a Cross should now not bear the same figure in the Vulgar Alphabets of the Samaritans because in process of time the Letter was alter'd But Rabbi Azarias sets down in his Alphabet two sorts of this Letter Tau one of which resembles the form of a Cross Jerom Aleander likewise writing to Morinus concerning the Shekels of that Nation which he had seen in Rome has these expressions upon one piece of money You shall see upon both sides of the Coin the Letter Tau in the form of a Cross which being formerly written thus X degenerated at length into this Form Ae. To the same effect Perescius wrote to Morinus Therefore when one and the same Character at the same time in divers places admits of various forms what wonder is it that this Letter the most antient of all after so many Ages especially among several and different Nations should vary from his first figure Who so ignorant as not to know that the Roman Letters after the Goths invading Italy lost their Original and Antient Form neither were they the same with those Letters which were the true Antient Letters and were call'd Lombardick But of this sufficient has been said Now let us come to the Samaritan Targumim or Paraphrases The Scripture first wrote in the common Language of the Country Because according to the Admonition of St. Paul All things that are written are written for our instruction in Antient time both the Old and New Testament were never written in any other than the Mother Tongue to the end the Scriptures might be read by the Vulgar People And yet in our Age there is a certain Parisian Divine who has ventur'd to affirm that the Books of Moses Law seem to be compos'd in a Language which was not then familiar with the People Dr. Mallet and what is hardly to be credited that most Learned Doctor has feigned a hundred monstrous Stories of the Hebrew Language of its Characters and Grammar of which Moses was the first Author But the Paraphrases of
Language of which Perescius testifies himself to have one in his Epistle to Morinus Pestellus also makes mention of their Grammar Which Writings were they Printed would give great Light into the Samaritan Language and how the Samaritans pronounce the Hebrew and what signification they give to some more difficult words CHAP. XII Of the Bibles of the Sadduces and Karraeans Of the Bibles of the Sadduces CErtain it is that the Sect of the Sadduces in the time of Christ's being upon Earth was the most noble Sect and one which had the chief management of the Publick Affairs among the Jews But after the Destruction of Jerusalem and that the Jews were scattered into several parts of the World that famous Sect became so entirely extinct that there is not the least footstep of it There only remain'd the Sect of the Pharisees whose Room the Rabbanists and Talmudists vulgarly so call'd in after-times usurped For they are the same with the Pharisees whose Traditions the Jews so greedily swallow'd and ador'd as if proceeding from the mouth of God Therefore the Scriptures of the Old Testament came to the Christians from the Pharisees and not from the Sadduces Vossius de Septuagint Interpret c. 17. But in this Isaac Vossius and several others seem to have been deceiv'd St. Jerom himself being their guide and directer while they affirm that the Sadduces in imitation of the Samaritans translated no more than the five Books of Moses For what reason was there why the Sadduces who were but a late Sect among the Jews after the Volumes of the Prophets were confirm'd by the publick practice of Reading should only believe in Moses Therefore there is no question to be made but the Sadduces receiv'd all the Books of Sacred Text or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that was written rejecting only the Traditions of the Pharisees which seem'd to them to be only the Figments of idle persons More notoriously do they mistake who believe the Carraeans to have followed the Samaritans in this particular And which seems almost incredible Isaac Vossius otherwise a Learned Person places the Carraeans among the Ebionites Nazareans and other Sects of the Jews who retaining the Ceremonies of the Mosaick Law believ'd the Gospel Therefore it behoves us to relate in short what the Sect of the Carraeans was and what was their Opinion concerning the Sacred Scriptures The word Karrai from whence the Carraeans derive their name signifies a man exercis'd in the Reading of Scripture But that name which was formerly reverenc'd became to be hated by reason of the Sect of the Carraeans that first began to spread it self toward the beginning of the 10th Century They like the Rabbanists allow of twenty four Books of Scripture with the Tittl'd Vowels and other Masoretick Marks In expounding the Sacred Scriptures they follow the Masoretick Lection every where esteeming it no less than Aben Ezra Kimchi or any other of the Jewish Grammarians and in imitation of them are great searchers after Grammatick Quirks Therefore was Buxtorf horribly mistaken where he writes We have read of the Carraeans who rejecting all the Traditions only adhere to the Text that they not only differ extreamly one with another De pâ—nctor Antiquitat as to the understanding and Exposition of things but also in the Reading of Scripture as refusing points which they look upon as a piece of Oral Law or Tradition Buxtorf had had a quite contrary Opinion concerning the Carraeans if he had lighted upon those Books which he seems not to have been furnish'd withal For they do not altogether reject the Talmud and Traditions of the Jews but they presume not to compare them with the Sacred Scriptures as the Rabbanists And therefore laying those aside they endeavour after the manner of the Criticks who are free from all prejudice to draw forth that which seems to them to be the truest sense of Scripture by comparing one place with another taking little notice of the Talmudick Expositions which many times make large Excursions far from the matter And therefore if the Jewish Rabbanists speak ill at any time of the Carraeans as Corrupters of the Biblick Context it proceeds out of meer Envy and Malice not from heat of Dispute All which things may be more perspicuously seen in the Books of the Carraeans themselves Aaron the Son of Joseph of the Sect of the Carraeans who wrote the Commentaries upon the Law An. 1294. at the beginning of his Book deplores the lamentable state of the Jews and their being scattered into all parts of the World asserting that Vision and Prophecy was taken from them and that they had almost forgotten the Hebrew Language But saith he several Doctors appear'd among the Israelites who searched out the Scripture which contains the 24 Books in use among us Therefore the Carraeans do not agree with the Samaritans upon this point but with the Rabbanists allow the whole Scripture to be Canonical and Regular And they also frequently call it a Prophecy thereby to distinguish it from those other Traditions which the rest of the Jews are not afraid to obtrude upon us In the same place he rebukes the Cabbalick Doctors who many times propound for Scripture the Figments and Fables of their own Brains and to use his own expressions depend upon the Cabbala and tattle idle stories and boast their Cabbala or Tradition to be above the Scripture However the Carraeans do not reject all manner of Tradition but they separate the ridiculous and uncertain from that which has some appearance of Truth as the same Carraean openly testifies in these words Nor let any one object to us that we are Enemies to the Writing Reason and Doctrine deliver'd to us by our Ancestors For this Tradition which we make use of was not lost and is comprehended in true Scripture not seated in variety concerning which the Israelites in all things agree This is that Tradition which caus'd them to approve by their Authority the Masoretick Scripture receiv'd by all the rest of the Jews with the Points and Accents which will be still more apparent from the above quoted Commentary of the Carraean It is a wonderful thing how studious this Carraean was of Modern Lection and Grammar when they appear useful to the Explication of Scripture Sometimes he appeals to the most celebrated Masters of the Jewish Rabbanists to confirm his Opinion by their Testimonies sometimes he refutes them especially the Cabbalistick and Allegorical Doctors But much oftener he has recourse to the Analogy of Grammar than to the Testimonies of others Thus at the beginning of his Exposition of Genesis he has these words Bereschith is of the same form as Scherith only that Aleph is not pronounc'd Now it is known that the word Reschith is a word that signifies time and that it denotes the time that precedes or that which is first of all as Exod. c. 23. The first of the Fruits of thy Land he adds in
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
condemns his Version and calls it Rabbinical But that most learned Father encountring those Reprovers that know how to find fault but could not mend practised the Critical Art and in his Writings sufficiently satisfy'd those persons that made such a noise against him Nor indeed was it so much to be wondâ—ed at that St. Jerom in some things more seriously considerative and furnish'd with a better stock of Oratory made no scruple to vary from the Ancients For Justice never defends manifest Errors I know indeed that in matters of Faith the Consent of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church carries something of Authority But he is neither generous nor religious who in matters that concern not Faith is afraid to depart from the Opinion of the Fathers and had rather believe other mens Writings then his own Eyes or Experience St. Austin of old thought far otherwise of himself who wishes that other men would judg of his Works I would have no man Aust de don Persev c. 21. saith he so devote himself to all my Writings so as to follow me unless in those things wherein he finds me not to Err. Therefore have we no reason in this particular to agree with Vossius who contrary to the Opinion of St. Jerom would have the 70. Interpreters to be inspir'd with the Holy Ghost and free from all manner of Error Nay as if he had been asham'd to have given those Interpreters the Names of Prophets as if it were correcting himself he affirms the word Prophet among the Antient Writers to signifie no more than Interpreter and those to be Prophets according to the Testimony of the Apostle who rightly interpret