'_..
*
pibrar^
N THE CUSTODY OF TME
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
ADAMS
/n
',
COLLECTION
OF
THEOLOGICAL TRACTS,
IN SIX VOLUMES.
By RICHARD WATSON, D.D. F. R. S. Lord Bishop ^Landaff,
AND
Regius Professor ^Divinity in the University of
Cambridge.
VOL. III.
CAMBRIDGE,
Printed by J. Archdeacon Printer to the UNIVERSITY;
for J. & J. Merrill, Cambridge ; T. Evans, London;
and J. & J. Fletcher, Oxford.
M.DCC.LXXXV.
J
i rt>
" ADAMS^M I
■
CONTENTS.
A Differtation on the Ancient Verfions of the Bible ; Jhew- ing why cur Englijh Tranfation differs fo much from them, and the excellent Ufe that may be made of them to- wards attaining the true Readings of the Holy Scriptures in doubtful Places. In a Letter to a Friend. The fecond Edition, prepared for the Prefs by the Author before his Death, and now printed from his own Manufcript. By the late Rev. Dr. Thomas Brett. Lond. 1760. p. 1.
In the Year 1729, Do&or Brett publifhed a Chronological EfTay in Defence of the Computation of the Septuagint : In that Tra<Sr, he ob- serves, that if the Reader " compares the xivth Pfalm in his Bible, which is tranflated from the Hebrew, with the fame Pfalm in his Common- Prayer-Book, tranflated from the Septuagint, he will find that in his Common-Prayer- Book, there are four whole Verfes more than are in his Bible, viz. jr. 4, 5, 6, 7. Yet thefe Verfes are every one of them cited by St. Paul in the fame Words, Rom. iii. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18." For the clearing up of this and fimilar Difficulties, he wrote, in the fame Year, the EfTay which is here re-publifhed ; the firft Edition of it came out in 1742, feveral Years after it had been compofed. It is an excel- lent Diflertation, and cannot fail of being very ufeful to fuch as have not Leifure or Opportunity to confult Dr. Hody's Book, de Bibliorum Textibus ; Bifhop Walton's Prolegomena to his Polyglot ; Du Pin's Canon of Scripture ; Dean Prideaux's Account of the Hebrew Scrip- tures in the 2d Vol. 8vo, of the Old and New Teftament connected ; The 2d Book of Lenny's Apparatus Biblicus j Lewis' Origines Hebraeae, and other Works of a like Nature. Dr. Owen's Inquiry into the prefent State of the Septuagint Verfion, Lond. 1769, is very deferving of the Reader's Attention. . .
An Hiflorical Account of the federal Englijh Tranflations of
the Bible, and the Oppofition they met with from the Church
of Rome. By Anthony Johnson, A. M. Lond.
*73°- p. 60.
In the Preface to Poole's Annotations on the Bible, there is a fhort Account of the Englifh Tranflations of it ; and a Tradt was printed in London, 1778, intitled, A Lift of various Editions of the Bible, and Parts thereof, in Englifh, from the Year 1526, to'1776. If the Reader wifhes to make a deeper Inquiry into this Subject, he will find full Information, not only with refped to various Tranflations of the Bible into Englifh, but into a great many other Languages, in Mr. Le Long's ■Bibliotheca Sacra.
An
CONTENTS.
An 'Introduction to the Reading of the .Holy Scripture $s in- te?ided chiefly for young Students in Divinity. By MefTi's. Beausobre and L'Enfant. Camb. 1779. p. 10 1.
This is a Work of extraordinary Merit ; the Authors have left fcarcely any Topick untouched, on which the young Student in Divinity may be fuppofed to want Information. Macknight's Preliminary Obfervations, &c. prefixed to his Harmony ; Lamy's Apparatus Biblicus ; Pritii Intro- duclio ad Lectionem N. Teftamenti ; Harwood's Introduction to the Study of the New Teftament; Percy's Key to the New Teftament; and Co/Iyer's Sacred Interpreter may be properly read along with this Intro- duction.
A Key to the Apoflolic Writings, or an EJJdy to explain the- Gofpel Scheme, and the principal Words and Phrafes the Apoflles have ufed in defcribing it. By J. Taylor* Lond. 1754. p. 315.
This Work which is prefixed to the Author's Paraphrafe and Notes on the Epiftle to the Romans, is greatly admired by the Learned, as containing the beft Introduction to the Epiftles, and the cleareft Ac- count of the whole Gofpel Scheme, which was ever written. The Doctrine of a double Juftification was difliked by Bp. Bull; and it has lately been animadverted on, as not founded in Scripture ; however that may be, it has had, in modern Times, other Supporters befides Dy. Taylor ; and it feems to have been well underftood by Crellms, above 150 Years ago. Juftificatio noftra vel accipitur pro ejufmodi a reatu ac pcena, quam peccatis promeruimus, abfolutione ac liberatione, qua fit, ut nolit nos Deus punire, fed potius nobifcum perinde velit agere, ac fi jufti et innocentes efTemus: vel accipitur pro ipfa falute noftra quam ali- quando confecuturi fumus. Ilia Juftificatio fimul ac fidem in Chriftum comple£timur nobis contingit, et tarn diu durat, quamdiu in nobis du- rat fides, eaque viva et per charitatem efficax, feu quae Obedientram, •qualem Chriftus a nobis requirit, habeat conjun&am. Hac vero pojle- ■rior Juftificatio quae ex Whprima fluit in adventu Domini Jefu nobis con- tinget. Crel. in Rom. c. v. and in his Commentary on iCor. c. i. he fays, Juftificamur fimul atque Doctrinae Chrifti fidem adjungimus, id eft jus adipifcimur ad immunitatem ab omnibus pcenis et ad vitae aeternae adeptionem. Verum hoc jus nondum eft plenum, fed adhuc a condi- tione, quae fequi debet, pendet, nempe ut conftantes in fide fimus, ac fanctitati vitas in pofterum ftudeamus, itaque j uftificatio partim antecedit fandtificationem, partim fequitur. Hinc patet, quid fentiendum de illo triftiflxmo dicto : (Of St. Auguftine) Bona opera non antecedunt juftifi- candum, fed fequuntur jvjlificatwn antecedunt enim juftifkandum plene; fequuntur juftificatum inchoate, &c.
Plain Reafons for being a Chriflian. Lond. 1730. p. 456.
The Merit of this Tra£r. will not be feen by an hafty Reader ; every Article of it contains Matter for much Confideration, and (hews the Author to have been well acquainted with his Subject. It was written by Dr. Chandler, but not publifhed till it had been reviled by fbme other DifTentine Minifters.
5 A DIS-
DISSERTATION
O N T H E
ANCIENT VERSION
OF T H E
BIBLE.
REVEREND SIR,
&&$£& OU defire to know, "Since the Greek Septuagint and the % Y & " Englijh Bible are Tranflations from the Original Hebrew, :#$$;$: " how it comes to pafs that thefe two Tranflations have fuch " Variations from each other? I do not mean in fome few Words " only, but in whole Sentences ; many being in our Englijb Tranfla- " tion which are not to be found in the Septuagint, and fome again in " the LXX which are not to be found in our Englijh Bible."
I do not at all wonder at your afking fuch a Queftion ; for a Clergy- man who has but a fmall Benefice, which will not afford him Means to buy Books of a large Price, and lives in an obfcure Place in the Country, near no Library from which he may borrow fuch Books, or have Opportunity to confult them, is not to be blamed, if he mould not know how to anfwer this, or other Qiieftions relating to eccleliafti- cal Matters. For although he came from the Univerfity well verfed in the learned Languages, (as you (hew yourfelf to be, or you could not have compared our Englijh Bible with the LXX, and fo would never have thought of the Matter) yet for want of Books to inform him how the Scriptures have from Time to Time been copied, tranflated and publiihed, he may not be able to anfwer fuch a Queftion, and fatisfy himfelf in fuch a Point as this.
And I muft confefs for myfelf, that if I had not the Polyglot Bible, before which Bifhop Walton (the learned Editor of that noble and ufe- ful Work, confilting of fix large Folios) has put feveral excellent Pro- legomena, and Du Pin's Cotnpleat Canon of Scripture, with fome other Books relating to the Editions and Tranflations of the Holy Scriptures, I could not have anfwered your Queftiom But by the Affiftance of
Vol. III. A thefe
2 A DiJJertation on the
thefe Books, I hope I may do it to your Satisfaction. And I can give you a plain, Short, and eafy Anfwer, which is, that there were diffe- rent'Copies of the Hebrew Original, and the LXX translated from one Copy, and our Engli/h Translators from another ; fo as the Copies differed, the Translations differed alfo.
But another Question may arife. How came there to be fo much Difference between feveral Copies of the fame Book ? I anfwer, the fame will always happen in all Books frequently tranfcribed by feveral Hands. Now, I believe no Book ever had fo many Tranfcripts as'the Bible. As the Jews had feveral Synagogues in Judea, fo had they in all Countries where they were difperfed after the Captivity. For they did not all return to Judea at the Restoration of Jerufalem and the Re- building of the Temple, but very many continued in thofe Parts of the Caldean, Perjian, Grecian and Roman Empires where they had obtained Settlements, where alfo they increafed and multiplied. This we may be convinced of from what we find in the New Testament, where we read that in every Place unto which the ApoStles went to preach the Gofpel they found Numbers of Jews and a Jew/Jb Synagogue. And every Synagogue had at lead one Copy of the Bible, befide the many Copies written for the Ufe of private Perfons. Every one of thefe Copies was written fingly by itfelf (the Invention of Printing, by which ten Thoufand Copies coming out of the fame Prefs Shall not differ fo much as in a Letter or a Comma, being yet fcarce three Hundred Years old) and therefore could hardly fail to differ in Some Particulars even from the Copy from which it was taken, unlefs more than once carefully revifed, compared and corrected, which we may reafonably fuppofe was not always done. Thefe Copiers therefore could hardly keep free from making many Mistakes, Such as often to omit a Word, or to write one Word for another: which laSt MiStake might eafily be made in Hebrew Books, where the Letters ^ and 3, f and % pi and |-fj and fome others are fo near alike, that very often in Writing one can hardly be distinguished from the other ; "and the mistaking fuch a Letter changes the Word, and gives it another Signification.
Copiers alfo, in the transcribing fo large a Book as the Hebreiv Bible, might eafily mistake fo far as to be guilty of considerable Oversights, even to overlook and omit a whole Sentence, especially when they wrote in HaSte, as, no Doubt, many of them did, who made it their BuSineSs to copy Books for their Livelihood. Where therefore the LXX want a Period or Sentence which is in our Engli/h Bibles, we may fuppofe it was wanting in the Copy from whence they translated : And where they have a Sentence wliich is wanting in our Engli/h Bibles, we may fuppofe it was in the Copy from which their Translation was made, but left out in the Copy from whence our prefent Hebreiv Copies were taken, and from which we have our Englijh Translation : And fo vice verfa. This 1 think is a natural and rational Account how thefe Diversities arofe ; that is, from different Copies of the Original. Which Differences could hardly be avoided, and might eafily happen through the Carelefnefs and Oversights or Mistakes of Transcribers, who could fcarce avoid them in fo long a Work.
Some indeed will tell you that the LXX in their Translation took i great
indent Verfion of the Bible. 3
great Liberties, and departed from the original Text with Defign, add- ing fome Things, and leaving out others wilfully to ferve fome private Views of their own. And others will tell you that this has been done by the Jews, who out of Hatred to the Chrijhans have malicioufly altered the Hebrew Copies. But I think it is unjuft to charge either the Jews, who were the Keepers and Prefervers of the Original He- brew, or the LXX, who tranflated the Hebrav Scriptures into Greek, with any wilful Variations from the true and authentic Text, where thofe Variations may be otherwife accounted for in the Manner I have fhewed they may be. However, I confefs, there are fome Variations which I think cannot be fo accounted for; the Difference being fuch as could hardly proceed from meer Miftake or Overfight. This par- ticularly appears in the Genealogies of the Patriarchs in the fifth and eleventh Chapters of Genefn: Where almofl: every Patriarch is faid to have lived an hundred Years longer before he begat his Son according to the LXX, than he is according to the prefent Hebrew Bibles. Such a long, regular Difference as this could not proceed from the Carelef- nefs or meer Overfight of any Tranfcriber. However, we cannot fay that the LXX did here wilfully varyfrom the Original, or that this Variation was not in the Hebrew Copies before the LXX made their Translation, and that thefe hundred Years might be in that Hebrew Copy from whence they tranflated; though at this Diftance of Time we cannot account for it. We have juft Reafon to believe that in the Chronology of thofe Genealogies there was a Variation in the Hebrew Copies before the Days oijofephus, who lived at the Time when Jeru- faletn and the Temple were deftroyed by the Romans : And therefore alfo might be in thofe Copies before the Verfion of the LXX.
For as Jofephus was a Prieft, who in his Gourfe attended on the Temple to perform the Service of the Temple, we can fcarce doubt but he had an Hebrew Copy of the Bible; neverthelefs, in his Chro- nology, he differs from the prefent Hebrew Text, as he does alfo from the LXX. The Samaritan likewife (which is but another Copy of the Original Hebrew, written in the more ancient Hebrezu Letter; that which is now ufed by the Jews, being what they learned from the Chaldeans during their Captivity in Babylon) differs in its Chronology from the other three. From whence we may reafonably conclude, that the LXX were not the Authors of this Difference, but followed that Hebrezu Copy from whence they tranflated.
Another great Difference between the prefent Hebrew Copies and the LXX, which may alfo feem to have been done with Defign, is the Tranfpofition of Chapters or Parts of Chapters towards the latter End of the Book of Exodus. After you come to the End of the feventh Verfe of the 36th Chapter in the LXX, you will find immediately fol- lowing, what follows not in the prefent Hebrew, confequently not in our Engli/b Bibles, until you come to the 39th Chapter. And fo through the 36, 37, 38 and 39th Chapters, you will find that put in one Place of the LXX which (lands in another Place in the prefent Hebrew and Englijh Bibles. The Occafion of thefe Tranfpofitions, and of the like in fome other Places, Dr. Grab?, in his Letter to Dr. Milles, conjectures might probably proceed from thofe. who made up or ftitched
A 2 together
4 A Differ tation on the
together the Rolls or Leaves of the Books after they were written, and by Miftalce placed one Roll or Leaf where another fhould have been : Such Miftakes we find Bookbinders fometimes make now. And this Miitake having been made in the Hebrew Copy from whence the Ver- fion of the LXX was made, thefe Diflocations are found in all the Copies of the LXX.
Another Occafion of various Readings, particularly as to whole Sen- tences or Periods, is fuppofed to have rifen from marginal Notes, which private Perlbns fometimes made in their Bibles ; fome Copier tranfcribing from fuch Book, believing thefe Notes to have been fet there to fupply an Omiflion of a Sentence by the former Copier, has put it into the Text of the Copy he writes, from whence other Copies being taken, this marginal Note becomes Part of the Text in thofe Copies which are tranfcribed from it. This might be done in Hebrew Bibles, before the Tranflation of the LXX, and from thenee might be taken into that and other Tranflations.
Many various Readings alfo with regard to Words only between the LXX and other ancient Tranflations, and that of our Englijh Bible and other modern Tranflations made from the prefent Hebrew Copies, have proceeded from the Jewijh Maforites, who having invented a Number of Vowel Points and Paufes, have thereby affixed a particular Reading and Senfe to many Words different from that Reading and Senfe in which they were understood by the LXX, and other ancient Tranflations made before the Invention of thefe Points. But of thefe Maforitic Points I (hall have Occafion to fay more hereafter.
As I faid before, various Readings, and confiderable ones too, will be found in all Books written before Printing was invented. And the more Copies of fuch Books have been written, the more various Read- ings there will be. And as more Copies of the Holy Scriptures have been written than of any other Books, it is no Wonder if more various Readings be found in them, than in Books lefs often tranfcribed. For except the Tranfcribers of the Holy Scriptures were all infpired, and preferved from Error by the Spirit of God, as the firft Penmen of thofe lacred Books were, it is morally impoffible but they fhould be guilty of fome flight Miftake or Overfight in fo long a Work. And there- fore we find like various Readings in the Greek Copies of the New Teftament, which you (by comparing the LXX and Enghjh Verfions) have done in the Old, though, perhaps not fo confiderable. The learned and induftrious Dr. Millet has collected a very great Number of various Readings from leveral Manufcripts, in his excellent Edition printed at Oxford and published 1707. To give an Inftance of one or two confiderable ones. The Doxology at the End of the Lord's Prayer, Mattb. vi. 13. is omitted in feveral MSS. And eleven whole Verfes at the Beginning of the eighth Chapter of St. John's Gofpel. Alfo the 7th Verfe of the fifth Chapter of the firft Epifile of St. John is omitted in almoft all the MSS. now remaining in thefe weftern Parts of the World. So that the Doctor could not procure or be informed of one MS. that had it. Though Robert Stephens declares it to have been in fome of the MSS. from which he published his neat and correct Edition of the New Teftament 200 Years ago : Which Edition our prefent
printed
Ancient Verfton of the Bible. <*
printed Greek Teftaments have generally followed. And as there are iuch Omiffions in fome Copies, To there are alfo fome Additions or" whole Periods or Sentences: As Ael. v. 18. at the End of the Verfe is added x«< Iko^-d tl« 'Uxr^ in t« ?o»*. Now if our EngUJl) Tranflation had been made from one of thefe Copies, you would have i'een a Dif- ference as to whole Periods or Sentences between our Tranflation and our common Greik Teftaments. And I doubt not but our com- mon Greek Teftaments may be corrected from fome of the various Readings.