the Scriptures But why does Vossius here seek Subterfuges and retire to prophane Learning meerly to shew St. Jeroms Error where he writeth that a Prophet is one thing an Interpreter another as if he had contradicted the Apostle who in several Places uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Interpretari or to interpret But St. Jerom is in no Error in this particular who best knew the Force of that word when he observes a Greek Poet to have been call'd a Prophet by St. Paul Hierom. Commeat in Ezech. But in his answer to the Objections of the late Critica Sacra Vossius shews himself a faint Combatant ever and anon betaking himself to his lurking holes But what reason he had to produce the Opinions not only of the Apostles and Evangelists but of Philo Festus Plato and others Voss in resp ad Objâ—ct Crit. sacr p. 6. to make it out that not only they who foretold things to come were call'd Prophets but they who unfolded either past or present Predictions we cannot find though indeed there was in that matter no cause of difference between him and the Author of the Critica Sacrae While St. Jerom denys the 70. Interpreters to have been Prophets and asserts them to have been only Interpreters in that same place he thought a Prophet to be no other than a Person inspir'd with the Holy Ghost in which Sence all the Fathers had call'd those Greek Interpreters Prophets nor has Vossius made use of that word Prophet upon any other Accompt who has so confidently asserted their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Inspiration De sept interpret c. 25. I am not ignorant says he that I shall not only incur the reproof but the hatred of many for having such transcending thoughts of this Version so that I can hardly forbear to give it the Title of Divinely inspir'd And indeed I desire to know what reason can be imagin'd why I should not believe that which has been believed by all the Christians from the Aposties time excepting only some few too much favouring the Jews of later Ages Among which no question but he meant St. Jerom. Then he endeavours to prove more at large their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Inspiration opposing their Arguments who affirm they could not be inspir'd with the Holy Ghost or the Gift of Prophesy the Jews affirming That during all the time of the Second Temple the Gift of Prophesy and Inspiration ceas'd Which says he is altogether Rabinical and Fictitious But no less idle is that which he produces against St. Jerom in these words Seing there the words Prophets and Prophesie were used in so large a Sence even among the Hebrews Ibid. c. 26. they are not to be admitted who deny the 70. Interpreters to have been Prophets as being the Chief Priests of the Jewish People and not only Interpreters of things past but of things likewise to come As if it had been the business in question whether the Title of Prophets might be applicable to the Interpreters while the word Prophet signifies no more than an Interpreter when he had endeavoured to prove in so many words that they were Prophets who were inspir'd with a Holy and Prophetick Spirit In resp ad Critic sacr Nay he esteems them injurious to St. Jerom who abuse his Testimonies to overthrow the Authority of the Seventy Interpreters When he himself being now of riper Years was of opinion that their Errors are not to be imputed to the Interpreters themselves who Translated the Holy Scripture by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost but to the Scribes and Amanuenses But we have already made appear what was the Sentiment of St. Jerom concerning this present matter which Vossius understood not for now he was arrived at Years of more Maturity when he explained his Books by Commentaries And how often he there corrects not only the Scribes but the Interpreters themselves there is no man can be ignorant Tho I deem the History carry'd about under the Title of Aristaean to be an Illegitimate Birth yet I willingly acknowledg that the Interpretation which is attributed to the 70. Interpreters was made by the Jews of Alexandria in the Reign of Ptolemy Philodelphos and copyed out of the Hebrew Manuscript in Chaldee or Babylonic Characters in regard the Jews made no use of any other Letters for transcribing the Scripture but only those after their Return out of Captivity But as for the other Greek Version which Vossius believes to have been made by a Person learned neither in the Greek or Latin Tongue badly and negligently copyed from the same Hebrew Exemplar in Samaritan Letters it is a meer Fiction taken out of the Pseudo-Aristobulus who nevertheless speaks not one Tittle of the Letter wherein Vossius maintains the same Copy to have been written neither did any body besides Vossius ever dream of 'em so far is it remote from all probability of Truth They mistake indeed as Vossius well observes who believe that Version was deriv'd from any Chaldaic or Syriac Paraphrase there being no such thing extant at that time and it being as certain that Philo takes the Hebrew and the Chaldee Language promiscuously for the same However we may have some reason to conjecture be had some
regard to the Chaldee Language which was familiar to most of the Jews after their Return from Captivity There was at that time neither Chaldee or Syriac Paraphrase yet long before that the Rabbies as well in their Synagogues as Schools read the Scripture Text as often in the Chaldee as the Hebrew Language whence it might come to pass that several words in the Greek Translation were more adapted to the Idiom of the Chaldee or Syriac Tongue then the propriety of the Hebrew Speech The same Vossius invented another Fiction De Sybil orac asserting that until the Time when Aquila flourished there was no other Scripture read in the Synagogues of the Jews then the Version of the Septuagint in regard the Hebrew Language was so forgotten that the Rabbies themselves did not understand it But the 70 Interpreters as Vossius will have it Vossius's Errors flourished at what time the Hebrew Language was familiarly spoken But the Hebrew Language was no more a Familiar Speech in the time of the 70 Interpreters then it was when Aquila lived For that it was abolished after the Jews were carried Captive into Babilon and after their return it ceased to be any longer the Language of the Country How then could it be that it should only continue among the Rabbies who taught it publickly in the Synagogues and Schools or if it be true that till the Time of Aquila there was no other Scripture read in all the Synagogues of the Jews but the Greek Interpretation of the 70 Interpreters How came it to pass that Flavius Josephus expounded the Law of Moses in the Hebrew Language as Vossius affirms and moreover that the same Josephus the most learned of all the Hebrews of his Age set forth his History of the Jews in the Hebrew Language before he wrote it in Greek Yet if we may believe Vossius the Hebrew Language was then wholly lost If it were so why does he call it the Country Language of Josephus He 'l never agree with any who disagrees with Himself It is manifest also from the Writings of Josephus that the Jews of Palestine and the Territories adjacent spake the Hebrew Language which they learnt by practise without any Grammatical Rules which were not invented till after six Hundred as Vossius would have it but not till after nine Hundred Years and more In which sence as Vossius relates Josephus reports of himself that he excell'd in the learning of his Country all the rest of the Jews but that he learnt the Greek by Grammatical Instructions Now he calls his Country Learning the knowledge of the Hebrew Language the Law of Moses which the Hyerosolymitan Jews read in the Hebrew Language in their Synagogues Nevertheless if we believe Vossius who frequently contradicts himself Christ and his Apostles spake Greek in Judea Wherever saith he from the time of Alexander the Great the Grecians dilated their Conquests there also the Greek Language prevailed and a little after as in Egypt Asia and the rest of Syria so also in Judea there was no other Language spoken especially in great Towns and Cities Yes there was in Egypt besides the Greek the Coptick in Syria the Syriac in Judea the Judeac or Chaldee Syriac Vossius might have learnt from the Evangelists that the Language of the Jews who Inhabited Jerusalem which ought to be numbered among great Towns and Cities was the Chaldee or Syriac and that Christ did not speak to the Jews of that City in Greek but in Syriac Which Language the Jews who inhabited that Country afterwards retained tho corrupted as may be prov'd by the Example of the Talmud which is vulgarly called the Hierosolymitan and the Language also wherein that Book is written is called the Hierosolymitan But among the Babylonian Jews as at that time so a great while after the Chaldâ—e Language was most Familiar who have also their Talmud written in the same Language For the most Ancient Books of the Jews except some very few were not written in any other Language then the Impure Chalduic But there is no reason we should spend any longer time in refelling the Assertions of Vossius which have nothing in 'em of Probability Such as are those things which he delivers concerning the Jewish Traditions Voss de Sybill Orac. which he will have to be written in the Gâ—eek Language before Justinian's Raign and of the Book Misua which was translated about that time out of the Greek into the Hebrew because by an Edict of Justinians the Jews were prohibited to read the Book of Traditions in their Synagogues Therefore saith Vossius to elude that command of the Emperor the Book was Translated into Hebrew Risum teneatis Amici But if the Learned Gentleman had apply'd his mind to the Edict of Justinian The Hebrew Text read in the Synagogues of the Hellenists Justin Novel vel Constitut 146. he might have found that the Hebrew Text was read not only at Jerusalem but in the Synagogues of the Hellenists Which is apparently evident from the very words of the Justinian Law We are given to understand That some having only the knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue are desirous to make use of that in the Reading of the Scriptures that others will also take in the Greek Edition We therefore having considered these things believe them to do best who make use of the Greek Translation also in reading the Scriptures and every other Language purely which the place makes more convenient and fitter for the hearers This Law of Justinian supposes the Jews to be of two sorts of which some being wholly addicted to the Hebrew Language read the Scripture in their Synagogues in the Hebrew Language only others because they understood the Greek made use of the Greek Translation likewise By the Edict of Justinian they are permitted to read the Scripture not only in Greek but in any other Language whatsoever Therefore all the Hellenist Jews in obedience to the Law of Moses never read the Scriptures in their Synagogue in any other then in the Hebrew Language to which soon after their Domestic Native Language succeeded Nor is this any way contradicted by the Testimonies of the Antient Jews and Fathers from whom it is apparent that the Jews of Alexandria and all those other Jews to whom the Greek was familiar read the Greek Version of the 70. Interpreters in their Synagogues In like manner it appears that there were certain Synagogues in Jerusalem in which the Law of Moses and the Prophets were read in the Greek Language All these and many other Arguments that might be here collected together serve only to prove that the Reading of the Greek Interpretation was only added for exposition's sake to the reading of the Hebrew Text. As now in our days the Jews according to their ancient Custome every Sabbath day read both in Hebrew and Chaldee because that in the Ancient Synagogues there were both Readers and Expounders which Gift or
manner Vossius contrary to S. Jerome in his Judgment concerning the Language of the Septuagint which is certain notwithstanding the endeavours of a certain person to deduce the word from a Greek Original because he has the care of the business of the Land For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Land and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Solicitude or care Now how far the Greek Interpreters have deviated from the genuine sence of Scripture in the c. 24 ver 23 of the same Prophet where we read in the Latine Edition The Moon shall be ashamed and the Sun shall be confounded St. Jerom truly observes in these words Instead of that which we Interpret The Moon shall be ashamed and the Sun shall be confounded The 70. have Translated the words the Brick shall be melted and the Wall shall fall And by and by he discovers the reason of the mistake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because that instead of the Hebrew word Levana which signifies the Moon they read Lebena which signifies a Brick and instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chammah which signifies the Sun from his heat they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chomah which signifies a Wall But I stay too long upon these things in regard that St. Jeromes Commentaries upon Isaiah may be read by every body where he frequently taxes the Greek Interpreters of Mistakes sometimes deceived by the Ambiguity of words sometimes upon other accompts However sometimes he spares them as in the 30th Chapter where after he had condemned their inconstancy of Interpretation by and by as it were correcting himself he adds I am apt to believe they did not err from the beginning but that they were deprav'd by the negligence of the Transcribers And E. 40. where he notes some things omitted by the Interpreters he presently adds as it were in some doubt either omitted by the Septuagint I terpreters or by the fault of the Transcribers In like manner sometimes he corrects the Greek Exemplars according to the Hebrew Copies least the mistake should be put upon the Interpreters as upon these words Chap. 45. Thus saith the Lord to my Annointed Cyrus he truly observes that most of the Latines as well as the Greeks did very much mistake in believing the words to be written Thus saith the Lord to my Lord For the Text doth not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Lord but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Cyrus who in Hebrew is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Curosch The same things are to be seen in St. Jeromes Commentaries upon Jeremiah Ezekiel and other Prophets And indeed there is nothing more frequent in his Commentary upon Jeremiah then his observations of things omitted by the 70 or at least of passages not to be seen in the Greek Exemplars For sometimes he accuses the Interpreters sometimes the Transcribers In this Commentary also upon Ezekiel where he observes the Omission of the Creek Copies he presently adds In divine Scripture it is better to take all in that is said though thou understandest not wherefore it is said than to take away what thou dost not know Nevertheless in the 5th Chapter of the same Prophet he scarcely dares adventure to accuse the Interpreters where he says 't is much better to Translate what is written then to seek to defend a thing ill Translated Nor do we say this was done by those to whom Antiquities has given Authority but that after many Ages it was deprav'd through the negligence of the Readers and Writers though both Aristeas and Josephus and all the Schools of the Jews assert no more than only the five Books of Moses to have been translated by the 70 Interpreters Nor is it only in this place but in many other that St. Jerome seems to deny that any other part of Scripture was translated by the 70 unless the five Books of Moses as upon the 5th Chap. of Micah where he has these expressions The Interpretation of the 70 if were done by the 70 for Josephus writes and the Hebrews assert by Tradit on that only the five Books of the Law of Moses were Translated by them and dâ—livered to King Ptolomy vary's so far in the place cited from the Hebrew Truth that we can neither set the Chapters right nor expound their Sentences together But Vossius is of a quite contrary Opinion who not only seeks every where a Defence for a place ill translated to use the words of St. Jerome but openly testifies that he makes no question but that the Prophetical Books were also translated by the Seventy Interpreters though formerly he made a doubt of it And which seems to be above all belief if we may credit Vossius the Greek Interpreters shew themselves most accurate in the more obscure Books of Job and the Proverbs But I believe there is no person sikll'd in both Languages who will agree with him in this particular so trivial is the Greek Translation of those Books in many places St. Jerome sometimes taxes the Greek Interpreters without cause Yet am I not such a one as to pin my sleeve so passionately upon St. Jerome as every where to appove his Errors which are very many Thus not to go farther in the 27th Chapter of his Commentaries upon Ezekiel He taxes the Seventy Interpreters for putting down the Sons of the Rhodians instead of the Sons of Dedan deceived perhaps by the likeness of the first Letter whilst they read Radan for Dadan But that this mistake is rather to be attributed to the Transcribers then the Interpreters those Verses which follow in the same Chapter plainly demostrate where the Seventy write Dedan as in St. Jeromes Translation Again in the 33th Chapter of the same Prophet where mention is made of Gog he observes that the Greek Interpreters in the 24th of Numbers for Agag in the Hebrew have made use of the word Gog But it is a manifest mistake of the Transcriber But to omit a thousand thnigs of the same nature the Observation of St. Jerome is much better in his 40th Chapter of the same Commentaries almost all the Hebrew words and many in the Greek and Latine Translation were Corrupted by long Antiquity and deprav'd through the negligence of the Transcribers and while they are Transcribed out of bad Copies into Copies more corrected of Hebrew words they are made Sarmatic nay of no Nation at all while they cease to be Hebrew and become Forraigne Therefore are those things most carefully to be distinguished and according to the Rules of Criticism which St. Jerome taxes as ill translated by the 70. For as he has rightly display'd the most of their Errors Praef. in l. 7. Com. in Ezech. So he corrects many things which deserve not to be found fault with Nor is it to be wondred at when St. Jerome himself testifies that he could hardly compleat his Emendations in regard there was not an hour scarcely a Moment wherein he did not meet with
whole troops of the Brethren and for that being then old besides the difficulty of dictating he was not able to look over the Hebrew Volums by reason of the smalness of the Print In like manner he observes Com. in E 42. that he could not rightly translate something while he had not time to consider for hast of dictating Therefore neither St. Jerome nor the Seventy Interpreters being Prophets they must of necessity slip many things because they were but Men. CHAP. XVIII 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 THere was no Person before St. Jeromes time who durst adventure to frame a New Translation of the Sacred Scripture from the Hebrew Original in regard the Greek Translation of the Septuagint was looked upon over all the Christian World as Divine and proceeding from men inspir'd with a Prophetic Spirit And therefore it was thought more proper to recount the rest of the Greek Versions rather among the Jewish then among the Christians as being such as were finished by the Jews or half Jews in hatred of the Christian Religion But when Origen inserted them all in his Hexaples together with the Version of the Seventy Elders And that the ancient Fathers of the Church consulted them in Expounding the Scriptures and that nothing more frequently occurs then the names of those Authors in the Writings of St. Jerome we thought it convenient to bring them in next after the Interpretation of the Seventy Elders ◠Aquila's Greek Translation First therefore we will take notice of Aquila whose Greek Version we shall refer to the Reign of Adrian the Emperour He having forsaken the Christian Religion which he professed before revolted to the Jews and at the same time undertook a new Version of the Biblic Context in opposition to the Greek which at that time was universally received in the Church And because he found the 70 Elders to be rather Paraphrasters than Interpreters he began a new Translation which should render the Hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or following the signification of every word at the Heels from whence he got the Name of the Contentious Interpreter and his depraved affectation which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was