There is no Doubt but the Holy Scriptures, as written by the di- vinely-infpired Penmen, were without the leaft IVliftake or Overfight. Therefore the five Books of Mofes, which were written with his own Hand, and repcfited fir ft in the Tabernacle, and from thence tranf- ferred to the Temple, were perfectly fiee from all Error, fo much as in a fingle Letter. The fame we are to believe of the other Books of the OUfTeftament, written by the Prophets or infpired Writers. The Originals of which we may alfo believe were from 7'irr.e to Time re- pofited in the fame Place, from whence Copies were taken, for pub- lick life. For we read Deut. xvii. 18. that the King (when they fhould have one) was commanded to write him a Copy of the Law in a Book, out of that which is before the Priejis end Levites. And 2 Chron. xvii. 7, 8, 9. Jeho/haphat fent his Princes, and with than he fent Levites, end they taught in Judah, and had the Book of the Law of the Lord with them, and went about throughout all the Cities of Judah, and taught the People. From hence it is manifeft that there were many Copies of the Law, or of the five Books of Mofes. And no Doubt but Copies were taken of the other facred Books from Time to Time as they were written.
But when the Temple was deftroyed, and the whole Nation of the Jeivs carried into Captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, then all the original Books written by Mofes and the Prophets perifhed together with the Temple, and only Copies remained. However at their Return from the Captivity, when Cyrus had not only permitted, but gave them Pro- tection and Encouragement to rebuild their City and Temple, God raifed up Prophets at the fame Time to encourage them in their Work, and to teach and direct them how to reftore the divine Worfhip ac- cording to the Law; which could not be done without having the Books of the Law, that is the Pentateuch, or five Books of Mofes. And, I think, it is not to be fuppofed that they had not alfo Copies of all the other Books of Holy Scripture written before that Time, and to which the Prophets Haggai and Zechariah, who returned with the firft, added their own Books. After this, as we read Ezra vii. 1. 6. Ezra a ready Scribe in the Law of Mofes went up from Babylon, and came to Jerufalem, in the Reign of Artaxerxes King of Perfa, above feventy Years after the Reftoration granted by Cyrus. He, as is confeffcd both by Jews and Chriftians, together with the Prophet Malachi and Nehe- miah, another infpired Writer, having added their own Books to the former, did, together with the great Synagogue, collect all the infpired Writfngs, and compleat the Canon of the Old Teftament. No Pro-
A 3 phct
6 A Differtation on the
phet being raifed up amongft the Jeivs from the Death of Malachi until the Coming of St. John Baptijl.
Ezra then and his Companions of the great Synagogue, Firf, made a Collection and Canon of the facred Books. Secondly, As he and fome others who joined with him were divinely infpired, that is, guided by the Holy Ghoft, who preferved them from Error in this great Work, the Copy written by them and lodged in the Temple was per- fect and without Miftake. Thirdly, They changed the old Hebrew Letters for thofe of the Chaldeans, as better known to the Jews, who had lived fo long at Babylon : And befides, as they refolved to have no Dealings with the Samaritans, who, as much as they were able, had hindered the rebuilding of Jervfalem and the Temple, they would not write with the fame Letters which the Samaritans made ufe of, that the Samaritans might not read the Jevoijh Books, nor the Jews any of the Samaritans. Fourthly, They added fome Connections and Explications. Thus we find in the Pentateuch feveral Things which we may be con- vinced were not written by Mofes. As Gen. xxxvi. 31. Thefe are the Kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any King over the Children oj Ifraei. The Author of this Verfe and of the Catalogue pf the Kings eft Edom preceding it, muft live at the Time when there were or had been Kings of Ijrael, fince he denotes the Time, when the Ifraelites began to have Kings. Again, it is faid Gen. xiv. 14. That Abraham purfued the Kings he had overcome unto Dan. Nov/ the Name of Dan was not given to this Place until a long Time, not only after Abraham's Days, but alio after the Days of Mofes, when 600 Men of the Tribe of Dan took LaiJJ), as we read Judges xviii. 29. Thefe and many other like PafTages have been urged by fome Perfons to prove that Mofes was not the Writer of the Pentateuch, fince even in the hiftorical Parts there are feveral Things mentioned which happened not until after his Death. But thefe Things may reafonably be fup- pofed to have been put in by Ezra, an infpired Writer, and the great Synagogue, for the better Information of their Contemporaries, when they made this new and compleat Edition of the Canon of all the Holy Scriptures as delivered to the Jeivs. Which contained thofe, and only thofe, which our Church in her iixth Article holds to be Canonical in the Old Teftament. This Edition of Ezra, an infpired Writer, being written by him, a ready Scribe, and repoiited in the Temple, was cer- tainly without Fault or Miftake. And from thence many Copies were foon taken for the Ufe of the Synagogues and private Perfons.
But this Original Book of Holy Scripture written by Ezra, and re- pofited in the Temple, was deftroyed by that bloody Perfecutor of the Jews (the only Church of God at that Time) Antiochus Epiphanes, who, as we read 1 Maccab. i. 21. 56. Entered proudly into the San£luaryy and took away the golden Altar, and the Candle/lick of Light, and all the Vejfeh thereof And when they had torn in Pieces the Books of the Laiv, they burnt them zuith Fire. But when Judas Maccabeus recovered the City and the Temple (2 Maccab. x. i.) and cleanfed and purified the Temple, we cannot doubt but he provided a Book of the Law and the Prophets to be there repofited as before j either one which belonged to
his
Ancient Verpon of the Bible. 7
his Father Mattathias, or one very fairly and correctly transcribed from the beft Copies that could be procured : And took good Care alfo to fupply the Synagogues whofe Books were deft'royed as well as thofe of the Temple. But none of thefe could be equally tree from all Miltakcs* as was that of Ezra an infpired Writer. And thefe alio were for the mod Part deftroyed by the Romans, when the Temple and Synagogues of Judea were burnt by the Soldiers oiVefpafian and Titus. Whether that particular Book, which to the Time of this final Destruction h?.d been repofited in the Temple, was any where preferved, is un- certain.
Jofepbus, who was taken Prifoner by the Romans at that Time, and was an Eye-witnefs of the Defolation and Deft; uction of his Country, in his Account of his own Life (c. 75.) tells us, that having had Leave given him by Titus, to take whatever he pleafed out of the Ruins of his Country, fays, that he valued nothing fo much, after Liberty for himfelf and Family, as the facred Books which he accepted as a Prefent from Titus. Again, in his feventh Book of the Wars of the 'Jews, (c 5.) he makes mention, that the Copy of the Law, which they had taken from the Temple, or out of fome Synagogue, was lad in order carried in Triumph at Rome, after the golden Table and Can- dleftick; and that Titus commanded the fame Copy, together with the purple Veils of the moft holy Place, to be carefully repofited in the Temple of Peace. The former Pa ffage gives not the leaft Hint, that Jofepbus fought or took out of the I em pie the facred Books granted him by the Favour of Titus: And the latter Testimonies do directly contradict and deny it. Which I think proper to obferve, becaufe fome have afTerted that Jofepbus obtained from Titus the authentick Copy repofited in the Temple. But I conceive it is evident from Jo- fepbus's own Account of the Matter, that neither he nor any of the Jews had the Happinefs to preferve the Copy there repofited.
I have already obferved to you, that in Books copied by writing from others, there will be Mlftakes made, unlefs the Tranfcribers are guided bv an infallible Spirit. I muff now alfo obferve that this has a! lb actually happened in the Hebrew Bibles, as well as other Books. This has not only been aiTerted by Ludcvicus Capelhs, and others, who may be thought not to have that due RefpeCt which we ought to have for the prefent Hebreiv Copies : For even Buxtorf, /irvch.i Boot, and the Lord Primate Ufoer, the moft zealous Affertors of the Integrity of the prefent Hebrew Text, have acknowledged that Text has not been free from fuch Errors as Tranfcribers are liable to make: And this they have been obliged to, by the various Readings which are found in the •feveral Manufcripts of the Hebrew Bible.
Some have indeed gone fo far as to have accufed the Jews of having wilfully altered the Hebrew Text. But this is certainly an unjuft Ac- cufation. Had they made any fuch Alterations before the Coming of our Lord Jefus Chrifl, lie and his A pottles, who fo freely taxed the Scribes and Pharifees with their other- Crimes would not have failed to have taken Notice of one fo heinous as the corrupting the Holy Scrip- tures, by changing the Text to fupport their falfe Doctrines. But our bleffed Saviour was fo far from laying anv fuch Thing to their Charge,
A 4 that
8 A Differ tation on the
that he plainly intimates the contrary, when, Job. iii. 39. he direcls his Followers to fearch the Scriptures ; which he would not have done in fuch general Words, if they had been falfified, without taking No- tice of fuch Falfifications, if there had been any. Alfo Mat. xxiii. 2, 3. he fays, The Scribes and Pharijees fit in Mofes Seat, whatfoever therefore they hid you obferve, that cbferve and do. Can any one believe that our blefled Lord would direct any Pcrfons to read corrupted or falfified Scriptures, or given his Followers a Charge to hear thofe who had corrupted them ?
There is juft Reafon alfo to believe, that the Jews have not wilfully or malicioufly altered or corrupted their Scriptures fince the Days of Chriji and his Apoftles ; becaufe we (till find thofe Texts of the Old Teftament, which are cited in the New, in our prefent Hebrew Bibles. If the Jeivs had been difpofed to alter their Scriptures, would they not have changed thofe Texts, that they might have had a Pretence to have accufed Chriji and his Apoftles with Mifquotations and Mifrepre- fentations of their Scriptures ? Again, if the Jews had wilfully cor- rupted the Scriptures, through Hatred to the Chrijiians, as fome fup- pofe them to have done, they would, no Doubt, have done it in thofe Prophecies which particularly relate to Chriji, and in fuch Places as relate to the Myfteries of the Chrijiian Religion. Yet learned Men have obferved, in fome Places where the Hebrezv Books differ from the Greek and Latin, the Hebrew is more oppofite to the Jews, than cither the Greek or Latin: As in Pfal. ii. 12. where the Greek and Latin read, Lay hold of Difcipline, leji the Lord be angry. The Hebreiu has it, Kifs the Son, leji he be angry. Which Reading more plainly re- fers to Chriji, than the other. Who can believe the Jews would wil- fully make Alterations in thofe Places, where there is no Controverfy between them and us, yet change nothing in thofe Paflages which make fo plainly for us againfl themfelves. Befides, as the Jews are difperfed into fo many diftant Countries, it is morally impofiible they fhould all meet together, and agree to corrupt their Books, or that any mould do it, without fome general Agreement with the reft, who might, and no Doubt would, complain of fuch Alterations. And as fuch Complaints of one Party of Jews againft the other have not been made, we may for thefe Reafons believe the Jews have made no wilful Alterations in the Holy Scriptures fince the Coming of Chriji.
But although the Jews have not wilfully corrupted the Hebrew Text, that is the Letters, yet they have affixed fuch Vowel Points and Paufes to the Letters, as give a Senfe to many Words, very different from the Senfe thofe Words were judged to bear by the LXX, and other ancient Tranflators. About A. D. 500, or later, the Jews of Tiberias, where that People had then their chief School of Learning, taking all the Hebrew Letters as Confonants, invented feveral Points, which they put under every Letter to ferve inftead of Vowels, in Order to direct how every Word fhould be pronounced. Some have maintained, that thefe Vowel Points are at Ieaft as old as the Time of Ezra, if not of Mofes. But the Generality of the Learned, I think, are of Opinion that they are no older than A. D. 500, if fo old. The Matter has been controverted pretty much, and the late Dean Prideaux (in his
Conneflim
Ancient Verfion of the Bible. 9
Connexion of the Hijlory of the Old and New Tejlament, Part I. Book v. p. 346. Edit. 8°) has given us all the Arguments pro and con upon this Queftion : And declares himfelf to be of Opinion that the Vowel Points were ufed, if not in the Time of Ezra, yet very foon after, and long before the Deftruclion of the fecond Temple. Yet he confeffes that they are not mentioned by any Author, either Jew or Chrijlian, until fome Hundreds of Years after the Deftruction of Jerufalem. That neither Origen, who gave us the Hebrew Scriptures in one Column written in Hebrew Characters, and in another Column in Greek Cha- racters ; nor St. Jerom, who translated the whole Bible from the He- brew, take any lSTotice of thefe Points. Alfo, that to this Day all the Bibles ufed in the Jewijh Synagogues are written without any Points either of Paufe or LecYion. Likewife, that he himfelf, or 3ny other Mafter of the Hebrew Language, would at this Time choofe to read in an Hebrew Book that was unpointed. The Reafon which he gives for this Opinion of his, is, that although when a Man is acquainted with a Language, he may read it without Vowels, yet until he has learned the Language, it is impoffible for him to read it fo written. And as the Hebrezu was become a dead Language from very near the Return of the Jews from the Babylonifh Captivity, that is from Ezra's Days, and to be learned from Books only, it was impofiible to be learned without the Vowel Points: Confequently thofe Points muff, have been in Uie from Ezra's Time, or foon after.
But all this fine Reafoning is overthrown, not only by the Silence of the Ancients, both Jeius and Chrijlians, but alfo by the politive Tefti- mony of St. Jerom, who lived 800 Years after Ezra's Time, and after the Hebrew was become a dead Language, yet was taught that Lan- guage by a Jew, without the A ffi fiance of any Points. For this Fa- ther, in his Epiftle to Evagrius concerning Melchifcdeck, fays, Non refers utrum Salem an Salim nominetur, cum vocalibus in medio Uteris perrara utantur Hebrasi : Et, pro voluntate leftorum atque vatietate Regionum, eadem verba diver/is fonis atque accentibus proferantur. And left you fhould think that by his faying perraro utantur, he may mean that Vowel Points were then fometimes ufed, though but feldom, confe- quently that this is a Proof of their being ufed in his Time, and long before, I muft inform you, that he cannot mean Vowel Points in this Place, but real literal Vowels, fuch as all Languages in thefe weftern Parts of the World make ufe of: And fuch the Hebrews always had, though moft of their Words be written without any of them. Thefe Vowels are ft, "), 1, y, that is, a fhort, 0, ou, or u, i and'tf long ; to which fome add p{ and n> 'hat is, e fhort and long. But the Majo- rites, who invented the Points, make all thefe Letters to be Conso- nants; but give them no*other Sound than what belongs to the Points placed under them, or, if any, it is no more than an Afpirate. Thefe Letters indeed perraro utantur in medio: But that cannot be faid of Points, which are now affixed to all initial and middle Letters. Be- fides St. Jtrom fays, vocalibus Uteris, but the Points are not Uteres, nei- ther are called fo by thofe who have pleaded the moft for them. This pofnive Teftimony of St. Jerom, that the Hebrews feldom placed a Vowel in the Middle of a Word, and that it was indifferent what
Vowel
io A Dijfertation on the
Vowel you made Ufe of in the Pronunciation, is a plain Teftimony that no Vowel Points were ufed in his Time, that is, until the Begin- ning of the fifth Century after Chrijl. Thole therefore who place the Invention of the Points to about the Year 500, place it early enough.
The Inventors of thefe Points are called Maforites, and their Work Ma/ora, or the Mafore, which is derived from the Hebrew Word 1D*3 Mafar, tradidit, became, after the Hebrew became a dead Language) thefe Maferites? from Age to Age, delivered down the Manner how the Hebrew Words were to be written, read and pronounced. And that thefe might be preferved to all future Ages, they invented a great Number of Points for Vowels, Paufes, and Accents, which the Reader fhould obferve. I (hall not trouble myfelf nor you concerning the nice Curiofity and needlefs Labour of thefe Moforites, not only to number the Verfes contained in every Book of the Lnw and the Prophets, and in all of them together, but likewife the Words, and even the Letters. The Points arc all I (hall take Notice of; becaufe the Learned, until of late, have thought them to be of great Ufe, and that the Hebrew Language cannot be learned without the Knowledge, at leaft of the Vowel Points. Even thofe who have thought the Vowel Points, as well as thofe of Paufe or Accent, deferve no Regard to afcertain or fix the Senfe of a Word, yet think a Beginner muft learn them, the Lan- guage not being otherwife to be learned. But Ma) clef ^ a Prieft and Canon of Amiens in France, has, not many Years fince, publifhed a Hebrew Grammar, whereby he tells us, that Language may be learned without any Knowledge of the Vowel Points; and that he himfelf, being puzzled with the many Rules given with Relation to the Points, threw them all afide, 2nd found it much eafier and better to learn the Language without them.