condemned Although St Jerom according to his custom seems to have a better opinion of him for sometimes he praises him as a Learned and Diligent Interpreter Thus writing to Damasus Aquila saith he Epist 125. who is not Contentious as he is reported to be but interprets diligently word for word Nevertheless in another place he calls him a contentious and silly Interpreter that is to say having relation to things and places he gives a different Judgment of one and the same Interpreter and taxes him as a half Christian calling him withal Jew and Blasphemer In like manner Epiphanius who detracts from Aquila as a person that frequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or speaks Barbarisms yet calls to his assistance against the Arrians his Version forsaking that of the 70 Interpreters How highly he was esteemed by the Jews Origen tells us in these words So saith he Epist ad Afric did Aquila subservient to the Hebrew Phrase make his Translation who among the Jews is thought to have rendred the Scripture with greater applause whom they chiefly make use of who are ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue as beleiving him to have attained to the perfection of it However the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or depraved Affectation of that Interpreter can hardly be excused who while he keeps over close to the words of his Text clouds the sence and meaning of it Wherefore he himself not contented with his own Translation undertook another wherein following the same method of Interpretation he was the cause himself that those Versions had no other approvers then the Jews Nor do Justin and some others of the Fathers seem to have recourse to them but only to inforce their Arguments more home upon the Jews The Greek Translation of Symmachus Who was the next that after Aquila translated the Scripture out of Hebrew into the Greek is not certainly known For some attribute that Version to Symmachus others to Theodosion Symachus the first of the Samaritan Sect afterwards turned Nazarite Christian or Ebonite He is vulgarly reported to have compiled his Version in hatred of his own Nation the Samaritans whose Religion he had forsaken and that in the Raign of Severus the Emperor He finding Aquila's Interpretation to be contemn'd by most especially the Christians because he interpreted word for word applied himself as St. Jerom testifies rather to render the sence then the words Symmachus saith he uses to follow not only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of words but the order of Sence After that by the report of the same St. Jerome he undertook another Translation as if the former had not been sufficiently accurate to his mind The third place among the Greek Interpreters of Sacred Context is yeilded to Theodotion who nevertheless is thought by most to have lived before Symmachus under the Emperor Commodus He embracing at first the opinion of the Marcionites afterwards turned Ebionites and in compiling his Version altogether laying Aquila's aside comes nearest of all to the 70 Interpreters Wherefore Origen took out of that what seems to be wanting in this And St. Jerom testifies that in his time the Prophesie of Daniel was read in the Church according to Theodotio's Translation nor is it a difficult thing to prove that he regarded much more the sence then the words of the Text. Thus in the 4th Chap. of Genesis v. 4. where we read in the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Vulgar respexit the Lord had respect which interpretation exactly agrees with the Hebrew Text Theodosio renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inflammavit the Lord set it on fire wherein he agrees with the Rabbins who beleive that Cain thence perceived that his Sacrifice was not acceptable to God because he found his offering was not consumed by fire Other Translations of the Scripture Concerning the fourth and fifth Versions of the Bible which Origen has added to his Hexaples nothing of certainty can be affirmed the Authors of them being utterly unknown Yet is it not probable they were compiled by any Christian Writers in regard that the Church for a long time after St. Jerom acknowledged no other Translation of the Holy Scripture then that which was read over all the Catholick World under the Title of the Septuagint Initio Caten in Job and for that as Olympiodorus testifies the depraved Interpretations of the fabulous Hebrews were reckoned superfluous after the Version of the Septuagint all other Interpreters being quoted only for perspicuities sake and before these Versions Irenaus speaking of the Interpretation of the 70 L. 3. adv Heret c. 25. adds these words They are
their sleep of this Samaritan Exemplar written as he says in the Original Hebrew Letters The Samaritans indeed had a Greek Version of the Pentateuch which was well known to the Fathers and out of that Africanus Eusebius and Syncellus took several Readings of the Samaritan Exemplar translated from the Hebrew which they inserted into their Writings As for Origen he studyeth the Hebrew Language under the Instruction of Huillus Patriarch of the Jews and not of the Samaritans and therefore he did not make use of the Hebrew Copies of the Samaritans but of the Jews In which Sence those words of Eusebius are to be understood Euseb l. 6. Hist So great was the care and diligence which Origen us'd in his accurate Examination of the Sacred Writings that he learnt the Hebrew Language and bought up the Originals which were among the Jews written in the Hebrew Characters In Resp ad Object Crit. But Vossius apparently wrests the words of Eusebius to another Sence and to accommodate them the more easily to his own Opinion scrupl'd not to alter the vulgar Reading without the help of any Manuscript Copy For thus he reads the Sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas it is vulgarly read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thus he renders it That he learnt the Hebrew Language and purchas'd to himself those Scriptures which were written in the Original Hebrew Letters Now saith Vossius in Eusebius's Sence the Original Characters are no other then the Samaritan and Eusebius had manifestly contradicted himself if he had meant the Vulgar Letters of the Jews when he had wrote the contrary in his Chronicle I cannot but wonder at the Ingenuity of Vossius to impose upon his Readers in a thing so plain and obvious to all that have but kiss'd the threshold of the Greek Tongue The Books of Eusebius are in every Bodies hands whose intention in the place already cited was no more then to shew the indefatigable pains and unwearied labour of Origen in perusing the Books of Sacred Scripture and searching out their Sence which that he might the more easily attain to he learnt the Hebrew Language from Jewish Masters read over their Books in the Hebrew Characters and compar'd them with the Versions of the Seventy Aquila Symmachus and others Whether it be to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will not at present dispute by reason that though Vossius's Lection should hold water it is certain that by Prototype or Original Letters the Hebrew Characters are only to be understood That is to say the Hebrew Context in Origen's Hexaples is written in Hebrew and Greek Letters as has been already observ'd Wherefore Eusebius then bearing in his mind the Hebrew Exemplars which were at that time read by those who did not understand Hebrew because the Characters were Greek asserts that Origen purchas'd an Hebrew Examplar written in Hebrew Characters For how could it otherwise be when the Jews were his Masters and not the Samaritans I will acknowledg that the Examplars of the Samaritan Pentateuch written in Characters different from the Jewish were not unknown to Eusebius Origen and others of the Fathers but because most of them did not understand the Hebrew Tongue where they speak of the Samaritan Codex most assuredly they mean the Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch which was then vulgarly expos'd Nor do Eusebius's words in his Chronicle favour Vossius in the least where Eusebius makes mention of three Exemplars of Sacred Scripture from whence he drew his own That is say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 70 Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Hebrew Exemplar of the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Hebrew Exemplar of the Samaritans For there by the Hebrew Exemplar of the Samaritans of necessity the Greek Version of that Exemplar must be meant no otherwise then as by the Hebrew Exemplar of the Jews most of the Fathers who were ignorant of the Hebrew Language understood Aquila's Version which was Translated Verbatim from the Hebrew Therefore Eusebius knew that the Samaritans preserv'd an Hebrew Copy of the Pentateuch as well as the Jews but because he understood not the Hebrew Language he consulted the Greek Version which was compill'd by the Samaritans and which was at that time usually read by them As formerly Justin Martyr disputing against Trypho the Jew gives the Greek Interpretation of Aquila the Title of the Hebrew Context because it was most in use among the Jews at that time But Vossius never confider'd these things nor many others of the same Nature Now then let us return to the business from whence we made this Digression In the Hexaples of Origen as may be seem by the Scheme already set down the Hebrew Text in the Hebrew Letters obtains the first place the second the same Text in Greek Characters in regard that from thence all the first Versions of Scripture were derived Then followed the Interpretation of Aquila which followed the Hebrew Verbatim and much closer than any of the rest of the Translators The Septuagint was placed in the middle and not in the first place as many thought as the Test by which all the others were to be examined This the Translations of Symmachus and Theodotion accompany on each side as not being much unlike it and because the same method of Translating was observed in all the three Now because that vast Volume containing so many Translations as it were under one line was of a great price and to be purchased but by few insomuch that St. Jerom complained that the Alexandrian Papers had emptied his purse Origen of a most acute wit and unexhausted knowledge bethought himself of a way how he might bring all these Editions as it were into one And because at that time there was no other Scripture received in all the Churches then the Translation of the 70 Interpreters he set forth that apart with certain Notes by the advantage of which all the rest were put to view so that what seemed to be wanting in the Hebrew Context he supplied out of Theodotion's Version with the addition of a mark which the Gramarians call an Asterisk The Hexaple's epitomized as illustrating those words of the Context which were too much curtail'd and as it were abbreviated But if any thing seemed to abound and to be superfluous in the Hebrew Context in those luxuriant places he added another Mark by the Critic's called a Spit or Obelus as of what was luxuriant in the Greek Edition of the Septuagint were to be cut and murdered as extravagant And the chief Design of Origen as Epiphanius testifies in the Disposition of that work was that the Jews might the more easily be convinced by the Christians in their Disputes Because they frequently objected that it was otherwise in the Hebrew Exemplar than in the Greek Edition The same is also testifyed by St. Jerom and Ruffinus