It is pretended by thofe who lay a great Strefs on the Points, that the fame Word, as moft of the Hebrew Words are, being written with Confonants only, lias various Significations, according to the Vowels with which you read or pronounce it. For Confonants alone cannot be read or pronounced without the Affiftance of Vowels: And the Sig- nification of Words in all Languages depends upon the Pronunciation of the Vowels, as well as of the Confonants; and that in the Hebrew^ though moft of the Words are written without any Vowels, as muft be confefled by thofe who will not allow all the Letters to be Confo- nants; therefore, where Words are written with Confonants only, 2nd yet have different Significations according to their different Pro- nunciation, they muft have different Vowels affixed to them, and for this Reafon the Maforites have done well to affix different Vowels to the fame Word, to afcertain the Senfe of it. Thus, for Inftance, the three Letters "D"! dbr have at leaft five different Significations. 1. He fpake. 2. Speaking. 3. A Word. 4. A Peflilence. 5. A Fold for Sheep or Cattle. No Doubt, but while the Hebrew was a living Language, the Word compofed of thefe three Letters was underftood in its dif- ferent Significations by the different Vowels they ufed when they fpake it. And fuch Vowel Points the Maforites have now affixed to it, by which we m3y know when and where thofe three Letters fignify one Thing and when another. When it fignifies he fpake, they affix the
Points
Ancient Verfion of the Bible. n
Points which denote a fhort and a long, and fay dabar. When it is a Participle, and fignifies Speakings by their Points they read dober. When it is a Noun, and fignifies a Word, they put it under two a's fhort, and read dabar. When it fignifies a Peflilence, they put two e's under, and read debcr. When it fignifies a Fold, they put the Points which de- note a and e, and read it daber. And the like have they done with Regard to all other Words.
What has been done, in this Cafe, by the Maforites, would cer- tainly be of great Ufe and Service to the Church for underftanding the Hebrew Text, if they had lived while the Helrew was a living Lan- guage, and thefe Vowel Points had been then ufed, and we could have been allured of their Knowledge of the true Pronunciation of all Words, according to their different Significations : But as the Hebrew was become a dead Language many hundred Years before their Time, the true ancient Pronunciation was as much unknown then as now. We have St. Jercm's Telfimony before cited, that different Vowels were ufed in the Pronunciation of the fame Word in different Coun- tries. And this was at lead a hundred Years before the Maforites be- gan the Invention of their Points, either for Vowel, Paufe or Accent. I fay, began, becaufe they were not all invented at once, but Improve- ments continued to be making for fome Centuries. It is alfo maniieft, from the LXX, that the ancient Jews read with different Vowels from thofe which the Maforites have affixed.
This is very well proved by Mafclef in his Arguments for his New Grammar, p. xxxviii, &c. which I will give you in his own Words. He fays therefore '
" Rem ipfam accuratius & per partes evolvamus. In duobus fita " eft pronunciacio Mafforethica. i°. In valore feu fono quern fingulis " Alphabetic Uteris tribuit. 2°. In Vocalibus, quas pundfis exprimit. " Atqui quoad utramque partem a veteri norma non parum recedit " puntlatio feu pronunciatio Mafforethica.
" Quod ad literas, haec pauca e multis annotamus. Docent Veteres £C literam 3 non ut p fed ut pb pronunciari. Nulla apud eos Mentio " duplicis 2^, nullibi aiunt literas J"lSD1^22. duplici modo efferri. Tria " Argumenta quibus evincitur Maforethicam pronunciationem a veteri M & genuina non parum deflexiffe.
" Quoad alteram Pronunciations partem, fcilicet vocales quas fup- <c plenc, asque aberrant Mafforethae. Difcrepant enim a Veteribus tarn " circa vocales fupplendas, qu3m circa loca in quibus fupplendas funt. <c Primo in eorum fyftemate nulla, ut aiunt, vocalis frequentior oc- " currit quam Scbeva. Atqui in Pronunciatione iftius Motionis longe «' a Veteribus difcedunt Mafforethae. Punclorum Mafforethicorutn " Myfteriis haud initiatus euni hie Myftngogum adhibebo, quern " nemo mihi favere voluiffe caufabitur. D. Guarinum dico novae " Methodi acerrimum hoftem, qui Grammatical fuss Tom. i. p. 37. ** fie loquitur.
*' Antiqui Interpretes Graci leclione t« Scheva regulas longe divcrfas ab " iis quas tradunt hodiemi Grammatici fequebantur. i°. Enim illud Jape " non legebant initio Ditlionis, ut Gen. i. 1. Ti^KIl Berefchit in prin- ciple: Graci @w<t\§. Levit. xiii. 19. £)$& Seeth, tumor; Graci,
12 A D'tjferialion on the
*l <?-»)9, &c. e contra quando duo Scbeva initio Diclionis concurrunt^ priusfe- " cundum Grammatices bodiema canones vulgb mutatur in hhiriq qaton, id " ejl in i : pojlerius vero quie/cit7 id *•/?, mutum eft, ilii vero interdum " utrumque legebant. — Ex his aliifque plurimis exemplis qua pafftm cc- *' currant in Origenis Hcxaplis a nojlro D. Bernardo de Montfaucon edit is, " videtur eonftare variant admodum et incertam fuijfe apud Veteres Scheva " kgendi rationem. Hue ufque Guarinus.
" Secundo idem colligitur enominum propriorum diversa prolatione. " Legunt Recentiores Nebucbadneijar, Recbabgam, Pincbas^ Cbi/kia, " Jirmeia, Jecbczcbel, Achafchveros, Dariavefch, Kijlef, &c. LXX. Jo- ** fephus & alii Nabucbodonofor, Roboam, Pbinees, Ezecbias, JerenuaSy " Ezccbiely Ajjuerus, Darius^ CaJIeuy &c. Eo argumento utitur Bochar- ** tus Epiftola ad Jacobum Capellum de linguae turn Chaldaicae turn ** Syrirxae pronunciatione: Extat Tom. 3. Col. 853. . Recentiores He- *e braiy in quit, a Veteribus in Hebraici fermonis pronunciatione mult urn dif- " ferunt ut ex nominibus huic lingua propriis, ft cum antiquis verfionibus con- *' ' ferantur, difcimus.
" Atqui fi a veteri pronunciatione ita difcordant in nominibus pro- " priis, quorum pronunciatio facilius potuit confervari (omnium enim '* ore Temper trita fuerunt ifta nomina) quid exiftimandum contigifle " in vocibus, quae (utpote rarius in quotidiano fermone occurrentes) *' promptius potuerunt ad aliam pronunciationem detorqueri ? Dicent *' Adverfarii emollita efle a LXX Interpretibus nomina propria, quo " Graecis auribus minus barbara apparerent.
" Efto. At quantumvis emollita dicantur, fieri non poteft ut a pro- " nunciatione Maflbrethica tarn difcrepenr, fi eodem modo & LXX Sc " Maflbrethae ea in Fontibus Hebraicis legerunt. Potuerunt quidem " inflecti pofteriores Syllabae, ut iftis nominibus daretur Graeca termi- " natio ; at quid caufe fuit, cur non ubique fervaretur idem Syllaba- " rum numerus, priorefque & intermedia; Syllabae tarn turpiter defor- *' marentur ?
" Non in folis nominibus propriis, fed & in aliis diverfitas ilia con- €t fpicitur. Habemus aliquot fragmenta Hexaplorum, in quibus Tex- " turn Hebraicum Uteris Graecis defcripferat Origines ad earn normam, " qua tunc a Judaeis pronunciabatur. Scimus fimiliter quomodo plu- " rima loca ejufdem Textus legerit & pronunciarit Hieronymus. Si *' conferantur ea loca cum Maflbrethica pronunciatione, nee rarb nee " parum a veteri videbitur Maflbrethica difcrepare. Nullus eft Scrip- c' turae Interpres Maflbrethis vetuftior, quern non deprehendas haud " raro fecutum efle diverfam a Maflbrethica pronunciationem ; ita " tamen ut quo quifque proprior fuit Mafloretharum tempori, eo pro- " pius illius lectio ad eorum punctationem accedat. LXX omnium " antiquiffimi longifllme rccedunt."
But if nothing more than the bare Pronunciation of Hebrew Words was concerned in the Cafe, the Matter would not be worth the leaft Difpute. We know not how the ancient Greeks and Romans pro- nounced the Latin and Greek Tongues. Every Nation now gives the fame Sound to the Latin and Greek Letters, which they give to thofe of their own Language, which occafions thofe Languages to be differ- ently pronounced by different People. However, all write and inter- pret
Ancient Verfton of the Bible. 1 3
pret them in the fame Manner ; which Difference in Pronouncing or Speaking is of little or no Confequence. But the Cafe is different with regard to the Hebrew, moft of the Words in that Language (as has been obferved) are written without Vowels, and the Queftion is, what Vowels the Words require to make the Senfe underftood ; not how the Words are to be pronounced in Speaking, when Vowels are affixed to them. Therefore we fay, that as it appears from the LXX, that the Jews, before our Saviour's Time, and from Origen and St. Jerorn, that for 430 Years at leafi after our Saviour's Time, ufed other Vowels, by which they fpake their Words, than thofe which the Miforites have ufed ; the Confequence is, that the Points which the MaforiUt have now affixed to every Hebrew Letter, whether for Vowel, Paufe, or Accent, are of little or no Authority, and deferve not to be regarded by its : And that the true Senfe of an Hebrew Word, written only with Confonants, is not to be fetched from the Points of the Ala/ore, and the Rules given concerning them, but from the Context and Conftrucfion, and the Affiftance of the LXX, and other ancient Tranflations.
Now though (as before obferved) we cannot charge the Jews with wilful Fabrication of the Hebrew Text, that is, they have not of fet Purpofe changed the Letter of their Bibles, yet we cannot fay that they have*not in fome Places wilfully falfified the Senfe by their Points, of which Mafclef gives us a notable Inftance in his Arguments for his New Grammar, p. lxvi.
" Anno 1712 circa Augufti initium aliquot dies Ambiani commo- " rati funt Judaei duo Metenfes. Seniori & dodtiori nomen erat Daniel " Zei, alteri Elias Prag. Collocuti fimul pluries de Religione ; veni- •* mus tandem ad celebre Jacobi Vaticinium, Gen. xlix. non auferetur " fceptrum de Judd. Afferebam inde manifefto fequi, jam praeteriiflc " tempus adventui Meffiae praefignatum : Nihil tenes, inquit Daniel tC Zei; male enim paufas & diftinguis hunc verfum. Et unde hoc, «* inquam ? Non auferetur fceptrum de Judd, Virgula, & Dux de femore ct ejus, Virgula, donee veniet qui mittendus efl, punclum. Nunquid non
M finitur fenfus in voce vSjIj & *D IV i"0^1 nov'i in»tiurn eft -? W certe " & loci contextus & Veterum confenfus expofcit. Quin & id probat " accentus Atbnach fub voce VaH etiam in veftris Bibliis collocatus ** hoc modo vSjfV Erant prae manibus Biblia Rabini Manajfeb Ben
A
*' Ifrael. Turn fubridens Daniel, nondum Myfteriis noftris plene ini- " tiatus es, inquit. Vide accentum fequentem fub voce IV* Munus
** illlus eft efficere ut vox cui fubjacet praecedenti connectatur. Et " quanquam id per fe non indubie praeftaret, praeftaret tonus Muficus •' hujus vocis. Cum enim a nobis decantatur verficulus ille, vocem " attollimus ad vocabulum 1J7, & aliquantulum paufamus: Deinde *c cum particula ^ hemiftichium aliud inchoamus. Unde fit ut hujus " loci fenfus ifte fit. Non auferetur Sceptrum de Judd & Dux de feincre '* ejus in aternum, Virgula, quando venerit Mejfias, &c. Argumentare " nunc quantum volueris, quid inde aut pro te, aut contra nos in- " feres ? Inftabam ut facile erat \ fed fruftra novitatcm leclionis, vete-
" rumque
14 d Differ tation on the.
** rumque Rabbinorum in ifto verfu noftro more legendo confenfurn " regerebam homini vim argumenti ne quidem fentienti. — Cum haec " primum fcribebam nondum noveram interpretationem modo allatam " fcripto fuifle traditam a Rabbino Abraham Ifrael Pilzaro Judaeo « Batavo."
The late learned Mr. John/on of Cranbrook, in his poflhumous Dif- courfe on Daniel's feventy Weeks, has alfo obferved how the Mafcrites have endeavoured to marr that Prophecy alfo, by their Points, by put-* ting a Stop, which they call an Athnacb, which anfwers to our Semi- colon, in the Place where there ought to have been no more than a Comma. And in this Place our Enghjb Translators have followed them, though in the former, concerning Sbilob, they have not. " For *' (as Mr. John/on alfo obferves) thofe great Men, who tranflated our '* Bible, took the prefent Hebrew Text, as it is pointed by the Mafo- *' rifts, to be the only Senfe and Meaning of the Old Teftament." Now by this Maforitic Pointing they have endeavoured to make the Text unintelligible. For thus it ftands, Dan. ix. 25. Know therefore and under/land, that from the going forth of the Commandment to refiore and build Jerusalem, unto the Meffiah the Prince, flxtll be feven Weeks; and ihreefcore and two Weeks the Street /ball be built again, and the IVall, even in troublefome Times. Now by placing their Aihnach or Semicolon after the feven Weeks, and thereby cutting off the feven Weeks from the threefcore and two Weeks, the make the Prophecy wholly unfervice- able to the Chrifians. For it is moft certain that Jefus, whom the Chrijiians have received for the Mejjias, did not come at the End of feven Weeks, or 49 Years, after the Commandment went forth to refiore and build Jerufalem, whether we underftand it of the Edict of Cyrus or Artaxerxes for that Purpofe. And the Maforites have left themfelves at Liberty to apply the Prophecy to any Meffiah or anointed Prince or High-Prieft of their own. But had they joined the fixty-two Weeks to the feven Weeks, as the Context plainly (hews they ought to have done, and read the Text, as no doubt it ought to be read, From the going forth of the Commandment to rejhre and build ferufalem, unto the Meffiah the Prince, fall be feven Weeks, and threefcore and two Weeks, that is, 69 Weeks, or 483 Years, and there placed their Ath~ nach or Semicolon, the Number of Years would exactly point out the Time when the Chriflian Mcjffiah came. Therefore they fixed their Point of Paufe fo, as to make what they pleafed of the Words.
Thefe two Prophecies of facob concerning Sbilob, and of Daniel's Weeks, do fo clearly prove that the true Meffiah, fo long and often foretold by the holy Jeivi/h Prophets, muft have been long lince come, and done and fuffered what was prophefied concerning him, and fo exactly point to the Time when our bleffed Lord Jefus did actually come, that it is not to be wondered at that the Jews, who are fo ob- ftinately bent not to believe in Jefus as the Chriji, (hould ufe all their Endeavours to render thefe two Prophecies wholly unferviceable to our proving Jefus to be the Chrifl, the Son of the living God, and Saviour of the World. But no Chriflian, I believe, has been fo weak as tp underftand thofe Texts in the Manner the Jews fhew by thefe Points they would have them underftood. For although our, and it may be
other
Ancient Verfion of the Bible. 15
other modern Tranflators, have pointed according to the Mifonte Copy, yet I have never heard of any Chrijlian, but who has cfieemed thofe two Prophecies to be demonflrative Proofs that the true Mefftafy has been long fince come, and thar thcfe Prophecies do particularly point out the Time when our Lord Jefis became Man.
Neither is there any Reafon why we mould give much Heed to their Vowel Points, or condemn the LXX, or any other ancient Verfion, when they have tranflated a Word differently from the Signification which the Maforctic Points have now affixed to it. Mr. fohnfon, at the End of his Holy David, and bis old Englijl) Tranflators cleared, has given us a long Catalogue of Paflages wherein our Tranflators of the Pfalms in the Common-Prayer Book have varied from the LXX, and followed the prefent Hebrew Copies. Yet I believe in molt of thofe Places the Hebrew Text, if read without the M-foritic Vowel Points, will be as agreeable to the LXX, and other ancient Tranflations, as to our Englijb Verfion. To give an Inflance or two. Pfal. ix. 20. our Tranflation is, put them in Fear : The LXX and Latin Vulgate i?, fet thou a Lawgiver over them. The Hebrew Word here is PHI'S, which if you derive it from tfT timuit, fignifies Fear, but derived from n*V docuit, fignifies an InjlruStor, a Giver of Rules, or Lawgiver. And very properly may refer to Chrijl, who was to come to give a new Law, which fhould take the Gentiles into his Fold ; and therefore no Wonder that the Maforites fhould choofe the other Interpretation. Pfal. Ixviii. 26. our Tranflation is, The Singers go before: The LXX and Latin Vulgate read, The Princes go before. The Hebrew Word C2H£^ fignifies both Singers and Princes. The Maforites have diftinguifhed the diffe- ren Significations of this Word, by putting a Point on the right Side of the firft Letter $ when it fignifies Singers, and on the left & when it fignifies Princes. But no one is obliged to think Singers the mo ft proper Signification in this Place, becaufe the Maforites have by their Point fixed it to that Senfe. For thofe folemn Songs of Praife, here fpoken of, were generally compofed by the Princes or Heads of the People, and they went before in the Proceflion. Thus Mofes, Exod. xv. compofed and began the Song which the People fung when they faw the Egyptians drowned in the Sea. And Miriam, the Sifter of Afofes and Aaron, went before the Women in the Dance on the fame Occaficn. So Deborah alfo and Barak were Leaders in the Song they compofed for their Victory over fabin and his General Si/era, as we read in the 5th Chapter of fudges. So alfo we find, 1 Sam. xix. 20. that when the Company of Prophets prophefied, that is, fung divine Hymns and Pfalms, Samuel, who was a Prince, (food as appointed over them. And 1 Chron. xv. 27. when the Ark was brought to Je- rufalem, David himfelf, the King of Tfrael, fung and danced before it. As therefore in the folemn publick Rejoicings the Princes, who were alfo Singers, led the Choir, the holy Penman has ufed a Word which fignifies both Princes and Singers, and for that Reafon, I think, the Hebrew fhould not be pinned down (as it is by the Maforitic Point) to one Senfe, though a Tranflator into another Language cannot give it that double Senfe in one Word.