Version of St. Jerom betwixt them i. e. the Hebrew and the Translation of the 70 as it were betwixt the Synagogue and the Eastern Church like two there 's one on each hand but in the middle is Jesus i. e. the Roman Church For this alone being built upon a strong and lasting Rock stood always firm in the Truth when all others deviated from the right understanding of the Scriptures a comparison highly unworthy a Cardinal of the Roman Church which yet Nicholas Ramus a Spanish Divine too and Bishop of Cuba has transfer'd into his Tract of the Vulgar Translation San. Pignin a Dominican first publish'd a Version of the holy Scriptures according to the Hebrew Original in the year MDLXXVII with two Epistles of the two Popes Adrian the Sixth The Version of Pagnine and Clement the Seventh in the front of the Book who both strengthen his Edition of the Bible with their Authority and before this time Leo the Tenth had approv'd Pignine's design of making a New Translation of the Bible according to the Hebrew Original 't is evident as well from the Epistle which Franciscus Picus wrote to Pagnin as from Pagnin himself that he spent at least thirty years in that Work insomuch that it had the approbation of all the Jews of that Age for an accurate piece Yet some great men amongst the Catholicks have judg'd otherwise of it For Genebrard describes it thus 't is not dâ—ligently done 't is too ambitious too curious too Grammatical too much affecting abbinical niceties and such as often mars the Truth and Substance of things with the subtilty of Novel Precepts Whereupon sometimes it corresponds not enough with the Doctrine of the ancient Hebrews And Joannes Mariana confirms this with instances of his lapses who endeavours to make it out that Pagnin has sometimes overthrown the mysteries of our Religion by receding too much from the Version of St. Jerome as in the ninth Chapter of Job where Jerom renders it rursum circundabor pelle meâ I shall be again clothed with my Skin and thence proves the resurrection of the Body Pagnin Translates it postquà m pellem meam contriverunt after they have consumed and worn my Skin and in the first Edition of his Version had interpreted it more obscurely post pellem meam contritam vermes contriverunt banc carneâ— and after my consumed Skin the Worms have consumed my Flesh adding words which are not extant in the Hebrew and yet Monsieur Huel gives quite another Character of Pagnines Version than Genebrard Mariana and other very learned men whom I forbear to mention He has given us says he an example of almost a perfect and compleat interpretation of the holy Scriptures But it 's evident that Pagnine err'd in many particulars For first he declar'd that he would keep close to the Latin Interpretation except in such places where 't was absolutely necessary to do otherwise Notwithstanding which he often deserted it without any colour or shadow of reason only that he might follow Kimchi and other latter Ribbins of the Jews For how came it about that for these words in the beginning of Genesis which in the Vulgar Translation are Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas the Spirit of God mov'd upon the Waters he should render Spiritus Dei superflabat in superficie aquarum the Spirit of God breath'd upon the Face of the Waters unless because the Chaldee Paraphrase and some Doctors of the Jews had so explain'd it Again who could brook the Version of the same Pagnine in the sixth Chapter of Genesis who for these words which in the Latin Edition are nòn permanebit spiritus meus my Spirit shall not always abide he put nòn erit ut in vaginâ speritus meus my Spirit shall not be as if 't were in a Scabbard He was not content to explain the Sense of the Hebrew word only but likewise the Etymology of it just as Kimchi had done it Wherefore he shew'd himself a foolish and quarrelsome Interpreter As Aquila of old had done in speaking so barbarously Thus where the Latin Interpretation has it in the 1 of Gen. and the 20 vers producant aquae reptile let the Waters bring forth every creeping thing He Translates repere faciant aquae reptile let the Waters make every creeping thing to creep and in another Edition reptificent let them creep c. Neither does he always follow the Sense of the Hebrew Text thus in the 8 Chap of Nehemiah the Latin Interpreter excellently well renders these words from the Hebrew legerunt in libro in lege Dei distinctè they read in the Book in the Law of God distinctly But Pagnine contrary to all Sense and Reason Translates it so legerunt in libro in lege Dei expositi They read in the Book of the Law of God Expounded in which place he contradicts himself for in his Dictionary those very words are otherwise explain'd Other remarks which might be made upon Pagnine's Version I shall for brevities sake omit Arias Montanus was not the Author of the new Version of the Bible he was content to correct Pagnines Translation in some places But having a more then ordinary regard to the bare Grammar Rules never minding the Sence he outwent Pagnine in his barbarousness He spent his whole time in expressing the Hebrew exactly without any respect to the Sense thus in the 9 of Exodus where Pagnine has pretty well render'd novi quià nondùm timeatis I know because ye will not yet fear the Corrector Arias Montanus turn'd novi quià antequà m timeatis I know because ye fear before that The Hebrew word Terem has doubtless a different signification in one place it signifies priusquà m before that in another nondùm not yet which Arias never minding turn'd it to that Sense which comes next to hand An infinite number almost of such absurdities may be found in this Translation which I advisedly forbear to mention Who for Gods sake can understand Arias's Interpretation of that Verse of the 110 Psalm where for these words which we read in the Vulgar Edition tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedec thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec In Pagnines Version secundùm morem Melchisedec thou art a Priest after the manner of Melchisedec Arias turns this way tu es Sacerdos in seculum super verbum meum Melchisedec thou art a Priest for ever upon the word of Melchisedec Monsieur Hewet did indeed attempt defending him in this and openly styl'd him a most faithful Translator who keeping close to the Hebrew Text despis'd the censures and calumnies of the unskilful yet certainly he does not seem to deserve the name of an Interpreter who does not in some measure express the Sense of the Author which he Translates But notwithstanding all this Arias Montanus is very famous among all Learned men for that vast and truly Royal Work of the Polyglot Printed at Antwerp which
Version by the command of Philip the Second was had in esteem beyond all others and was likewise approv'd of by an unanimous consent of many Parisian Divines in the praise of which they spake as follows we saw the holy Bible of Philip the Second set forth in Hebrew Syriac Greek and Latin after the manner of the Complutensian Bibles formerly Printed in Spain We approv'd of the same and in a word thought it fit to be read by all Catholicks in opposition to all false and heretical Translations with which men endeavour to impose upon those that have not arriv'd to the knowledg of the Tongues This Work was likewise approv'd of by two Popes as Franciscus Luca Burgensis relates and Gregory the 13th in his Epistle to Philip the Second of Spain calls it opus verè aureum a work truly great This is farther corroberated by the Authority of 42 Spanish Divines notwithstanding all which Arias Montanus has but an ill repute among many of the Clergy in Spain particularly for that he set forth a Chaldee Paraphrase not only on the Pentateuch as Cardinal Ximenius had done but on all the rest of the Bible except some few Books Of this Andrews de Leon Zamorensis a Minor of the Regular Clerks complains in an Epistle which he wrote to those that Printed a new Polyglot at Paris where concerning the Chaldee Paraphrase publish'd in the Royal Bibles he speaks thus What shall I say of the Chaldee Paraphrase which the Rabbins call the Targum T is vitiated and extreamly corrupted 't is degenerated from it's ancient purity and candour full of Talmudical Fables and Sacrilegious Impostures In this all men agree even Cardinal Ximenius himself in his Preface to the Complutensis asserts it Nay Cajetan himself gives a free account of his method of Translating Hebrew in these words I assure you that whilst I was about this work Interpreters would tell me the Hebrew word sounds thus In his Preface to the Psalms but the Sense thereof is not evident unless it be chang'd into this having heard all the significations I answer'd do not trouble your selves if the Sense be not clear because it is not your Province to explain but interpret as the words lay before you and commit the care of understanding the Sense to Expositors The Cardinal confesses ingenuously that though he was ignorant of the Hebrew yet he Translated the Old Testament into Latin out of the Hebrew Cajetan's method in translating the Bible and in order thereunto made use of two very learned men in that Tongue the one a Jew and the other a Christian and gives this as the principal reason why he did so because unless the Text be just as in it's Original the Text is not expounded but by guess but the Text is expounded as 't is understood by such