One might be apt to think the LXX differed very much from the
prefent
16 A Differ lation on the
prefent Hebrew Copy in Pfal. Ixxxiii. i. where the LXX and Latin Vulgate read, Who Jball be compared unto thee, O God? And our Englijh Bibles, Hold not thy Tongue, O God : Yet this Difference arifes only from the Ambiguity of one Hebrew Word, *£% which fignifies both Similitude and Silence; and may be literally tranflated into Latin, Deus non eft Similitudo tibi, or Deus non eft Silentium tibi. Pfal. exxxii. i. the LXX and Latin Vulgate read, Lord, remember David and all his Humi- lity: But our Tranllation has it, and all his Trouble. This likewife proceeds from the Ambiguity of the Hebrew Word FftN' which figni- fies both Humility and Trouble or Jffliclion, and the Context will bear either of thefe Words. But the Maforites by their Points have fixed the Signification to Trouble or Affliction, and our Englifo has followed them, and the LXX have taken the other Senfe of the Word. I will give you one Inftance more from Gen. xlvii. 31. where our Tranfla- tion renders, I/rael bowed himfelf upon the Bed's Head. But the LXX render, he bowed him/elf or worflApped upon the Top of his Staff. And fo the A pottle cites it, Hb. xi. 21. The Hebrew Word PUOD fignifying either a Bed or a Staff. Which different Significations the Maforites have dimnguifhed by their different Vowel Points. But whether they have always rightly diftinguifhed their ambiguous Words is the Quef- tion. Nor are the LXX to be blamed, if they often differ from them ■with regard to the true Meaning of ambiguous Words. For where Words have various Significations, different Tranflators will tranflate them varioufly.
But the various Readings between the LXX and our Englijh Bibles do not arife only or chiefly from the Ambiguity of many Hebrew Words, and to which the Ma/orites by their Points have fixed a Senfe diffeierit from that in which they were understood by the LXX : Many Differences have alfo rifen from a Change in the Hebrew Letters, as well as from the Points. For although, as before obferved, the Jews have not wilfully altered the Letters of the Hebrew Text, yet Varia- tions have arifen in them through the Likenefs of one Letter to ano- ther, which has occafioned the Tranfcribers to miftake, and put the one for the other. Tranfcribers alio, fometimes writing haftily, have by Carelefnefs or by Overfight tranfpofed a Letter, and put that Letter before, which mould be behind the other, of which I will give you fome Inftances.
Pfal. xxii. 16. The prefent Hebrew Copies read, Dogs have compaffed me; the Jffembly of the Wicked have enclofed me as a Lion my Hands and my Feet. A Reading one can hardly tell how to make Senfe of. But in the LXX and all ancient Tranflations, and in our Englijh Bibles alfo, it is, They pierced my Hands and my Feet. Yet we can- not fay that the Jews did originally corrupt this Text wilfully, the Corruption might eafily proceed from a Mifiake of the Tranfcriber, or his Carelefnefs in writing » and "), which might eafily happen in hafty Writing, and fo inftead of TlND foderunt, they wrote^"|tf3 fuut Leo, This Reading being got into one Copy, many other Copies followed it, and the Jews finding this Reading (though a very abfurd one) de- prived the Chriftiaus of "a prophetick Text relating to the Paffion and Death of the bleffed Jefus, have ftuck to, and ftill retain, this corrupt
Reading
Ancient Verfion of the Bible. 1 7
Reading in their BiMes. So Habac. i. 5. our Bibles from the prefent Hebrew read, Behold ye among the Heathen: But the LXX, behold ye Defpifers. Which plainly proceeded from a Miftake occafioned through the likenefs of two different Letters, 1 and -|. The prefent Hebrew Copies have Q*1J0 in gentibus, and that from which the LXX tran- slated had D*TO con temp tores.
2 Chron. xx. 1. We read in our Bibles, The Children of Moab, and the Children of Ammon, and with them other bejide the Ammonites, came againfl Jehojhaphat to Battle. But you may obferve, as the Word other is printed in the Italick Letter, it is not in the Hebrew Text, but put in by the Tranflators ; for in the Hebrew it is, the Children of Ammon, and with them of the Ammonites : So the Tranflators put in the Word other, and changed the Word of to befide, in order to make it good. Senfe. But the LXX have tranflated it, and with them of the Minaans, The learned Bochart has judicioufly obferved {Geogr. Sacr. part. 1. 1. a. c. 22.) that this Miftake has happened in the Hebrew Text through the Overfight of a Tranfcriber, who through Carelefnefs tranfpofed the Letter JT, and inftead of fetting it after the Letter ft, as he ought to have done, fet it before that Letter. So inftead of writing tD^J?ftnft» he wrote D^lftVilft* and others tranfcribing from this Copy propa-' gated the Miftake. The Hebrezo word which the LXX tranflates Mi" ntsans, is, according as now pointed by the Maforites, -read Mehunim, as appears from our Bibles, 2 Chron. xxvi. 7. And the Place of th.ir Habitation is called Maon, Jojlma xv. 55. and gave Name to the Wil- dernefs near which they lived, 1 Sam. xxiii. 24, 25.
There are a great many various Readings in the Hebrew Bibles arif- ing from the Points : For there were two eminent Jews, one at Tibe- rias called Ben Afcher, the other at Babylon called Ben Naphtcli, who about the fame Time undertook to publifh each of them a corred Edi- tion of the Hebrew Scriptures with the Points, wherein they differ much: The Eajlern Jews, for the moft Part** follow the Edition of Ben Naphtali, and the Weflern that of Ben Afcher. There are alfo other different Readings between the Efiflern and fp'efiern J*ws. But this chiefly concerns the Points. However, the Jews alfo acknowledge many various Readings, even with regard to the Letters; which va- rious Readings are noted in the Margin of the Hebrew Bibles, and are called Hp Keri, 3V0 Ketib. Keri Signifies read, and Ketib, written. The Word which ftands in the Text is not to be read, and therefore is called Ketib, i. e. the written : But the other is called Keri, the read, becaufe though it is not' written in the Text, but in the Margin, yer it is to be read inftead of that in the Text. This Keri and Ketib is the Work of the Maforites, and is fuppofed to have proceeded fiom hence. Defigning to publifh a correct Edition of their Bible, they took that which they efteemed their moft authentick Copy, and not daring to make any Alterations in the Text of that Copy, yet finding in other Copies a different Reading, which they judged to bo the more genuine, they placed it in the Margin, and gave Directions to their Scholars to read that marginal Word inftead of the other, thereby giving the Pre- ference to that Word, though they feared to put it into the Text. Bifhop Walton, in his Appendix to his Polyglot, has given us ali thofe
Vol. III. B. various
1 8 A Differ tation on the
various Readings of Ben Afcher and Ben Naphtali of the Oriental and Occidental Jews, and of the Keri and Ketib. But thofe who are flcilled in the Hebrew, even thofe who are mod zealous for the Integrity of the Hebrew Text, tell us, that there are many other various Readings in the Manufcript Bibles, though I know of none who has taken the Pains to make a Collection of them, as Dr. Milles and others have done the various Readings of the New Teftament.
The LXX is the mod ancient Tranflation of the Scriptures that has been made. Some indeed pretend that there was an elder Verfion of the Jewifh Scriptures into Greek, made about the Time of the Baby- lotiifb Captivity, or foon after, before the Reign of Cyrus, from whence Pythagoras and Plato learned many Things, for which they cite one Arijlcbulus, fome Fragments of whofe Books have been preferved, and handed down to us by Clemens Alexandrinus Eufebius, and others of the ancient Fathers, who generally accufe the Philofophers of having ftolen many of their Doctrines from the holy Scriptures, and corrupted them with a Mixture of their own Notions. But though Arijlobulus and the Fathers accufe them of this Theft, they do not fay that the Scriptures, but only fome fmall Parts of the Law, were tranflated into Greek. And this is faid only on Conjecture, and not hirtorical Authority. They tell us, that Pythagoras, Plato, and other Philofophers, travelled into Egypt and Babylon, and other Parts where the Jews were difperfed, from converfing with whom they learned many of thofe Things which were written in the Scriptures, and which could not be known but from thence. All this might eafily be done, without a Tranflation of any Book of the Scriptures into Greek. No Queftion can be made but that Pythagoras and Plato, and or her Philofophers who travelled into Chaldea and Egypt to obtain the Learning of thofe Countries, and for which Purpofe they (bjourned there many Years, would, in order to attain that Learning, endeavour to attain a tolerable Knowledge in the Language of the Country where they fojourned, that they might freely converfe with the learned Men of thofe Countries, who before the Macedonian Conquefts had no Occaiion to learn Greek: The Learning of that Age refiding amongft them, and they had no Occafion to feek any from the Greeks. But when the Macedonians had conquered the Perfian Empire, and after the Death of Alexander had there erected their feveral Kingdoms, the Greek became the Couit-Language in all thofe Nations, and the Learning of Egypt and Chaldea was tranflated into Greek, which by that Means became ah univerfal Language over all thofe Parts of the World.
When the Greeks were thus become Mailers of all thofe Countries, and had there for a confiderable Time firmly eftablifhed their Empire, Ptolemy Lagus, the firft Macedonian King of Egypt, gave great Encou- ragement to all learned Men to fettle in his Dominions: And his Son Ptolemy Philadelphia erected a noble Library for their Ufe at Alexandria his capital City. Demetrius Phalerens, his Library Keeper, acquainted that Prince, that the Law of the Jews ought to have a Place in his Library. The King anfwered him, that it was his Fault if it was not put there. Demetrius replied, that it muft be tranflated fir ft, becaufe it was written in a Language and Character's unknown to the Egyp- tians.
Ancient Verfion of the "Bible. 19
tians. Hereupon the King refolved to write to the High Prieft of the Jews, to fend him the Book, with Interpreters to tranflate it. Then Arijleas, a great Officer in the Court, and who wrote the Hiftory of this Tranfaclion, reprefented to the King, that he could not fend Am- baffbdors to the 'Jews, while he kept fo many Jezvs in Slavery in his Kingdom, being no lefs than 100000; all which, with their Wives and Children, the King redeemed from their Matters, paying out of his Treafury twenty Drachmas a Head for every one. Then Deme- trius acquainted him, that it would be convenient to write to the High Prieft at Jerufalem, to fend him fix Men out of every Tribe, "noted for their Learning, Virtue and Age, to make an exact Verfion of the Books of the Jews. Arijleas gives us a Copy of the King's Letter to Eleazar the High Priefl, and the Names of the 72 Perfons fent to tranllate the Law, with an Account of the magnificent Preients the King made to the High Prieft, to the Temple at Jerufalem, and to the 72 Interpre- ters, fo that as Dean Prideaux has computed, the whole Expence the King was at on this Occafion amounted to near two Millions of our Money. Demetrius conducled the Interpreters to a Houfe prepared for them in the If and Pbarus, where in 72 Days they fin i (bed their Verfion.
Ariflobulus, who was Tutor to Ptolemy Phyfcon, Philo alfo, who lived in our Saviour's Time, and was Contemporary to the Apoftles, and Jofphus, who faw and wrote the Hiftory of the Destruction of Jeruja- lim by the Romans, all fpeak of this Tranflation as made by 72 Inter- preters, by the Care of Demetrius Phalereus, under the Reign of Pto- lemy Philadelpus. And all Chrijlians, who mention how this Tranfla- tion was made, for 1500 Years, fpeak of it as made by 72 Interpreters (or by 70, which is the neareft round Number to 72, and from thence gave it the Name of the Septuagint) in the Time of Pto/emy Philadelphia^ without any Exception. It is true, they have differed in feveral Cir- cumftances relating to the Manner of their Tranflating, as whether they were fhut up every Interpreter in a Cell by himfelf, or whether there were two in one Cell, or whether they conferred all together as often as they pleafed, and other Circumftantials: But in the main both Jews and Chrijlians were agreed until after the Year 1500, that this mod ancient Greek Tranflation was made by 72, or, as called for the Sake of the round Number, 70 Interpreters, in the Time of Ptolemy Philadelphus. But fince that Time Criticks are arifen who queftioa every Thing; and not only the Circumftances wherein the Ancients both yews and Chrijlians differ in their Relation, but even where they all agree, are denied. They queftion whether this Verfion was made in the Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, by 72 Perfons. And fay, were not 12 enough, and more than fufficient?
Du Pin, who, in his Compleat Hiftory of the Canon of Scripture, has rejected all the Accounts given by Arijleas, Ariftobulus, Philo, Jofephus, and the ancient Fathers concerning this Tranflation, as ifabulous Stories, yet grants the Tranflation to be as old as the R.eign of Phila- delphus. For, fpeaking of the Hiftory of Arijleas, the ancienteft and mod particular of all that is written concerning this Matter, he fays, " That how fabulous foever it be in its Circumftances, it has a true
B 2 " Founda-
20 A DiJJertation on the
'« Foundation : Arijleas, and the other Jews of Alexandria ', would never tc have wrote fuch Things, had not the Law been tranflated into Greek " by the Jews in the Reign of Ptolemy Pbiladelphus. There muft be " fome Truth that hath given Rife to this Fable, and that this Prince " did in effect demand, and caufe to be 'made a Greek Verfion of the <c Books of the Law." Well then, thus much is granted by one of the greateft Adversaries to this Verfion ; and I know of none that have abfolutely denied it this Antiquity. Dean Prideaux, who feems to be one of the greateft Adverfaries to this Tranflation, allows the five Books of Mofes to have been tranflated in the Time of Ptolemy Phila- delpbus by the Alexandrian Jews, and repofited in his Library. But if Pbiladelphus, or his Library-Keeper, defired to have thefe Books of the Jews, why fhould they not rather defire to have them from Jeru- falem, the Fountain-Head, than from the Alexandrian Jews ? Dr. Pri~ deaux himfelf tells us, " That they feized all the Books, that were by " any Greek or other Foreigner brought into Egypt., and fending them <c to the Mufcsum, caufed them there to be written out by thofe of that " Society, whom they there maintained, and then fent the Tranfcripts " to the Owners, and kept the Originals to lay up in the Library/' This fhews that they were curioufly nice to have the beft and moft authentick Copies in their Library. Can we think then, that when they wanted the Books of the Jews, they would not rather fend for them to Jerufalem, which was in a bordering Country, and under Ptolemy's Jurifdiction, then take it from an Alexandrian Copy ? And to defire a Copy immediately taken from the Original repofited in the Temple ? And as that Copy was in a Language the wife Men of Egypt underftood not, to defire a Number of Tranflators well verfed both in the Hebrew and Greek, who might foon make a faithful Tranflation of it ? This was certainly the beft Method to fecure a good Tranflation of this Book.
But fays Du Pin, " Why muft 72 Perfons be fent to make this " Tranflation ? Were not 12 enough, and more than fufficient to " accomplish it ? This great Number was fit for nothing but to con- " found the Work." It may be anfwered, that fuch a Number of Perfons was convenient, and would be fo far from confounding the Work, that it would forward it very much. Indeed, in a Number of Years one Man might tranflate the whole, as we know St. Jerom did, and others have done fince : But where a Tranflation is foon wanted, a Number is neceflary. When our King James I. ordered a new Tranflation of the Bible, no fewer than 54 Perfons were ap- pointed for, and laboured in that Work. Each Man had his Part allotted him to tranflate, and then it was fupervifed and corrected until it was approved by the reft. And 72 Perfons might very well do the fame. The Number 70, or 72, is therefore no Argument againft that Number of Interpreters. But fays Dean Prideaux, it was done by Alexandrians, for it is in the Alexandrian Dialect. But I conceive the Alexandrian and Jewijh Greek Dialect was the fame at that Time: For both learned that Language from the Maeedonians, which was hardly formed into different Dialects between the Conqueft made by Alexander and the Reign of Pbiladelphus, Then he alfo pretends that only the
Law,
Ancient Verflon of the Bible. 1 1
Law, and not the reft of the Scripture^, were tranflated at that Time, becaufe the different Books are found written in different Styles, and the fame Hebrew Word and Phrafes are differently tranflated in diffe- rent Places. Now as to different Styles, I believe the ieveral Books of Scripture, though they were all to be tranflated by one Man, wouli not in all Places bear the fame Style, much lefs when they are tran- flated by feveral Men : And, in like Manner, feveral Men tranllating the fame Words and Phrafes, will not turn them into the fame Words and Phrafes of the Language into which they tranflate. Let but two Men he employed to tranflate a Chapter of the Bible from the Original into Englijh, and I dare fay, though they both tranflate at the fame Time, and their Senfe be the fame, the Words and Phrafes fhall be different. But here are fuppofed to be 72 Tranflators, each of which tranflated the Part afllgned him : What Wonder then, if in tranflat- ing the fame Hebrew Words and Phrafes they fhould do it different Ways ?