or such an Interpreter And at last wishes the Fathers had had such an Interpretation though it be lame and imperfect because then says he we should have the genuine Text of the Scripture explain'd and not a Text of Interpreters making But Cajetan who says almost all the Hebrew words are aequivocal could never arrive at a perfect and compleat Interpretation and yet I dare affirm that that most learned Cardinal though an utter Stranger to the Hebrew Tongue has been very happy in expressing the words of the Text and that there is less barbarism in his Version than that of Arias Montanus Gabriel Prateolus who is very free in bestowing the name of Heretic ranks the judgment he has pass'd of the ancient Interpreters as being a little too bold amongst the Heresies Nor was Cardinal Palvacino a little dissatisfied therewith who animadverts thus upon it quel grand ' intelletto alfre opere fuamâ—â—mirato History of the Counsel of Trent l. 6. c. 17. in questâ— per la sciaersi egli trasportar dalla guida di ehi meglio intendeva laâ—grammatica Hebrea chi misteri divini resto in gloriosâ— Malvenda's method I omit the Dominican Thomas Malvenda's Version of some Books of the old Testament who so rigidly affects the Grammatical Sense that it looks like one entire piece of barbarism and had been utterly unintelligible had he not a little illustrated it by his Notes Melchior Canus openly declares against Isidorus Clarius Melchior Canus of wheol places l. 2. c. 13. whose emendation is nothing but a reprehension of the old Interpreter For in the Front of his Works he promises says the same Melchior the old Edition correct and after he has thus excus'd himself from the odium of Novelty he inserts a great many things adds some and changes others the humour and Interpretation of Isidorus Clarius The Bible of Isidorus Clavius Monk of Cassinum who in many places which he corrects in the Latin Interpreter shews himself ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue could not be more oppositely described But this Edition of the Bible is prohibited at Rome and is extant in the Index of prohibited Books under this Title the Vulgar Edition of the Old and New Testament the one whereof is most dilligently corrected according to the Hebrew the other according to the Greek Original so that a new Edition need not be desired and yet the old One may here be found in the year MDXLII The Version extant under Vatablus his name Lastly there are several Latin Copies of the Bible extant under Vatablus his name which yet all the World acknowledg are not his Robert Stephens has put upon the unwary Reader under the name of that learned and most understanding Professor of the Hebrew Tongue in the University of Paris For the Edition which Stephens gave us in the year MDXLV as if it had been exactly taken from the Lectures and Notes of Vatablus affords us only the Version and Annotations of Leo Judah a Zuinglian which for the most part were borrow'd from the Jews particularly Rabbi David Kimchi from John Calvin and other Protestants this Interpretation of Leo Juda Robert Stephens has preferr'd before all others and especially before that of Santes Pagninus because 't was more clear and done into purer Latin Yet the same Stephens in an Edition which he Publish'd in the year MDXLVII chose Pagnine's Translation before all the rest but such as if we may believe him was revis'd and corrected by Pagnine himself therefore neither was Vatablus nor Stephens Authors of any Version of the Bible Yet both of 'em great Masters of Hebrew Learning CHAP. XXIII Of the Latin Translations of the Bible made by Protestants THere are yet greater differences betwixt the Protestants in their Translations of the Bible than the Catholicks Sebastian Munster who turned the Old Testament out of Hebrew into Latin shews the reasons and method of his Translation at the very beginning of it where he plainly tells us how that he followed the Rabbins therein and not the old Interpreters So that if there happened to be any faults in it they were to be imputed
but had it at the best hand of the Ancient Interpreters Arias Montanus at the expences and by the Authority of Philip the 2d King of Spain republished the Complutensian Polyglot with no small augmentation which in process had the spacious Title of Kings Phillips Bible A Book which beside the Hebrew the Septuagint and St. Jerome's Latin Translation of the Complutensian Edition gives you a fair prospect of the Chaldee Paraphrase upon the remainder of those Books in the old Copy which Cardinal Ximenius gave to the Library at Complutensian together with the Syriac Translation of the New Testament done into Latin Neither would Arias Montanus influenced by Ximenius his example suffer his Book to contract acquaintance with any Translation save that of St. Jerome's and yet that a Latin Translation might not be wanting to render the Hebrew Text verbatim he inserted in the end of his Book San. Pagninus his Latin Translation with his own animadversions whereby the Hebrew might be better understood This grand elaborate and princely undertaking tho it was approved of by the Divines of Spain Lovaenium and other learned and pious Men nay even by the Universal Bishop himself Gregory the 13th yet it groaned under the common fate of all Books was carp'd at and pinched by the men of Leeth These were the detracting sort of People who objected that Arias Montanus had put in Execution a most bold rash and nefarious attempt in daring to publish that corrupt and monstrous Paraphrase which Ximenius had ordered to be laid up in the Colledge Library at Complutensia And there were some Jews who thinking that the Chaldee Paraphrase was a great Pillar to keep up the superstitions of their Religions wished all health and happiness to King Philip the 2d a Defender as they supposed of their Rites and Ceremonies In the mean time one Franciscus Lucus of Bruges a great Divine and a man of vast Learning took up the Cudgels ägainst these impertinent Detractors and made an Apology for the Chaldee Paraphrase Besides Arias Montanus declares that Cardinal Ximenius himself had thoughts of publishing the same Chaldee Paraphrase and that he had thoughts of adding a Latin Translation to it only putting out the Fables Doubtless that princely Work deserves to be had in estimation with all Divines though it be defective in some particulars as carrying along with it all those deformities which we took notice of before in the Conplutensian Bible For the Greek and Latin Copies are the same that were published by Cardinal Ximenius Arias Montanus did not so much reform San. Pagninus his Latin Version as he did corrupt and spoil it for pressing the Hebrew which too closely he frequently commits toto casu and making a great noise about a little Sense does often miss of the proper import of the words Besides Arias caused a better method and more Copious Index to be published as containing more Lexicons and Grammars than that of the Complutensian Bible though many unnecessary things might be left out which make nothing for his purpose The liberal expences of Cardinal Ximenius and Phillip the Second were far exceeded by an Eminent Person of this Age Michael Le Jay of Paris who undertaking to Publish the Polyglot Bible at his own charge spent his whole Patrimony in Printing of it before he had finish'd so great and wonderful a work First then they took care to have all that was already extant in the King's Bible reprinted in a fairer Character and to these he joyn'd the Samaritan Books viz. the Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch with the Samaritan Translation and the Syriack and Arabick Versions of the Old Testament distinguished by points with their Latin Interpretation a thing scarce credible ever to have been attempted In this business he was assisted by a very Learned man Gabriel of Sion that came from Mount Libanus in the Holy-Land and in some few Volumns by Abraham an Ecchellensian one of the same Nation But that part which contains the observations of several worthy men upon the various Editions of the Bible is wanting in this work and through the negligence of those that were intrusted with it it happen'd that the Copies of the Greek Translation by the Seventy Interpreters and the Latin one by St. Jerom were both composed anew the very same with those in the Kings Bible the Greek Edition after the Vatican Pattern though corrected and amended was omitted and the Copies of the common Edition were laid aside though they had been by Commissions from the Popes strictly examined after the most ancient and best approved Books and that by the Hands of several Excellent Persons and judicious Criticks However I pass by those faults which occasioned by the Transcribers oversight in the Syriack and Arabick Books do yet in great part remain Besides that the Latin Expositors not perfectly understanding the Syriack and Arabick words have often sailed in expressing the sence Lastly to this vast Work are perfixed certain Prefaces which recommend it's usefulness But in this the brave Mr. Le Jay proves his own Enemy for depending totally upon such men as were partly byass'd in their Opinions by prejudice especially John Morin otherwise a man of competent Learning he extolls the Jewish Books and sticks not to prefer them before the ancient Translations of the Church but what seems scarce 0 credible he possitively asserts that it ought to be granted as a certain and undoubted truth that that common Edition which passes about in the vulgar Tongue of the Catholick Church is the true and genuine Original of Holy Scripture But the Fathers themselves at the Council of Trent durst not pass any such decree concerning the Latin Books To no purpose has that Liberal Gentleman drained his Purse in Publishing such voluminous peices of the Polyglot Bible if it appear that the Latin comprehends the proper and Primitive Scripture and that we must have recourse to him as the true Fountain In like manner vindicating the interpretation of the Seventy Elders he draws an Argument solid enough in his Judgment from a Mahometan Author who as to matter of Chronology rejected the Hebrew Books of the Jews and Samaritans and adhered to the Greek Interpreters from whence Mr. Le Jay concludes that the Seventy Interpreters were in the highest esteem not only amongst the Christians but Mahometans too Indeed 't is very probable that Mr. Le Jay to credit the antiquity of the Arabick Versions which he himself first published would not stick to say that by the help thereof St. Jerom had restored the seven or eight hundred Verses of Job which were lacking in the old Translation and this his assertion he confirms by St. Jerom's own Testimony who before his Translation of the Book of Job had premised that in it were missing about seven or eight hundred Verses and that in compiling it he had not followed any of the ancient Translators but had collected sometimes the words sometimes the sence and often both at once out