But Dean Prideaux has another flronger Argument to prove that the Law only, and not the reft of the Scriptures, were tranflated for Pto- lemy, and that is, Arifleas, Arijlobulus, Philo and Jofephus, do all directly tell us that the Law only was tranflated. Now thefe four being the rnoft ancient of all that have written concerning this Matter, their Teftimony is of the greateft Weight. But in the firft Place I mufl obferve, that the learned Dean was under a great Miftake when he named Arijlobulus as telling us that the 72 interpreted the Law only: For in a Fragment cited from him by Eufebius (Praep. Evan. 1. 1.) he afferts the direct contrary, faying, That the whole facred Scripture was rightly tranflated through the Means of Demetrius Phalereus, and by the Command 0/Thiladelphus the King. And what Arifleas and Philo call the Law, may very well be underftood to comprehend the whole Jewijh Scripture: It is certain that Word did often comprehend the whole Scripture in our Saviour's Time, and no doubt before. Thus our Lord fays, John xv. 25. It is written in their Law, they hated me with- out a Caufe : Yet this is no where written in the Pentateuch, but Pfal. xxxv. 19. Again, John x. 34. Is it not written in your Law, Ifaid, ye are Gods? Thefe Words refer to Pfalm Ixxxii. 6. And 1 Corinthians xiv. 21. St. Paul fays, In the Law it is written, with Men of other Tongues, and other Lips, will I [peak unto this People. Yet there is no fuch Text in the Law of Mojes, but in Ifaiah xxviii. 11. This is a fufficient Anfwer to what is alledged from Arifleas and Philo, who men- tion only the Law when they fpeak of this Tranflation : Since that Word may very well be underftood to comprehend all the Scriptures of the Jewijh Church.
But then, as to Jofephus, the learned Dean fays, that He more ex- prefly tells us in his Preface to his Antiquities, that they did not tranflate for Ptolemy the whole Scriptures, but the Law only. But to this Teftimony we may juftly oppofe that of Arijlobulus, who fays, they did tranflate all the holy Scriptures at the Command of Philadelphus the King, as before obferved. Now Arijlobulus was an Alexandrian Jew, Tutor to an Egyp- tian King, confequently it cannot be doubted but he had free Accefs to the Mufaum^ and faw the Tranflation made by the 72, and there
B 3 repofited
22 A Di£e> tstion on the
reported ; and therefore could not but know whether all the Books of Scripture were contained in it or not. Befides, he lived, according to the learned Dean's own Computation, within 100 Years after the Tranflarion was made; whereas Jojephns lived net until 300 Years or more alter this Tranfhtion was made, and many Years after it was burnt with all the reft of that noble Library : So that he could never fee the original MS. there repofited by Demetrius Phalereus, as Arijio- bulus did. It is certain, from what he relates of this Matter, that he took his Account of it from Arijleas; who having mentioned only the Law, Jojepbus took that Word in the (trict Senle, as if it implied only the Pentateuch, wheieas the Jews (for Cbriji and his Apoftles were Jews, and fpake what I have before cited to Jews) often comprehended the whole Scriptures under that Word, and fo might Art/leas* though Jofepbus miftook him. And the pofitive Teftimony of Arifhbulus is certainly preferable to that of Jojepbus, both as he lived fo much nearer to the Time when this Tranfiation was made, and faw the original Book which was repofited in the Ptolomaan Library.
But Dean Prideaux feems to make it a Queftion, Whether there ever was fuch an Author as Arijlobulus, who wrote Commentaries upon the five Books of Mojes : Confequently Clemens Alexandrinus and Eufe- bius, who have cited large Extracts from him, were imposed upon by a fpurious Author ; who, as Dr. Hody conjectures, lived in the fecond Century after Cbriji, and forged a Book under the Name of Arijlobulus, which he impofed upon Clemens, who lived anc'J wrote in that Century, as the Work of a more ancient Author. But as it likely that [q learned a Man as Clemens, fo well verfed in all ancient Authors, fhould be impofed upon, and made believe that a Book which never appeared until his own Time, was written by one who lived feme hun- dred of Years before ? But let us hear the Reafons why tlv.'y could not be written by that Arijlobulus, whofe Name they bear.
" He is faid, 1 Maccab. i. 10. to have been King Ptohvnys Mafter, " in the 188th Year of the iEra of Contracts, when it was by no " Means likely he could have been in that Office. For the Ptolemy " that then reigned in Egypt was Ptolemy Pbyfcon, and the 188th Year *' of the iEra of Contracts was the twenty-firft Year of his Reign, and " the fifty-fixth after his Father's Death, and therefore he mutt then " have been fixty Years old, if not more." But when the Dean wrote, if not more, he had forgot that he had before told us that Pbilometer Pbyfcon' s elder Brother was but fix Years old when th,eir Father died, confequcntly Pbyfcon might not have been one Year olid at that 'I ime. But to proceed with the Dean's own Words. " Which is an Age paft *' being under the Tuition of a Mafter. If it be faid he might ftill re- " tain the Title, though the Office had been over ma oy Years before; *' the Reply hereto will be, that he muft then have be<;n of a very great *' Age, when mentioned by this Title: For Men ul e not to be made 44 Tutors to Princes, till of eminent Note, and of mature Age ; forty *4 is the leaft we can fuppofe him of, when appointed to this Office, if " he ever were at all in it. And fuppofing he w:is fir ft called to it ** when Ptolemy Pbyfcon was ten Years of Age, he mult be ninety at *' leaft at the Time when this Title was given him ;"|n the Place above
" cited."
Ancient Vtrfion of the Bible. 23
tl cited." And is ninety an improbable Age for a Man to live? Mutt not a Man be at a Lofs for Argument that ufes fuch a one as this ? Who has lived in the Woild that has not fesn or heard of a Man ninety Years old, or more? The 188th Year of the JEra of Contracts, the Dean tells us, was 152 Years after the Vcrfion of the LXX was made. Ariflobulus was then ninety Years old, consequently born about iixty-two Years after that Veriion was made ; and as Greek was his Mother-Tongue, and he a Jew, bied to the Reading of the Scrip- tures, he mull know by the time he was ten or twelve Years old, whether the Jews had all the Scriptures in the Greek Language or not; and before he was twenty, might have Opportunity to fee that Copy which was repofited in the Mufcsum. This will make but about eighty Years from the Time of making the Translation of this LXX.
Now the Dean places the making the Tianflation to the eighth Year oi Philadelphia, 277 before Cbrifl. Ari/iobulus was capable ot examin- ing this Tranllation fo far as to know what Books were tranflated with- in eighty Years after, and he tells us they were all the Holy Scriptures. Thele eighty Years fubtracted from 277, bring down Ariflobulus's Teftimony to the Year before Chri/l 197. This was at leaft ten Years before Antiochus Epiphanes prohibited the reading of the Law in the Jewijh Synagogues, which brought them to the Cuftom of reading the Prophets in their Synagogues of Judea. From whence the Dean fuppofes the Alexandrian Jews took up that Cuftom alfo ; and then, and not till then, tranflated the Reft of the Scriptures into Greek, hav- ing only a Tranilation of the Law until that Time. But the pofttive Teftimony of Ariflobulus fully refutes the Conjecture.
But another Objection is, " If he had been Preceptor to Ptolemy " Phyfcon, how came it to pafs, that he fhould dedicate his Book of " Commentaries on the Law of Mofes to Ptolemy Phikmetor, who " reigned before Phyfcon ?" If we could give no Reafon for this, it is certainly a very weak Argument to prove a Book to be fpurious, be- caufe the Author has dedicated it to one Man, and we think he ihould rather have dedicated it to another. Do we know what private Rea- fons an Author has to choofe one Man for his Patron rather than ano- ther? And fuppofe we could not at this Diftance of 2000 Years tell . why Ariflobulus dedicated his Book to Phikmetor rather than to Phyfcon, would that be any Reafon to reject it as fpurious ? A Man muft be at a great Lofs for Arguments, who ufes fo weak a one as this. Yet even at this Diftance Reafons may be given why Ariflobulus chofe to dedicate to Phikmetor rather than to Phyfcon, notwithftanding Phyfcon had been his Pupil. For, in the firft Place, it is moft reafonable to believe that Ariflobulus wrote his Book before he was feventy Years of Age, until which time Phyfcon reigned only in Lybia and Cyrene, and Phikmetor reigned in Egypt, where Ariflobulus lived : And it is more likely that a Man would choofe to dedicate to his own King, than to a King of another Nation. And in the next Place, though Phyfcon had been Pupil to Ariflobulus, yet he proved fuch a cruel and vicious Tyrant, that Arijhbulus might very well have more Refpect for his Bro- ther than for him. Another Objection is, «* As to what he is faid to have written in
B 4 thofe
24 J Differ taiion on the
" thofe Commentaries, of there being a Greek Vernon of the Law be- " fore thot of the LXX, and that the Greek Philofophers borrowed " many Things from thence, it looks all 1 ke Fiction." I grant it to have been a miftaken Conjecture. Arijiobulus in rending the Greek Phi;o!ophers, particularly Pythagoras, who lived before the Rife of the Perfutn Empire, and Plato, who lived before Alexander the Great, had faid many Things which, he conceived, they could learn only from the Holy Scriptures ; this induced him to think that Come Parts of the Scriptures muff, have been tranflated into Greek before their Time: But confidering, as the learned Dean rightly obferves, that " The *' Li"ht of Reafon, or elfe Tradition, might have led them to the fay- " ino- of many Things, efpecially in moral Matters, which accord " with what is found in the Writings of Mofes ; and if not, yet there <6 were other Ways of coming at them without fuch a Verfion. Con- «« verfe with the Jews might fuffice for it, and particular Inftruclion " mi»ht be had from fome of their learned Men for this Purpofe : «' And fuch, Clearchus tells us, Ariflotle had from a learned Jetv in the <c Lower Ajia" Arijiobulus thought no: of tliefe Reafons, and from thence was drawn into a groundlefs Conjecture. But becaufe a wrong Argument, and from thence a wrong Concluhon, appears in a Book, does it therefore follow that it muft be fpurious, and not belong to the Author whofe Name it bears? If this be an Argument to rejea a Book, and condemn it as fpurious, what human Writing can el'cape? But though Arijiobulus has made fuch a Miftake in what he has written Concern. ncr ancient Times, he has given us no Reafon to queftion the Truth in Matters wherein he could not be miftaken. He could not but know whether all the Scriptures of the old Teftament were tranf- hted into Greek before he was born : And as he was born but fixty Years after the LXX Tranflation was made, the Tradition concern- ing that Tranflation was of fo fhort a Date, that no Man bred to Learning, as he was, could be impofed upon, and made believe, that the LXX did tranflate the whole Scriptures, if they had translated the Law only. As foon as he could read, he faw the whole Scriptures written in Greek; when he was admitted into the Mujcsum, he faw them in the Library, and was informed by his Tutors who they were that tranflated them. They, queftionlefs, were fome of them old Men, who if they were not themfelves of an Age to remember the Making of the Verfion, yet might be juft born at the Time it was made: And therefore -as foon as they could read, could not but know whether they had only the Law in Greek. And if they had the reft of the Scriptures alfo, no Doubt but the LXX tranflated the Whole. Thefe Men could not be deceived in the Matter, and from them Ari- jiobulus had his Information.
I know the learned Pean and others fuppofe Arijiobulus to have taken his Account of this Matter from Arifleas ; That Book, ilj'eems, fays he, having been forged before his Time. Now that the Book which bears the Name of Arijleas was forged by an Helleni/lical Jew, I do not difpute: But that it was forged before the Time of Arijiobulus, I deny. For Men dare not offer fuch Forgeries to the World while there are living Witneffes to contradict them | and there were certainly many fuch
living
Ancient Verficn of the Bible. 25
living at Alexandria^ as were above eighty Years of Age when Arifto- bulus was born. But where does it appear that Arijlobulus has followed the counterfeit Arijieas? He only tells us, as Arijieas alfo does, that this Verfion was made at the Command of Ptolemy Pbiladelpbus, under the Care and Direction of Demetrius Phalereus ; that is, he has only told a Truth, to which the pretended Arijieas and fevera-1 others after- wards added many fabulous Circumftances. For Du Pin, no Friend to the general ancient Opinion of Jews and Chrijlians concerning the LXX, yet fays, " There muft be fome Truth that has given Rife to " the Fable of Arifteas, and that Ptolemy Philadelphia* did in Effect de- " mand, and caufe to be made, a Greek Verfion of the Law." How then does it appear that he took his Account from Arijieas? He had certainly Opportunity of being truly informed of the whole Matter, and we have no Ground to believe that any of the fabulous Stories concerning it were invented, at leaft not publifhed in Writing before his Time. But Arijlobulus fpeaks of the Verfion being made not only by the Command of Philadelpbns, but alfo under the Direction of De- metrius Phalereus. But we are told this could not be, for Pbiladelphus, as foon as he came to the Crown, committed Phalereus to Prifon, be- caufe he had endeavoured to perfuade Ptolemy Lagus, the Father of Pbiladelpbus, to fettle the fucceffion to the Crown on one of his Sons by Eurydice, and not upon him ; and that foon after his Imprifonment he was bit by an Afp, and died: Therefore he could have no Concern in a Tranflation made in the Reign of Pbiladelpbus. This Story Dio- genes Laertius tells from one Hermippus. But the fame Diogenes alfo tells us that Sotion, in his Epitome of Succejfions, fays Demetrius only counfelled Lagus not to make any Son King fo long as he lived ; fay- ing, "a» olhhu !«?• <rv hx «I«K« Which Counfel, as it expreffed no ill Will to Pbiladelpbus, couid not be greatly relented by him, at leaft no more than might eafily be reconciled during the two Years Ptolemy Lagus lived afterwards : Or which Pbiladelpbus, out of his great Love to Literature, might eafily forgive : Since there was no Man fo well qualified as Demetrius (the greateft Grammarian, Orator and Philofo- pher of his Age) to furnifh his Library with Books. And as Hermippus gave a wrong Account of the Counfel given by Demetrius in the former Part of the Story, it is reafonable to believe his Account may be wrong as to the latter Part. And we have no Reafon upon fo weak an Autho- rity to reject the Teftimony of fo many Jewifb and Cbriflian Writers, who fpeak of Demetrius Phalereus as having the Care and Direction of this Verfion in the Reign of Pbiladelpbus.
But fays the learned Dean, " Clemens Alexandrinus is the firft Author *' that mentions him. But if there had been any fuch Commentaries, " Philo and Jofepbus could not have efcaped making Ufe of them." But why not ? Arijlobulus was a Peripatetic Philofopher, and Philo was a Platonijl : Their Notions were therefore different, and for that Reafon Philo might not make Ufe of him. Jofepbus was an Hijlorian, whofe Bufinefs was to relate Matters of Fact. And he had no Occafion to meddle with Commentaries on the Law, except when Matters of Fact might happen to be related in it. And though Arijlobulus does fpeak of the Tranflation of the LXX, yet as Jofepbus fuppofed Arijieas to be
genuine,
26 A DiJJertation on the
genuine, and as he was, upon that Supposition, the eldeft and the moft authentick, and had mod fully written the Hiftory of that Ver- fion, he took what he thought proper to fay from him, and io had no Occafion to mention Arijiobulus.
He then Objects the different Times in which both Clemens and Eufebius fay Arijiobulus lived. Fur, fays he, "Sometimes they tell us " he dedicated his Book to Ptolemy Pkilomeier, at other Times to Pto- " lemy Philadelphia and his Father together. Sometimes they will have " it, that he is the iame who is mentioned 2 Maccab. i. 10. And " fometimes they make him one of the feventy-two Interpreters 152 «' Years before." It is very difficult to account how Authors fall into fuch Contrarieties in their Works, and even in hiftorical Matters fay in one Book the contrary to what they have wrote in another. The mod probable Account I can think of, is, that fometimes they write by Memory, without confulting the Author they received their Infor- mation from, and their Memory fails them. Thus Clemens and Eufe- bius, when they had Arijiobulus before them, and read how he addreffed himfelf to the King in his Dedication, faying, The whole Interpretation of the Law was made under King Philadelphia >0#r Ancejlor, they rightly fpoke of the Book as dedicated to Philometer. At another Time, hav- kus Occafion to mention Arijiobulus, and not looking on the Dedica- tion, but trufting to their Memory, they miftook the King to whom the Dedication was made, and called him Philadelphus ; and Anatoli us finding him fpoken of as living in the Reign of Philadelphus, might fuppofe him to be one of the levuity-two Interpreters: But Clemens and Eufebius, knowing that he lived in the Time of Philometor, might veiy well think him the fame with the Arijiobulus fpoken of 2 Maccab. \. 10.
There is no Miftake therefore made by Clemens and Eufebius, when they fpeak of Arijiobulus as living under, and dedicating his Commen- tary to, Ptolemy Philometer, as appears by the Words of Arijiobulus himfelf, which ■Eufekitts cites from him: And therefore their putting him down under Ptolemy Philadtlphus muff, be looked upon as fuch a Miftake as a Man may eafily commit in a large Work. But I muft obferve that Clemens does not fay (whatever Eufebius may have done, whofe Book De Praparatione I have not to confult) that Arijiobulus de- dicated his Book to Philadelphia and his Father, as the Dean reprefents him to have done. His Words are, 'A^roQovhw SI tZ ««]« YiToXspuTot ysyovoTi rem <J>i?.a^iA<poe, that is, Arijiobulus, who ivas at, in, or with Pto- lemy Philadelphus, or ivho lived in his Time. And (o it is interpreted by the Latin Tranflator of Clemens, who renders it, Ab Ariftobulo autem qui fuit tempore Ptolemai Philadelphi : And then adds, that he is mentioned by him ivho epitomized the Afls of the Maccabees. However, the Miftake here might eafily proceed from the Carelefnefs of a Tranfcriber, who might eafily write Philadelphus for Philometor, the three firft Letters being alike, and having perhaps Philadelphus in his Thought. Or if it was thus written by Clemens himfelf, then, as I obferved before, the Miftake might proceed from a Failure in his Memory : For he here quotes nothing particularly from Arijiobulus-, only fays in general, that he wrote fcveral Books to Jhew that the Peripatetic Philofophy was taken
from
Ancient Verfion of the Bible. 27
from the Law of Mofes, and other Prophets. And whereas the learned Dean further urges, that the two firft Chapters of the fecond Book of Maccabees, where Ariflobuhs is mentioned, are all Fable and Fiction ; yet the Author of that Fable and Fiction would hardly have put the Name of Arifiobulus into his Fable, if there had never been fuch an eminent Jew as Arifiobulus in the Court of Philometor and Phyfcon: I cannot therefore be of the learned Dean's Opinion, that all thefe Things put together create a juft Sufpicion, that the Commentaries of Arifiobulus were forged under his Name by fome Helleniflical Jeiv long after the Date they bear: Confequently he is a good Witnefs of the Tranllation of the whole Old Teftament out of Hebrew into Greek by feventy-two Interpreters in the Time of Ptolemy Phihdelphus, which was the unanimous Belief of Jews and Chriflians for more than 1500 Years, a few Talmudical Jews only excepted ; and was never, called in Queftion until within 200 Years paft : St. Jerom himfelf, though no Friend to the Tranllation, making no Queftion about it.
There is no Reafon why we mould not believe that thefe feventy- two Interpreters had a moft correct Copy of the Hebrew Bible, from whence they might make their Tranllation. The Original, written by Ezra, an infpired Writer, which was afterwards deftroyed by An- tiochus Epiphanes, remained then in the Temple, from which they might, and no Doubt did, take a moft correct Copy, which Arifleas (if he may be believed in any Particular) affures us they did. And therefore we have no Reafon to queftion but they made a faithful Tranllation, though not perfectly literal; for no Language will always bear a direct literal Tranllation trom another. And had we this Tran- fiation now as faithfully delivered to us by Tranfcribers, as it was made by the Interpreters, we might certainly prefer it to the prefent Hebrew Copies, as pointed by the Maforites. It was very highly efteemed about 400 Years by the Jews firff, and afterwards by Chriflians. It was read in all the Synagogues of the Jews in all thofe Parts of the World where the Greeks and Macedonians had fpread their Language; even in Judea and Jerujalem itfelf the Scriptures were read in diverfe Synagogues, not in the Hebrezv, but in the Tranllation of the LXX : Our Saviour and his Apoftles, as appears from the New Teftament, made ufe of it, the Citations there from the Old Teftament being fre- quently made according to this Verfion. And it was in high Efteem in the Chriflian Church during that and the following Age : And feve- ral Translations into other Languages were made immediately from it, the Original Hebreio not being conlulted.
The Jews were the firft who funk the Reputation of the LXX, through their Hatred of the Chriflians, and the Chriflian Religion. This appears, 1. From the Author of a New Verfion of the Old Tefta- ment into Greek. A little before the Middle of the fecond Century, Aquila, who had been a Chrijlian, but caft out of the Church for fome Mifdemeanor, became a Jewi/Ii Profelyte, and was circumcifed. And having then learned the Hebrew Tongue, he made a New Tranllation of the Old Teftament into Greek, in Oppofition to the LXX, tran- slating many Paflages concerning the Meffiah otherwife than they had been rendered by the LXX, that they might aot be applied to the Holy
Jefus,
28 A Dfjertation on the
Jefus. This was the Deflgn of the Tranflations of Aquila, Symmachtts and Tbeodotion (of whom I (hall have Occafion to fpeak again) as St. Jerom, who faw their Tranflations, informs us, qui mult a Myfteria fal- vatoris fubdola Interpretations celarent. Nothing therefore is more cer- tain than that this fecond Verfion, and the two others that followed it, which were made by Judaizing Hereticks, as St. 'Jerom calls them, were made out of Hatred to Cbrijlianity. This alfo appears in the next Place from the 'Jews changing the Feaft, which they had kept in Me- mory of the Tranflation of the LXX unto the Time that Cbrijlianity began to be received, into a Faft, on Account that fuch a Tranflation had been made. For Pbilo the Jew, who lived in the Time of Cali- gula the Roman Emperor, when the Apoflles were going about and publishing the Gofpel in all Parts, tells us, in his Life of Mofes, that to that Time they yearly kept a feaft in the IJle of Pharus, in Memory of the Scriptures having been there tranflated into Greek by the feventy-two Inter- preters. But after Philo's Days, the Jews turned that Feaft into a Faft, lamenting that fuch a Tranflation had been made. And Dean Pri- deaux, though no great Friend to the LXX, tells us, that " As this " Verfion grew into Ufe among the Chrijlians, it grew out of Credit •-' with the Jews. For they being pinched in many Particulars urged " againft them by the Chrijlians out of this Verfion for the evading " thereof, they were for making a new one, that might better ferve " their Purpofe."
But that which juftly depreciated the Septuagint, and made it of lefs Authority even among the Chrijlians as well as the Jews and Judaizing Hereticks, proceeded not from any Unfaithfulnefs or Ignorance in the firft Tranflators (as fome pretend) but from the Ignorance, Boldnefs, and Carelcfnefs of Tranfcribers. An ignorant Tranfcriber, copying from a Book in which many marginal Notes have been written, might think they belonged to the Text, and accordingly bring them into if. A bold Tranfcriber, meeting with a Paffage which he thought did not exprefs the Senfe he took it in, might alter the Words in order, as he fuppofed, to make it plainer: And a carelefs Tranfcriber might heed- lefly write one Word for another, and alfo leave out, not only Words, but whole Sentences. And as Cbrijlianity fpread, Multitudes of Co- pies were written for the Ufe of the Numbers that were daily con- verted ; and as in the Times of Perfecution, the Heathens deftroyed all the Copies they could get, and thereupon new Tranfcripts were made; fo many Tranfcripts m^de, fometimes by ignorant, bold and carelefs Copyers, caufed the LXX to become (o faulty, that the Chrijlians judged it needed Correction.
Hereupon Origen, in the former Part of the third Century, put out a new Edition of the LXX, made with great Labour and Accuracy : Yet not fingly by itfelf, but joined with other Greek Tranflations. For, as obferved before, Aquila, an Apojlate Chrijlian, and afterwards a Jewijh Profelyte, and, not long after him, Symmachus, a Samaritan by Birth, (who firft turned Jew, then Chrijlian, then Ebionite, or Judaiz- ing Chrijlian) and about the fame Time Tbeodotion, (who for fome Time had been an heretical Chrijlian and afterwards became a Jew,) all thefe made Tranflations of the Old TeJlament out of the Hebrew into
Greek,
Ancient Verfion of the Bible. 29
Greek. Origen therefore made a Tetrapla of thefe four Verfions, which he placed one againft the other in four different Columns. To thefe he added two Columns more, containing the Hebrew Text twice writ- ten, one Column in Hebrew, and the other in Greek Letters. This containing fix Columns, Epiphanius calls it Hexapla. Afterwards he put out another Edition of two Columns more, adding thereto two other Greek Verfions ; the one found at Nicopolis, a City near Aclium in Epirus, and the other at Jericho in Judea. Thefe were called the fifth and fixth Verfions, which, being added to the other, made an Oclapla in the Columns ; and a feventh Translation of the Pfalms being alfo added, made it there an Enneapla. But as the two Editions made by Origen generally bore the Names only of the Tetrapla and Hexapla, Dr. Grabe judges they were fo called, not from the Number of the Columns, but of the Verfions, which were fix, the feventh containing the Pfalms only. How- the whole was difpofed in this Edition of Origen will be beft underftood by the following Scheme.
|
iff. Column. |
2d Column. |
3d Column. |
|
The Hebrew Text in Hebrew Let- ters. |
The Hebrew Text in Greek Letters. |
The Greek Verfion of Aquila. |
|
4th Column. |
5th Column. The Greek Verfion oftheLXX. |
6th Column. |
|
The Greek Verfion of Symmachus. |
The Greek Verfion of Theodotion. |
|
|
7th Column. |
8th Column. |
9th Column. |
|
The Fifth Greek Verfion. |
The Sixth Greek Verfion. |
The Seventh Greek Verfion. |
Origen himfelf tells us in his Comment on St. Matthew (Tom. I. Oper. Graeco-Lat. p. 381.) " That his Purpofe was to correct the " Differences in the feveral Copies of the Old Teftament; ufing the " other Tranflations for a Rule whereby to form his Judgment, pre- " ferving what he found agreeable to them. And fome PafTages which " he did not find in the Hebreiv Text, he noted with an Obelifk, not " daring wholly to omit them : And fome he marked with an Afterifk, " becaufe he found them not in the LXX, but were placed there by " himfelf, being taken from the other Verfions according to the He- " brew Text. And he that will, may admit of them ; but if any think " not fit to receive them, he may do as he pleafes."
The Obeli/ks which he fpeaks of were fuch a Mark as this on, either a ftrait Line, or a little bending at each End : The Ajlerijk was a Crofs made thus, i ., with four Points. The Obelifk noted fuch Words or Sentences as were in the LXX, but not in the Hebrew : The Ajlerijk noted fuch as were in the Hebrew, but not in the LXX, at leaft not
in
30 - A Dijfertation en the
in any of the Copies Origen made Ufe of. And that it might be known how much was added by Origen from one of the other Verfions, agree- able to the Hebrew, or what was in the LXX which was not in the the Hebrew, at the End of the Word or Sentence, to which the Obe- Hjk or AJlerifk was prefixed, he placed this Mark y/.
St. Jerom, in his Epiftle to Fretela and Junia, fays, that the Addi- tions which Origen made to the LXX, and marked with an Ajjerifk^ were taken from the Tranflation of Theodotion. And in his Prologue to the Prophecy of Daniel, he fays, Danielem propbetam juxta Septua- ginta interpretes Domini Salvatoris Ecclefia non iegunt ; utentes Theodotionis editione : Et hoc cur acciderit nefcit. Which looks as if that Btaok had been fo corrupted by Tranfcribers, that Origen knew not how to cor- rect ir, and therefore placed the Tranflation of Theodotion in the room of ir, that being the Verfion he feems to have beft approved.
Though Origen's Tetrapla and Hexapla was of great Ufe to thofe who were dilpofed diligently to ftudy and underfrand the Scriptures, yet neither the Hcbreiv Text, or more than one of all thefe Verfions, could be read in the Church ; and as the Verfion of the LXX was what had been read in the Church from the Beginning, fo alfo it continued to be read in all the Greek Churches. For which Reafon, after the Pub- lication of Origen's Hexapla, the Vernon of the LXX, as then cor- rected, was tranferibed by itfelf (with the Aferifhs and Obelijks) for the publick Ufe of the Churches. And when that alfo became faulty by frequent Tranfcripts, about the Year 300 Pamphilus and Eufebius pub- lifhed a very correct Edition of the LXX, according to Origen's Hexa- pla. But the whole Greek Church did not feem pleafed with what Origen had done; for although all were fenfible, that by the Carelef- nefs or Audacioufnefs of Tranfcribers the LXX was become very faulty, yet it is certain they did not receive Origen's Amendments. For Hefy- cbius, an Egyptian Bifhop, and Lucian, a Prefbyter and Martyr of An- tiocb, did each of them undertake to make a new and correct Edition of the LXX, about the fame Time that Pa?npbilus and Eufebius pub- limed their Edition of that which had been corrected by Origen; and the Eajlern Part of the Roman Empire, where Greek was vulgarly fpoken, as Latin was in the JVeJlern, was divided between thefe three Editions. For St. Jerom, in his Epiftle to Cbromatius, prefixed to his Tranflation of the Books of Chronicles, fays, Alexandria & Mgyptus in Septuaginta fuis Hejychium laudat Authorem. Conftaniinopolis ufque Antio- , cbiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Media inter has Provimice Pale/linos codices Iegunt ; quas ah Origine elaboratos Eufebius &f Pamphilus evulgaverunt. So that at leaft two third Parts of the eaftern Church would not receive Origen's Edition as worthy to be read in their pub- lick Aflemblies: But one preferred that of Hcjycbius, and the other that of Lucian before it. However Origen's Edition was certainly the beft, on Account of the Ajlerifks and Obelijks: Whereby the Reader might know and diftinguifh how and where the Tranflation of the Sep' tuagint differed from the Hebrew Copy, which he and the other Tran- flators made Ufe of: Whereas the Corrections made by Hefycbius and Lucian being alfo made by a Comparifon of the LXX with the then Hebrew Copies, without thofe Diftinctions, the Reader could not e diftinguifh
Ancient Verfion of the Bible. 31
diftinguifh the pure LXX from the Alterations made by them. What lie added from the Hebrevj Copy, he marked with an Afterijk, and what was not in the Hebrew Copy, he made Ufe of, he would not leave out, only marked it with an Obelijk, as not knowing but it might be in that Copy of the Hebrew from whence that Tranilation was made. To give an Inftance, Exod. xii. 40. our Englijh Bible, translated from the prefent Hebrew Copies, has thus given the Text, Now the Jojourn- ing of the Children of Ifrael who dwelt in Egypt zuas four hundred and thirty
Years. But the LXX lias it, "H SI -n-afolxijcrtf Tut vluv ">la^ar,\ Jjy •nr«fw«>xr«i< iv yy> A»yoV7<y (xai Iv yr, Xxvxccv avro] kou <h •stoI^es avruv) try TiTgcckoaice.
t£i«xovt«. Now thofe Words I have put in a Parenthefis are in the LXX, but not in the prefent Hebrew Copies. Yet we have Reafon to believe they were in the Copy from whence the Tranilation of the LXX was made, and were left out of the prefent Copies by the Care- lefnefs of a Tranfcriber. For they are in the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is but another Copy of the Hebrew : And befides, as the Text flands in the prefent Hebrew and our Englijh Bibles, it is not true: For the Children of Ifrael were not in Egypt 430 Years, for the Time that they fojourned there was but little more than 200 Years. I know it is faid, that the Text, as it now (lands, does not imply that the Children of Ifrael dwelt or fojourned in Egypt 430 Years, only that they were fo long Sojourners, and dwelt in a Land not their own. But Abraham, Ifaac, and 'Jacob, whofe fojourning muft be brought into this Account of 430 Years, or there will want near 200 Years of that Number, cannot be called the Children of Ifrael \ therefore, unlefs thefe Fathers of the Children of Ifrael are brought into the Account, as in the LXX and the Samaritan Copy, the Text is not true. From whence we may be fatisfied, that this was the true original Reading, and was in that Hebrew Copy from which the Verfion of the LXX was made.
I have given this Inftance, to (hew that Origen had juft Reafon not to omit thofe PafTages in the LXX, which he could not find in his Hebrew Copy; fince, notwithstanding it might be in a more ancient Copy from which that Verfion was made, and omitted in the later Hebrew Copies through the Overfight of a Tranfcriber, from whence it would necefTarily be omitted in all the Copies taken from that. Such Omiffions may, and will be often made without Defign, and the molt careful Copier in a long Work can hardly fail of being fometimes over- feen. But a Copier can hardly put in a Word or Sentence, which is not in the Book he copies from, through meer Carelefnefs or Over- fight, but mull do it defignedly : Therefore I do not fee that we need accufe the Jews of having added to the Text any of thofe Words or Sentences which Origen found to be omitted in the Copies of the LXX, which he collated. They might be in the original LXX, but were omitted by the Overfight of Tranfcribers, which were very numerous, as appears from the Neceflity that was found in all Places to correct their Errors. Neither on the other Hand need we fuppofe that the Words or Sentences which we rind in the LXX, which are not in the Hebrew, were added to the Text ; they might be in the original He- brew, but omitted by the Overfight of Tranfcribers, from whence the
Hebrew
32 A Differ lat ion on the
Hebrew Copies, which were extant in Origen's Time, were taken. We fhould not accufe either the Jews or Cbrijlians of wilfully corrupt- ing the Scriptures, when the Matter may be otherwife fairly accounted for. And for this Reafon I, for my own Part, efteem thofe Words and Sentences which Origen has marked with an Obelijk to be genuine Parts of Holy Scripture, no lefs than thole he has marked with an Afterijh, or which he has not marked at all. Nay, I doubt not but thofe Texts, winch Juftin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho (p. 218, Iffc. Edit. Jcbb.) accufes the Jews of having expunged, though they are not now to be found either in the Hebrew or LXX according to the prefent Copies, were originally in both, and in Jujlin's Time, and alfo in that of Irenaus, and were therefore Parts of the Holy Scripture ; particularly that Text which he fays was in Jeremiah', 'E/av^G*? T* xv^tof
e Oils ayu>t; 'icr^a^ iuv vex^uv ocvtov ruv Xixot^n^ivuv eJj yr,v XufAcclos, xoct *«]*£>) ot-£o« acvrov; EuayyeXj^acrOai ccvron to crwlvi^ov ccvrov- SylburglUS, in his
Notes on Juftin Martyr, and Dr. Grabe, in his Notes on Irenaus, both obferve, that St. Peter appears to have had this Prophecy in his Thoughts, 1 Epift. iv. 6. faying, For this Caufe was the Go/pel preached alfo to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to Men in the Flejh, but live according to God in the Spirit.