Vossius himself in the midst of his Prophetick Chiurme forging new Prophesies like that same famous Imposter William Postellus who writes that the Chaldaeans had the true Doctrine reveal'd to them under the first Monarchy and that it was continually renew'd like the sacred Doctrine by the ten Sybils that the world might be inexcusable before the Spirit of God and that Christ the King both of the Sacred and the Sibelline Doctrines might be known to be the Deity that was to be ador'd by the whole World Such Stories as these Vossius produces concerning the Oracles of the Sybills But Postellus yet more quicksighted asserts this Prophetical Doctrine to have had its Original from a Woman who was Princess of all the East and next of kin to Noah Who would believe that Isaac Vossius who spares for no virulent expressions against the Jews and their Talmud should introduce a Talmudic Doctor among the Prophets if it be so I wonder he should be in such a fury against a Person Learned in the Hebrew who expounded the Gospel out of the Talmud Lightfoot He seems to me saies Vossius to commit a less Sin who explains the Gospel out of the Alcoran then by the Talmud But of these things enough and too much Let us now return to the Apocryphal Books I call the Apocriphal Books when we discourse of Byblick concerns those which neither the Church nor the Synagogue has received as Canonical Hence it came to pass that of old St. Jerom personating a Jew and lately Cajetane sentenc'd many Books among the Apocriphal before they were receiv'd for Divine and Prophetic by the decree of the Church In this sence St. Jerom affirms Hieron pâ—aef in Dan. that Daniel among the Hebrews had not the story of Susanna nor the Song of the three Children nor the fable of the Bell and the Dragon Which we saith he because they are dispierced all over the World preferring the truth and withal depressing their Authority have added however least we might seem to have cut of a great part of the Volume In like manner after he had produc'd the Books of Scripture which were held Canonical among the Jews he adds Whatever we meet with besides these is to be accounted Apocrâ—phal Hieron pâ—aef in lio Reg. That is to say the Wisdom of Solomon the Book of Jesus the Son of Syrach Judith Tobit and the Preacher induc'd by this reason Africanus Africanus also believes the Story of Susanna to have been feign'd by a Greek Writer others feigned two Daniels one the Author of the Prophesie that goes under his name and the other the Writer of the Story of Susanna which in the ancient Editions of the Greek Exemplar was placed before the Prophesie of Daniel St. Jerom indeed was the first that transposed it at the end of the same Prophesie because it was not in the Jewish Exemplar which he translated And St. Jerom confirms his opinion concerning the History of Susanna by the Testimony of other Fathers I wonder saith he That certain peevish waspish persons are in wrath with me as if I had cut of part of the Book whereas Origen Eusebius Apollinarius and other Eclesiasticall Persons and Doctors of Greece confess those Visions not to be found among the Hebrews not that they ought to be answerable to Porphyrius for those things which afford no Authority of sacred Scripture Gregory Nazianzen Melito of Sardis and the Author of the Synopsis which goes about under the Name of Athanasius went farther and put the Book of Esther among the Apocryphal Books meerly because not understanding the Hebrew Tongue they found some pieces added to the Ancient History of Esther by a Greek Author for which reason they condemn'd the whole Work It happened saith Sextus Senensis that by reason of those fragments of Appendex's inserted here and there through the rashness of some Writers that Book though written in the Hebrew did not find reception among the Christians Nicholas de Lyra also Cajetan and some others denyed these Additions likewise to be Canonical induc'd as it is most probable by the same reasons These things have been discoursed more at large that it might appear to all what Books were reckon'd to be Apocriphal in the Judgment of the more Antient Fathers But Vossius abusing the word Apocryphal introduces suppositious and Adulterate Books instead of the Old Apocryphal and so imposes upon the simple and unwary For whereas he endeavours to make it out that the Books of the Sybills and others which he calls Fatidical were joyned with the Books of the Old Testament read in the Primitive Church and recommended by the Apostles it is the Fiction of one that has nothing to do but to sit and Romance in Divinity For there were no other Books read in the Primitive Church or added to the rest of the Books of the Old Testament in the Greek Exemplars of the Bible than those which are mentioned by the Fathers Though perhaps some of the Gentiles that they might press the Jews and the Gentiles more home have sometimes quoted the Books of the Sibylls and others of the same stamp which nevertheless no ingenious person will reckon among the Apocryphal Books of which we are now in discourse Vossius is very much griev'd that the Books of the Sibylls and other Sooth-sayer's Books after they were prohibited by publick Edict were made Apocryphal and forbid to be read by any Person when formerly they were openly and religiously made use of by the Jews like the rest of the Books of the Old Testament whence it came to pass that the Canonical Books were reduced to a more certain Number and the word Apocryphal was taken in an evil sense for spurious and of doubtful and suspected Credit In the mean time he never cites the Authour from whence he drew these witty conceits which are so like the Fables of the Jews so that I may presume to ask this Learned Person what the Factious Cardinal Hyppolito d'este demanded of Areosto Dove hatrovato tante cogloonare Where did he find out so many jugling Tricks But I agree with him in what he writes concerning the Apocriphal Books if by them he mean no other then those which passed from the Jews to the Christians with the rest of the Books of the Old Testament for that the greatest part of them are read in the Romish Church especially since the decree of the Council of Trent as Canonical for indeed it might be that those Books which were formerly rejected as Apocriphal because they were not approv'd by the Cannon of the Jews might have had Prophets for their Authors Nor is the Authority of Josephus contrary to this opinion who affirms that from the times of Artaxerxes there was no certain Succession of the Prophets and therefore that these Books which were reckon'd after that were not to be accounted Cononical Nor is it probable that the Function of the Prophets was altogether taken away
Lib. 18. de civit Dei c 36. which is to be understood only concerning the two first Books of Maccabees for the third is rejected as well by the Church as by the Synagogue To which opinion St. Jerom seems to adhere though frequently in his works he shews himself a most stout defender of the Judaick Canon For when Ruffinus objects Lib. 2. Apoll. adversus Rufus that Jerom in his own Edition of the Bible would allow no Authority of Scripture to the Story of Susanna the Song of the three Children and the Story of Bell and the Dragon which he had called Fables the learned Father answers that he did not speak his own Sentiments but only explain'd what the Jews were wont to urge against the Christians but Jerom had said that Origen Eusebius Apollinarius and other Doctors of Greece would make no answer to Porphyrius for those Visions which had no Authority of Scripture and the same Jerom thus writes concerning the Book of Judith This Book the Synod of Nice is said to have numbred among the Holy Writings upon which Erasmus thus observes He does not say it was approv'd in the Synod of Nice but the Synod is said to have numbred it and really St. Jerom in his Preface to the Book of Kings had denied both Judith and Tobias to be Canonical Now the question is whether St. Jerom do not seem to contradict himself when he affirms the same Books of Judith and Tobias to be read by the Hebrews among the Hagiographers who nevertheless both here and in another place had written that these Books are not extant in the Canon of the Jews and therefore to be accounted Apocryphal But what those Hagiographers of the Jews that were mentioned by St. Jerom in these places Joseph Scaliger confesses he does not understand because the Hagiographies were received by the Jews into the Canon of Holy Scripture long before St. Jerom liv'd But Huetius believes St. Jerom to be deceiv'd in this particular in that he thought the Jews had no Hagiographies without the pale of the Canon and he brings against Scaliger the famous Bath Kol or the Daughter of the voice by whose assistance the Jews set forth their Hagiographies and their inspir'd Scripture But they are the meer dreams of idle triflers which the Circumcised Doctors have invented concerning Bath Kol Then it is certain that they never receiv'd among their Canonical Authors the Books of Judith and Tobias Therefore they are all fictions which Huetius and others alledg concerning the twofold sort of Hagiographers among the Jews and they may be refuted not only by the Testimonies of Josephus and Jerom who positively witness that Tobias Judith and other Books set forth in Greek now comprehended within the Canon of the Roman Church were never reckon'd by the Jews among the Prophets or Hagiographers but also by the Authority of the more Modern Jews who when they number up the Sacred Books make no mention of them at all but only cite them as sententious Writings wherein however they did not believe there was any thing of Divine Inspiration If therefore in this our Age nay in the ancient Ages of the Church they were numbred among the Canonical Books that is to be attributed to the Judgment of the Church and not of the Synagogue Therefore there is a double Canon to be allowed that of the