The Greek Verfions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, are now loft, except Theodotion's Tranflation of the Book of Daniel, as before mentioned, and fome few Fragments of all of them to be found here and there in the Writings of the Ancients, as likewife are thofe of the other two or three Tranilations in Origin's Hexapla, none remaining now intire but the LXX. The Jews, though in their Difperfion be- fore Chrijf came, they read the Scriptures in the Greek Tongue accord- ing to the LXX in moft of their Synagogues, yet afterwards, in Op» pofition to the Cbrijlians, who ufed that Verfion in the Churches, they determined to read their Scriptures in Hebrew only, or in Hebrew and Chaldee. But it was fome Ages before they could intirely bring this to pafs. This we learn from a Novel of Juftinian's (Nov. 146.) wherein that Emperor mentions a Conteft among the Jews, fome of them maintaining that the Scriptures fhould be read in their Synagogues in the Hebrew Tongue only j and others requiring that they mould be read not in Hebrew only, but alfo in Greek, or fuch Language as was underftood by all. And accordingly he decreed, that it fhould be read in Greek, or fome other vulgar Language, as well as in Hebrew. But notwithftanding this Decree of the Roman Emperor, made about the Year 550, the Jews, who ftood for the Hebrew Language only, pre- vailed at laft. The Jews therefore took no care to preferve the LXX, or any other Greek Tranflation: And the Cbrijlians took care to pre- ferve only the LXX, which was daily read in all the Greek Churches. But Bifhop Walton juftly accufes the Greeks of great Negligence, for not preferving that noble Work of Origens Hexapla, and contenting them- felves with only taking Copies of the LXX from it.
As there were three Editions of the LXX anciently, of Origen, He- fychius and Lucian, fo, for near 200 Years after the Invention of Print- ing, there were only three principal Editions of it. The firft was printed by the Order, Direclion, and at the Charge of Cardinal Ximenesy
Arch-
Ancient Verjion of the Bible* 23
Archbifhop of Toledo-, who having founded an Unlverfity at Compliiturri, or Altala, employed the Divines there to print an Edition of the Bible* containing firft the Hebrew Text with the Chaldee Paraphrafe of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, then the Septuagint Greek Verfion of the Old Tefta- ment and the original Greek of the New, and the Latin Verfion of both* The Publifhers tell us, that they procured a great Number of MSS. which they collated* which were not common, but the moft ancient and correct that they could get, and from thence took the Septuagint they have givert us. This Book was printed in 1515 ; but by Reafoti of the Death of Cardinal Ximenes, fome Difputes arifing concerning his Debts and Legacies, and fome Things in his Will, the Book was not publifhed until four Years after. From this Edition have been printed both the Polyglots of Antwerp and Paris: The former of which was publilhed Anno Dom. 1572, and the other 1645; likewife the Septua- gint of Commelin, printed at Heidelberg with Vatablus's Commentary* Anno 1599.
While the Complutenftan Bible, though printed, lay unpublifhed, an Edition of the LXX was publifhed at Venice, Anno Dom. 1518, from the Prefs of Aldus Manutius. The learned Editor Andreas Afculanus*. Father-in-law to the Printer, tells us> as the Complutenftan Divines did* that he collated a great many MSS. in order to frame a correct Edi- tion ; but, like them, he gives no particular Account what they were, or where to be found. This Edition Bifhop Walton judges to be more pure than the Edition of Complutum : For it wants moft of thofe AddU tions which Origen has put under AJlerifks; and has thofe marked with Obelijks : And thofe Tranfpofitions of Verfes and Chapters which the Ancients tell us the LXX had. From this Copy of Aldus all the Ger- man Editions, excepting that of Heidelberg before mentioned, have been printed: Only as to the Order of fome Books, Chapters, and Verfes, which all the Ancients teftify were placed differently from what they ate in the Hebrew Copies, they have tranfpofed and placed in the fame Order as they ftand in the prefent Hebrew Bibles. Alfo the Books called Apocrypha are not mingled with the canonical, according to the Order of the Hiftory, as all the ancient Books have them ; but they are put feparately after all the reft, as they are in our modem Tran- flations.
But the Roman Edition, made chiefly from a very ancient MS. in the Vatican Library, has obtained the Preference of the other two in the Opinion of moft learned Men. The Printing of this Edition was: firft fet on Foot by Cardinal Montalto, who afterwards becoming Pope under the Name of Sixtus Quintus, at the Time when it was published* Anno Domini 1587, it therefore came out under his Name. He firft commended the Work to Pope Gregory the 13th, and by his Advice the Work was committed to the Care of Anthony Carajfa, a learned Man of a noble Family in Italy, afterwards made a Cardinal and Li- brary-Keeper to the Pope. He, by the AQiftance of feveral other learned Men imployed under him, in eight Years firtifhed this Edition. It was for the moft Part according to an old MS. in the Vatican, which was written all in Capitals, without the Marks of Accents or Points, and without any Diftinclion of Chapters or Verfes, and is fuppofed to
Vol. III. C be
34 A Dijfertation on the
be^as ancient as the Time of St. Jerom ; only where this was wanting (for fome Leaves of it were loft) they fupplied the DefecT: out of other MSS. the principal of which were, one they had from Venice, out of the Library of Cardinal BeJJarion, and another that was brought them out of Calabria: Which laft fo agreed with the Vatican MS. that they fuppofed them to have been written either the one from the other, or elfe both from the fame Copy. The next Year was published at Rome a Latin Verfion of this Edition, with the Notes of Flaminius Nobilius. Morinus printed both together at Paris, Anno Dom. 1628. And from this Vatican Edition have been published all thofe Septuagints that have been printed in England', that is, that of London in 8°, Anno 1653; that in Walton's Polyglot, published 1657 ; and that of Cambridge 1665; which laft has the learned Preface of Bifhop Pier [on prefixed to it, and does much more exactly give us the Roman Edition, than that of 1653.
But I muft here obferve, that this Cambridge Edition, which Dean Pridcaux (from whom I have chiefly taken what I have here faid of the three eminent Editions) fays was twice printed, firft by "John Field in the Year 1665, and then by John Hayes in the Year 1684. But Hayes (who fucceeded Field as Printer to the Univerfity) put Field's Name to his own I m predion, and dated it 1665 as Field's was, and printed it Page for Page like Field's, and fo put a Cheat upon the World, to make it pafs for Field's Edition, though the Print was not fo clean and neat, and I queftion alfo whether fo correct as Field's. As I was admitted at Cambridge within a Year after Hayes reprinted Field's Scptuagint, and was well acquainted with Hayes, I remember I afked him how he came to fet Field's Name, and the Date of 1665 to a Book himfelf had juft printed ? He only fmiled, and made me fome flight Anfwer, intimating that I fhewed myfelf a Stranger to the World, by afking fuch a Queftion.
But Bifhop Walton finds Fault with the London Edition of 1653 ; yet the Cambridge Editors, though they printed fome Years after that Bi- (hop had taken Notice of this Fault, did the very fame. For (fays he) though they profefs to give us the Roman Edition, yet they took the Liberty to alter and interpolate it in feveral Places, to bring it nearer to the Hebrew Text, and the modern Verfions. For they did not only change the Order in which the Books, Chapters, and Verfes were placed in all the MSS. (which Tranfpofitions are noted in all that have •mtten of the LXX.) and reduced them to the Order of the prefent Hebrew, as the German Editors for the moft Part have done, and have divided the Pfalms according to the Hebrew, but have alfo added fome Paflages from the Complutenfian, and other Editions, which are not in the Roman. But this, as he fays, is not giving us a pure Edition, Secundum Exemplum Vaticanum, as they pretend to do, but a mixed Edition of their own.
Having mentioned the Divifion of the Pfalms, I think it proper here to obferve to you, where lies the Difference between the Hebrew and the LXX with regard to it. The PJalms proceed in the fame Order in both : But the two Pfalms, which are called the ninth and tenth in the Hebrew^ are joined together, and make but one Pfalm in the LXX.
Hereby
Ancient Verfion of the &\bU. 35
Hereby It comes to pafs, that what is called the eleventh Pfalm in the Hebrew and our Englifh Bibles, is but the tenth in the LXX. And fo they proceed, the LXX ftill numbering every Pfalm one lefs than the Hebrew, until you come to the 113 according to the LXX, and 114, according to the Hebrew \ and there the LXX again join that and the next Pfalm alfo into one: Whereby the 116, according to the Hebrew, is but the 114, according to the LXX. But then the LXX ends that 114 or 116 Pfalm with the ninth Verfe; and the tenth Verle, accord- ing to the Hebrew, begins 115 Pfalm, according to the LXX. So that from thenceforth the Hebrew Numbers are but one more than thofe of the LXX, as they were before, and in that Manner they con- tinue to proceed to Pfalm 146, according to the LXX, 147, according to the Hebrew. There the LXX conclude the Pfalm with the twelfth Verfe, and begin their 147 Pfalm with what is the thirteenth Verfe in the Hebrew, and fo the three laft Pfalms, as well as the eight fir ft, are numbered alike in both. The Divifion of the Pfalms alfo in the Latin. Vulgate is the fame as in the LXX. So that all Chriflian Authors, from the Beginning to the Reformation, when they have quoted any Pfalm by its Number, have quoted it according to the Divifion of the LXX. Therefore the Englifb Editors of the LXX did not rightly confider the Matter, when, in their Edition of the LXX, they divided the Pfalms according to the Hebrew. For by this I doubt not but they have puzzled fome young Divines, (I can fpeak experimentally for myfelf) who finding a Text, as quoted by fome ancient Author from a parti- cular Pfalm, has looked in vain for it there as numbered in either the London or Cambridge Editions.
But even the Roman Edition itfclf, as published by the firft Editors, is not fo pure and agreeable to the Vatican Copy, as it might have been: For they did not rightly diftinguifli between what was therein written by the firft Copier, and what was after altered or added by a later Hand : fo that we are uncertain whether what we read was originally ifi the Vatican Copy or not. This the learned have very much com- plained of. And Dr. Grabe in the Letter to Dr. Milles mentions feveral Paflages, wherein the Roman Edition differs from the Vatican MS. it pretends to have faithfully copied. Alfo as the Vatican MS. as well ass all other MSS. of that Age, written in large Letters, have neither Words nor Sentences divided, but the Letters all follow clofe one to ano- ther, without any kind Separation of one Word, or one Sentence from another j fo that great Care and Judgment is required rightly to diftin- guim the Words and Sentences, and by this Means the beft Criticks fometimes make great Miftakes in tranferibing thofe old MSS. One Inftance of which Dr. Grabe has given us in the Roman Edition, and in all that are taken from it, even that in Bimop PValton's Polyglot. It is in 2 Kings (Hebrew and Englifl), 2 Samuel) xiv. 17. The Words of the Woman to the King are in the Reman Edition » *h q *oyo<; Tuxv^m Gatrixtui; u'; Sucria?, Si jam fermo Domini Regis in Sacrificia. Here is an hypothetical Propofition, without any Confequence, which is abfurdj which, if they had made but a proper Divifion of the firft four Letters, had been ealily avoided, tU W » Aoyo? *. t, \. Sit quafo fermo &c. which
C 2 gives
^6 A DiJJertation on the
gives a perfect Senfe, exactly agreeable to the Hebrew Words tf}" HW» and to the Aldin and Complutenfian Editions, and the Alexandrian MS.
There being therefore fo many confiderable Faults in all thefe Edi- tions of the LXX, the very learned and induftrious Dr. Grabe, about the Beginning of the prefent Century, refolved to publifh a new Edi- tion of it. And as there were two MSS. near of equal Antiquity, the Vatican, of which I have already fpoken, and the Alexandrian in the Royal Library here at St. James's, which was a prefent to King Charles the Firft from Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, from whence it hath taken its Name; he was for fome Time in Doubt which of thefe Copies he fhould follow. He thought as the Roman Edition was beft known, and moft in Ufe, it might not be fo proper to lay it afide; but only to correct the Miftakes of former Editors. But then confidering that there were three old Editions of the LXX by Origen, Hefychius, and Lucian, of which Origen'^ was allowed to be the beft, he refolved to examine which of thefe Editions the Vatican, and which the Alexandrian appeared to be a Tranfcript of. Whereupon he collected the Quota- tions from Scripture, which he found in the ancient Greek Fathers, and found they generally agreed with the royal Alexandrian MS. and from the Fragments of Origen's Hexapla ftill remaining, he found them alfo agreeable to this MS. but not with the Vatican MS. where it dif- fered from this. From whence he concluded, that what we now call the Alexandrian MS. was a Copy taken from Origen's Edition: And that the Vatican MS. was taken from the Edition of Hefychius or Lucian. And as Hefychius's Edition was read in Egypt (as before obferved) he confulted St. Athanafius and St. Cyril's Works (both of them being Pa- triarchs of Alexandria at the Time St. Jerom fays Hefychius's Edition of the LXX was there ufed) and found their Quotations of Scripture agreeable to the Vatican MS. from whence he inferred that MS. was a Copy of the Hcfychian Edition. For which Reafon he refolved to pub- li(h the royal Alexandrian MS. which, until that Time, (though often wifhed for) no body was willing to take the Pains to do.
He therefore being encouraged by a Royal Stipend of ioo/. per Ann. in the firft Place fairly trarlfcribed the whole MS. which, like the Vati- can, was written without Diftinclion of Words or Sentences, and there- by made it fo far ready for the Prefs, that if he fhould die before he could finifh his Defign, (as it pleafed God he did) thofe who fhould continue the Work might have the lefs Trouble in doing it. * And having Reafon to believe, that the AJleriJks and Obeli/ks of Origen were not fo irrecoverably loft, but that they might be found for the moft Part in fcattered Fragments, here and there to be met with in old Li- braries, he refolved to place them in his Edition. And accordingly having procured them for feveral Books of the Holy Scripture, he pub- lished his firft Tome of the Septuagint, according to the Alexandrian Copy in the Year 1707, containing the Books of Genefts, Exodus, Leviticus^ Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jojbua, "Judges, and Ruth. This was printed in a very fair, large, and neat Character, in a large Folio, in two Columns: So that the fame Types being moved and divided in the Middle of the Page of the Folio, made four Pages in Octavo. So that there was at
the
Ancient Verfion of the Bible, 3^
the fame Time an Edition publifhed both in Folio and Octavo, (o exactly agreeable to each other, as not to differ the one from the other in a Point. But not having been able to procure the Origenian AJleriJks and Obelijks for thofe Books, which in the Alexandrian MS. immedi- ately followed the former, he in the Year 1709 publifhed what he called the laft Tome of that Work, containing the metrical Books, that is, PJalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclejiajles, Canticles, JViJdom, and Eccle- fiajlicus, with AJleriJks and Obel'ijks as he had done the former.
About a Year after this, and before he could procure AJleriJks and Obelijks for another Tome, he died : And it was nine Years before any more of this great Work appeared. Then in the Year 17 19 came out the fecond Tome, containing the Four Books of Kings, Two of Chro- nicles, Efther, Tobit, Judith, Two Books of Ezra, Ne hernia, and Four Books of Maccabees. Thefe were publifhed alfo (with as many AJleriJks and Obelijks as could be procured from Dr. Grabe's MS. by Dr. Francis Lee, a very learned Phyfician, and well read in Divinity, though no profeffed Divine. But this very worthy and learned Man died foon after he finifhed this good Work, viz. Aug. 12, 17 19. However, in the Year 1720, the third Tome was publifhed from Dr. Grabe's Tran- fcript in the fame Manner as the Former, which com pleated the whole Work, both in Folio and Octavo. But who was the Editor of this laft publifhed Tome I know not. This contained, Ofea, Amos, Michat Joel, Obedia, Jona, Naum, Habakkuk, Zephania, Haggai, Zecharia, Ma- lachi, Ifaia, Jeremia, Baruch, Lamentations, The Epijlle ojjeremia, Eze- kiel, and Daniel. Triers are Prolegomena to all thefe Tomes very ufe- ful : and which alfo give good Teftimony of the very great Care and Pains this moft ufeful Work coft Dr. Grabe more efpecially, and the other Editors who fucceeded to finifh what he had fo well prepared. Dr. Grabe did intend to have added large Notes to this Work, but his Death has deprived us of them, and of many other Things he defigned for the Benefit of the learned World, if it had pleafed God to have granted him a longer Life. And this is all I need to fay, at leaft for the prefent, concerning the Tranflation of the LXX.
The Latin or Weflern Church had a great many Tranflations, all made from the LXX. But amongft all thefe various Tranflations, there was one more generally received and read in the Churches, and is therefore called Vulgata by St. Jtrom ; and St. Auguflin gives it the Name of the Italian, and prefers it to all the reft, as being more per- fpicuous and literal : And this in all probability was ufed in the Roman Church from the Apoftles Days downwards for fome Ages. St. Jerom corrected this Tranflation from Origen's Hexapla, and publifhed it with AJleriJks and Obelijks, which he tells us, in his fecond Prologue pre- fixed to the Books of Chronicles, he placed to denote what was, or what was not, in the Hebrew. And in ?.n Epiftle to St. Augujlin, he fays, £htod in aliis quaris Epijlolis, cur prior mca in libris Canonicis interpretatia Ajlerifcos habeat et Virgulai pranotatas, et pojlea aliam Tranjlationem abfque iis ediderim, &e. He anfwers, Se non tarn Vetera conatum fuiffe abolere9 quam lingua Jua hominibus emendata de Graco in Latinum tranjluliffe.