Church and that of the Synagogue And by the first Rule they may not erroneously be called Ecclesiastic Books which the Church taking no notice of the Jewish Canon have thought fit to admit into their Canon and to be read in their Congregations For it is certain that even from the very first Infancy of the Church these Books were accustom'd to be read and sung in the Congregations of the Faithful which Erasmus admires to hear so frequently sung and read in Churches at this day But that it was so Eras Schol. in Prefat Jerom in Dan. Erasmus might have learnt out of the Invictives of Ruffinus against St. Jerom. All these things Sixtus Senensis egregiously illustrates at the beginning of his Bibliotheca where he divides the Books of Holy Scripture into two Classe's Sixtus Senens l. 1. Bibl. S. In the first he reckons those which he calls Protocanonical or Canonical of the first Order And these are they which are received beyond all Controversie by the unanimous consent as well of the Jews as Christians In the other Classis he places those which he calls Deutero Canonical or Canonical of the second Order which formerly saith he were called Ecclesiastic That is to say those of which there was for some time a dubious Opinion among the Catholicks and which came late to the knowledge of the whole Church Among the Books of the first sort he only numbers those which the Synagogue admitted into their Cannon Into the next Classis he admits those which in the ancient Ages of the Church were reckon'd by most among the Apocriphal Writers to which he adds the Book of Esther in regard that some of the Fathers were doubtful of its Authority the only difficulty arises from the Authority of St. Jerom who in contradiction to the belief of all the Jews and his own Testimony has written that the Books of Tobias and Judith are extant with the Hebrews among the Hagiographies I admire that Scaliger and others so well skill'd in Critic Animadversion did not observe that in the Prefaces of Jerom upon Tobias and Judith we were not to read it Hagiographa as it is now read but Apocripha For though I want written Manuscripts to maintain that Lection yet the words of St. Jerom himself manifestly make it out The Book oâ— Tobias saith the Learned Father which the Hebrews pruning off from the Catalogue of Divine Scripture have condemn'd among those which they call Hagiographa Who does not presently apprehend from hence that the word ought to be read Apocripha not Hagiographa since it is apparently manifest that the Jews never cut of the Hagiography from the Catalogue of Divine Scripture The same observation is to be made in the Preface of St. Jerom upon Judith where instead of Hagiographa it ought to be read Apocrypha For thus the words run at this day Among the Hebrews the Books of Judith is reckon'd among the Hagiographa whose authority is not so sufficient to strengthen the convincement of those things which give occasion of dispute If the authority of that Book be not sufficient to confirm our Faith certainly it can be none of the Hagiographa which without Controversie are accounted Canonical and inspir'd among the Jews but of the number of the Apocrypha which are of dubious and uncertain Credit as St. Jerom thought the Books of Judith and Tobias to be Thus much concerning the Apocryphal Books upon which we have insisted longer then the purpose of our Subject required But we did not think it a deviation from our Argument to unfold a Dispute highly intreagu'd by the Contentions of
by the Hebrew Exemplars and the Translations of Aquilla Symâ—â—chus Theodotion and others Which he could hardly attain to but that had vitiated that Version in many places before especially when Origen set a higher value upon the Hebrew Truth then Vossius is aware of if we believe St. Jerom who well knew the disposition of the Person But as for Adamantius I sâ—y nothing who when he follows the common Edition in his Homilies which he speaks to the People in his Times that is his larger dâ—spute guarded with Hebrew Truth and surrounded with squadâ—ons of his own he sometimes seeks the aid of Forraign Language Oâ—igen therefore carried himself one way with Learned Men another with the Ignorant Multitude and as the Proverb is Wise with a few spake those things which were in common With this agrees what he writes against Celsus for after he has produc'd some things out of the Book of Exodus according to the vulgar Exemplars of the Greek Version he presently adds the Section of the Hebrew Text with this Animadversion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But these things which seem to be more nice and not so fit for vulgar Ears Therefore the Learned Gentleman is in an Errour who believ'd that Origen approv'd no other Exemplars but those of the Septuagint He is ignorant of the Laws of that management which most of the Fathers especially Origen observ'd to the end they might accommodate themselves to the already received opinions of the People which prudence of Origen in our Age the most Eminent Divines of the Roman Church do imitate who granting to the People the use of the Latin Edition reserve to themselves the knowledge of the Hebrew Truth Now because Simon gives no credit to the Prodigious discourses of Aristaeus concerning the 70 Interpreters while he endeavours to give a reason why it was fixed upon the 70 he confesses that he adheres to the opinion of those who believe it to have born that name from the 72 Senators of the Hierosolymitan Sanhedrim who approv'd it by their Sufferage and Authority Yet he affirms nothing but only makes a conjecture upon a thing so obscure and so far remote from our times But notwithstanding all his Modesty Vossius falls fiercely upon him and demands if that Greek Version were approved by the whole Sanhedrim how it came to be so full of faults as if of necessity the Authority of the Grave Sanhedrim which Simon suspects to have allow'd that Version to be publickly read in the Synagogues and Schools had been sufficient to exempt it from all Errour Certainly it could derive no greater Authority from the Decree of the Hierosolymitan Senators then was ascrib'd to the Latin Edition after the Fathers of the Council of Trent had authoriz'd it by their Constitution Was the Latin Interpreter therefore purg'd from all the faults with which it formerly abounded No. In this also appears the greatest equality between both decrees that as it came to pass in the Western Church through Ignorance of the Greek and Hebrew Languages that the Bibles were Translated and read in the Latin Tongue so also the Ignorance of the Hebrew among the Hellenist Jews was the reason that the Alexandrian Jews Translated for their own use the Sacred Writing into Greek which Greek Translation afterwards grew to be currant among all the Jews that understood Greek and was perhaps approv'd by the Hierosolymitan Senators I say perhaps because there is no need to have recourse to their Authority for the Exposition of the reason why this Version was attributed to the 70 Elders But only we are to observe the form of Speech so familiar among the Jews whereby the us'd to refer all things which seemed to be of any moment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Men of the great Synagogue Which kind of Phrase has lead many Learned Men into several Errors while they turn over the Books of the Jews with a Circumspection too remiss whereas we are to heed not so much what those Doctors say as how and for what reason they speak it So the Rabbies eagerly maintain that the Points of the Holy Scripture and such other things derive their Original from the Men of the Great Synagogue speaking according to the Phrase of the Country not according to the Truth of the Thing And thus it is more proper to conjecture that the Greek Version was attributed to the Seventy Interpreters than with Vossius to give credit to the Fictions of Aristaeus Then again the Learned Gentleman is displeas'd that Simon endeavour'd to restore the Hellenistick Language exploded by the Learned men and to obtrude it under the name of the Language most currant in the Synagogue as if among them there had been any more peculiar Language which was neither Greek nor Hebrew that by that means he might make it out that the Seventy Interpreters understood neither Greek nor Hebrew Certainly Simon knew what had been already written by the Defenders of the Hellenistick Language but with the good favour of that Learned Gentleman I may say that while he disputed about the shadow of an Ass he did but raise Contentions about a Name Simon does not lay ignorance to the charge of the Greek Interpreters of the Hebrew and Greek but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a deprav'd affectation natural to the Jews especially in Translating the Scriptures who while they labour to express the Hebrew words too curiously and literally turn a little aside from the common and more receiv'd Idiome and to some words give particular and distinct Notions from the Vulgar This is to be observ'd almost in all the Versions of Sacred Scripture compil'd by the Jews as Simon truly demonstrates by whom it was also most excellently observ'd that the Greek Interpretation of the Seventy Seniors was hardly understood by most of the Greek Fathers because it retain'd something of the Idiom of the Syriac or Hebrew Language And thus the Spanish Translation set forth at Ferrara which was done by the Jews can hardly be read by those who understand not Hebrew though well vers'd in the Spanish And this was the reason why the ancient Interpreter of the Greek Version has but ill rendred not a few Greek words not having attain'd the force and propriety of their signification Some also Jerom himself seems not to have understood though both Hebrecian and Grecian while he seems to adhere more to the Greek then Hebrew whence the Greek were taken Vossius also objects against Simon that he understood not what the Hellenists were I confess that Simon understood not before what Vossius had feign'd contrary to the Opinion of the most Learned men who to shew his Greek Erudition expounds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to side with the Greeks as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fignifie to imitate the Manners and Customs and side with the Romans Mâ—des Persians and Antigonus Now considering the present Argument where the Dispute with Vossius is about Critical
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