But St. Jerom, when he was a young Man, and followed a mona- ftick Life in the Defert, there learned the firft Rudiments of the He-
C 3 brew
38 A Dijfertation on the
brew Tongue from a converted Jew. And twenty Years after return- ing to Jerufalem, he made greater Improvements in that Language under harrabanus, a Jew, whom he hired at a great Price to come every Night to inftruct him; the Man, like Nicodemus, not daring on fuch Occafion to come to him by Day, for Fear of the other yews. Afterwards he had another Matter, a Doctor of the Law, from Tiberias. And then another very eminent Man, whom he hired at a very great Price. And laftJy, another to inftruct him in the Chaldee Language. Of all thefe he fpeaks in one or other of his Epiftles. Having there- fore made himlelf a Matter both of the Hebrew and Chaldee, he judged himfelf fufficiently qualified to tranflate the Bible from the original He- brew into Latin. And befides his Skill in the original Language, he had the Hexapla of Qrigen to aflift him : Whereupon he fet upon th* Work; and tranflated all the Books of the Old Teftament ; that is, all thofe which our Church in her fixth Article declares and acknow- ledges to be canonical. This appears from the Prefaces or Prologues he has prefixed to thefe Books. He alfo tranflated the Books of Tobit and Judith-, but not the Books of IVifdom, Ecclefiajlicus, Maccabees \ Baruch, the Epijile of Jeremia, the Additions to EJiher and to Daniel, be- caufe they were not in the Hebrew, neither received by the Church as Parts of the canonical Scripture. But he confefles, that he had (een Ecclefiajlicus, and the firft Eook of the Maccabees, and likewife Tobit, in the Hebrew Tongue. As to the New Teftament, St. Jerom did not tfanflate it anew, but corrected the old Tranflation.
This Tranflation of St. Jerom's, though difliked at firft, and blamed by many of his Cotemporaries, yet it gradually prevailed, and the greateft Part of it became the Verfion commonly ufed in the Latin Church. In the Time of Gregory the Great, which was about 200 Years after St. Jerom made this Tranflation, as appears from feveral Places of that Pope's Epiftles, St. Jerom's Verfion, and the old Italick, were both read in the Latin Churches ; that is, as I fuppofe, fome Churches made ufe of one Verfion, and fome of the orher: But at laft, the Verfion of St. Jerom prevailed over the whole Weflern Church. Only the Pfalms, and other Hymns, which were read in the daily Offices of the. Church, were there continued in the old Italick Verfion, whereby the Copies of that Verfion being neglected, were in Time all loft and deftroyed. But when the Roman Edition of the LXX was publifhed, Flaminius Nobilius of Luca, an eminent Divine, and great Critick, well verfed in the Writings of the Fathers, endeavoured to. retrieve this ancient Italick Verfion from the Quotations which he col- lected out of all the Latin Fathers, who lived while that Tranflation was in Ufe. And when they failed him, he tranflated immediately from the LXX, making ufe of the fame Words and Phrafes, as far as he could, and the Matter would bear, which he found from his Quo- tations to have been ufed in that old Verfion, By this Means he has reftored, as well as pofllbly could be done by fuch Means, the whole old Italick Verfion. And it is printed by Bifhop Walton, as the proper Tranflation of the LXX, in his Polyglot Bible.
The Tranflation of St. Jerom was the firft Latin Tranflation made immediately from the Hebrew Original, and continued the only one for
above
Ancient Verfion of the Bible. 39
above a thoufand Years. And after it became the only Verfion ufed in the Latin Church, it received alfo the Name of Biblia Vulgata, which was given before to the Italick Verfion. Thofe Books, which we (ac- cording with St. Jerom and the primitive Church) account Apocrypha, though the Church of Rome hold them canonical, fiill retain the old Italick Verfion, as do the Pfalms, and Hymns ufed in the Liturgy ; So likewife, in our Liturgy, the Pfalms and Hymns are retained according to the old Translation of Tindal and Coverdale, which was afterwards fupervifed and corrected by the Bifliops Tunftal and Heath, though there be a very different Tranflation of the Pfalms and the Hymns taken from the Scripture in our common Bibles, tranflated in the Reign of King James the Firft. And here it may not be improper to obferve, that all we of the Clergy give our AiTent and Confent to this old Tran- flation ; but not to the latter, which is in our Bibles. However, there is no material Difference between them, the Senfe is the fame, though the Words are often different. Indeed there is fometimes a Sentence, or a Verfe, to be found in the Pfalms as they are in the Common- Prayer, which is not in that Place to be found in the Bible-Pfalms, but then they are to be found in other Pfalms, or other Places of Scrip- ture. And particularly Pfal. xiv. there are eleven Verfes in that Pfalm in the Common-Prayer, and but feven in the Bible: Yet thofe four additional Verfes*are not only in the LXX, and Latin Vulgate, but are all cited by St. Paul, Rom. iii. 14, 15, 16, 17. very probably from this Pfalm, though the Verfes be not now in our prefent Hebrew Bibles. As therefore this Tranflation is what we Clergymen give our Affent and Confent to, and as it is alfo daily read in our Churches, and our People are beft acquainted with it, I cannot but wonder that the Gene- rality, when they choofe a Text out of the Pfalms, take it from the Tranflation in the Bible, and not from that in the Common-Prayer. All the Objections made by the Pre/by terians, and others, againft this Tranflation, have been well anfwered, and the whole defended againft their Cavils, by your and my late good Friend, Mr. John/on of Cran- brook, in his Holy David, and his old Englijh Tranfators cleared. Printed for R. Knap lock 1706. But to return from this Digreflion.
As St. Jerom's Bible was the firft that was tranflated into Latin im- mediately from the Hebrew, fo it continued the only one fo tranflated until the Time of the Reformation; that is, about 1100 Years. It is true, Nicolas de Lyra, a converted Jew of Normandy, who flourished about the Year 1320, and Paul de Burgos, who flouriftied about the Year 1415, correded many Paflages in the Vulgate Verfion, according to the true Senfe of the Hebrew Text; but they never attempted to give an intire Verfion of the Bible.
Sanfles Pagninus, a Dominican Monk, was the firft, who attempted to make a new Tranflation from the modern Hebrew Text. His De- fign was encouraged by Pope Leo X. who promifed to defray the Charges of the Impreflion. He was employed in this great Work near thirty Years, ^hich was the firft Time printed at Lyons in the Year 1527, authorized by a Bull of Pope Adrian VI, and another of Pope Clement VII, which are prefixed to it. He declares he has receded as little as poffibly could be from the Vulgate, and only in thofe Places
C 4 wherf
40 d Dijfertation on the
where it differed from the Senfe of the Hebrew; Yet his Tranflation is quite another Thing from the Vulgate, having been too fcrupulous in adhering to the Words of the Text, according to the utmoft Rigour cf Grammatical Rules, which makes his Tranflation obfcure. He has alfo been mifguided in fome Places, having affected too much to follow the Explications of the Jewi/b Rabbles. He has alfo altered the com- monly-received Names of Men and Cities, to fubftitute in their Places others, pronounced according to the Punctuation of the Maforites. It muft, however, be granted to be a very ufeful Work j it is exadt and faithful, and very proper to explain the literal Senfe of the Hebrew Text.
Arias Montanus only revifed the Tranflation of Pagninus\ in which he altered fome Words, which he did not think gave the exact literal Senfe of the Original. His chief Aim was to tranflate the Hebrew Words by the fame Number of Latin ones ; fo that he has accommo- dated his whole Tranflation to the ftricleft Rules of Grammar, with- out confidering whether the Verfion be tolerable Latin, or may pafs for intelligiblej and its beft Ufe is to inftruct Beginner?, who would learn the Hebrew Tongue ; and as it is, I think, always printed inter- linearily, with the Latin Word placed exactly over the Hebrew, it faves the Learner the Trouble of having often recourfe to his Lexicon. The Tranflation of Thomas Malvinda, a Spanijh Dominican, as it is more barbarous than that of Arius Montanus, fo it is not much, in Requeft,
Although Cardinal Cajetan had but little Knowledge in the Hebrew, yet he undertook a Tranflation of fome Part of the Bible from the He- brew, Word for Word, by the Afliftance of two Perfons, one a Jew, and the other a Chrijlian, both well (killed in that Language. But he took care to avoid thofe barbarous Expreflions he muft have ufed, if his Tranflation had been ftriclly and grammatically literal.
lfidore Clarius, a Monk of Mount Cajfin, apd afterwards Bifhop of Fuligno, only undertook to reform the Vulgate nearer to the prefent Hebrew Text: But though he tells us, that he corrected above eight Thoyfand Pafla'ges in the Bible ; yet he confefles, that he pafled by fome where there was fmall Difference between the Senfe of the Vulgate and the Original, to give as little Offence as might be to Catholicks, which he mutt have done, had he made too mam/ Alterations in the Vulgate Verfion.
Thefe are all the Tranflations of Note of the whole Old Teftament done by Roman Catholicks from the Hebrew Text, not reckoning the Verfions of particular Books, as of tfae PJalms by the learned Simeon de Muis, who has been very careful in retaining both the Senfe, and the Words of the Vulgate, 'as far as could be done without Injuftice to the Hebrew Text. His Verfion is good Latin, and intelligible, without Barbarifm, or any Affectation of Elegancy.
' If your Curiofity lead you to fee a ftrictly literal Tranflation of Scrip- ture into Englijh, Mr. John/on, in his Holy David before mentioned, has given a Specimen from Mr. Ainfworth, who tranflated the whole Bock of PJalms from the Hebrew. The Pfalm Mr. Jobnfon has chofen (but he could not choofe amifs) for a Sample of a literal Verfion, is
the
Ancient Verfton of the Bilk. 41
the LIX. I will only here tranfcribe the Preface, and the two firft Verfes. To the Majler of the Mufick. Corrupt not Michtam of David, when Sauiy£«/, and they kept the Houfe for to kill him. Deliver me from mine Enemies, O my God: From them that rife up againjl me, fet thou me on high. Deliver me from the Workers of painful Iniquity : And five me from the Men of Bloods. This A'mfworth was a Prejbyterian, and one that found great Fault with the Tranflation ufed in our Church.
Sebajlian Munjler, a German Monk, who turned Prote/lant about the Year 1529, was the firft of that Denomination, who tranllated the Holy Scriptures of the Old Teftament out of Hebrew into Latin. Though he was very careful to keep clofe to the Hebrew Text, and even to retain fome of its Idiotifms, yet it is neither unintelligible nor barbarous. Huetius (though a zealous Romanijl) gives him the Cha- racter of a Man well verfed in the Hebrew Language, whofe Style is very exact and conformable to the Hebrew Language. And Du Pin (from whom I take almoft all I fay of thefe modern Latin Tranflations) Jays, that, k< Truly, his Tranflation is the moft literal, but at the fame *' Time the moft faithful, of any done by Proteftants." I am forry there mould be any Protejlants fo weak, as well as wicked, as wilfully to miftranflate any Paffage in the Bible : Yet as Du Pin, who (though a Papift) is acknowledged by Protejlants to have been of great Candour and Impartiality, does affirm, that there is not a Ariel fidelity obferved by all Protejlants in their Tranflation of the Scriptures, I fear there is Ground to think that it may be as he fays. But if it be fo, thole Pro- tejlants muft indeed be equally weak and wicked who mail wilfully miftranflate. For they muft be fenfible (if they would rightly confider) that fuch Miftranflations give their Enemies (who will foon difcover fuch unfaithful Tranflations) a great Advantage over them. But as he gives no particular Inftances of fuch unfaithful Doings, I hope he is miftaken. There may, and always will be, fome Miftakes made by the beft Translators of fo large a Book as the Holy Scriptures ; but if they are not wilfully made, and with fome apparent Defign to ierve a Caufe, they ought not to be charged with want of Faith- ful nefs.
The Tranflation of Leo Juda, a Zuinglian, printed at Zurich in the Year 1543, and afterwards reprinted by Robert Stephens in the Year 1545, in two Columns (one containing the Vulgate, with the Notes of Vatablus) is written in a more elegant Style than Mwfter\ : But this Author recedes fometimes too far from the literal Senfe ; and in fome Places changes the Expreffions for better Latin, but which are more remote from the true Senfe, and don't exprefs with the fame Force the true Meaning of the Hebrew Text. He alfo gives himfelf fometimes too much Liberty to determine the Senfe of the Hebrew Text, accord- ing to his own particular Opinion.
But at the fame Time he has not taken near fo much Liberty as Sebajlian Chatillou, commonly known by the Name of Caftutio, who having taken a Fancy to give the World an elegant Latw Ve lion of the Bible, has mixt Expreflions borrowed from profane Authors with the Text of Holy Writ. His whole Style is affected, effeminate, over- charged with falfe Rhetorick, and has nothing of that noble Simplicity
and
42 A Dijfertation on the
and natural Grandeur, obferved in the Originals, and in other Ver- fions. He is too bold in his Expreffions, and, after all, does not al- ways write good Latin.
The Veriion of Tremellius and Junius, has much more of the true natural Simplicity : The chief Hebraifms are preferved, and the whole exactly conformable to the Hebrew Text, without Obfcurity or Barba- rity. But then they are not always fo confcientious (this is Du Pin's Charge againft them) but that fometimes they put in more than is in the Text, and add fome Words to extort the Senfe they would give it. They likewife frequently recede without the leaft Neceflity from the Words of the Vulgate, inflead of which they often put others which are neither fo good nor fo noble.
Andrew and Luke Ofiander, have acted with more Refervednefs in their Edition of the Bible; for they have contented themfelves to add to the Vulgate fuch Corrections as they believed ought to be made, ac- cording to the Hebrew Text, without the lead Diminution of the Text of the ancient Verfion ; but have inferted their Amendments, printed in a different Character from the Text of the Vulgate, which may breed fome Confuiion. For which Reafon, it would have been more proper to have printed the Differences of the Hebrew Text in the Margin.
The Latin Bible moft common in England (I mean of thefe modern Translations) is that of Tremellius and Junius, with the Greek Tefta- ment translated by Beza. But I think the Vulgate is the only Latin Translation made Ufe of in our Univerfity Schools.
Thefe many new Latin Tranllations gave Occafion to the Council of '/rent to eftablilh the Authority of the Vulgate in a particular Man- ner. Therefore in the fourth Seflion of that General Council (as they were pleafed to call themielves) in the Year 1546, they made the fol- lowing Decree, lnfuper eadem facro-j'anfta Synodus confiderans non parum JJtilitaiis accedere pojj'e Eulefia Dei, fi ex multis Latinis Editionibus, qua tircurnferuntur facrorum librorum, quanam pro authentica babenda fit inno- tefcat : Statuit et declarat, ut hac ipfa Vetus et Vulgata Editio, qua longs tot J'cculorum ufu in Ecclefia ipfa probata eft, in publicis Leclionibus, Difpu- tationibus, Pradicationibus, aut Expofitionibus, pro authentica habeatur. Et quod earn nemo rejicere, quovis pratextu audeat vel prafumat.
The Proteflants ftrenuoufly objected againft this Decree, and faid, as we learn from Chemnitius in his Exanun of this Council and its Decrees; Hoc non eft tolerandum in Ecclefia, ut pro Us qua Spirit us Sanclus in fontibus Hsbraicis et Gracis fcripfit, ea qua vitiose ab interprete reddita, vel a iibrariis mutata, mutilata vel addita funt, tanquam authentica nobis obtru- daniur, et quidem it a ut non licet, irfpeclis fontibus, ea rejicere.
The Rornanifts on the other hand, in Defence of this Decree, deny that it equals, much lefs prefers, this Verfion to the Original. They fay, as we learn from Du Pins Compleat Hi/lory of the Canon of Scrip- ture, where he treats of the Latin Tranllations; ** That the Intention " of the Council was, that, amongft all the Latin Verfions, this alone " Should be made ufe of in publick Sermons, Difputes and Confer- " ences. This authentick Qualification however does not imply an *' exact Conformity in all R«!pects to the Original Writings, fuch as " have been dictated by the Holy Ghoft', or an Exemption from all o V Errors
Ancient Verfion of the Bible. 43
" Errors whatfoever: But this Verfion defervedly claims this Title, as ** being morally confonant to the Original, and that both for its Anti- *' quity and Exactnefs it ought to be preferred before other Tranfla- *' tions. For it was not the Intention of the Council, either to prefer *l before, or to compare this Verfion to, the Original, but only with *' the other Latin Tranllations. This may be (em at the very Begin- " ning of this Decree, where it is declared, that the whole Intention " is to make the World underftand, which among all the Latin Edi- •* tions of the Bible ought to pafs for authentick. Ex omnibus Editionibus " Latinis qua circumferuntur. There were at the Time of the Sitting *c of this Council many Latin Verfions of the Bible publifhed, fome " by.Catholicks, fome by (fuch as he calls) Hereticks ; (o that whiie " they made ufe, in their Citations, of feveral different Verfions, this " Confufion proved the Occafion of great Contefts. To avoid this " Inconveniency, the Council gave the Preference, among all other '* Latin Tranflations, to this moft ancient, which had been approved " of in the Church for many Ages before, and which could not be '* charged with any Error, either in Faith or Morality, and which " was morally conformable to the original Text. This Verfion is " commanded to be ufed as the only one in all Sermons, Conferences, " or other publick Acts; without the leaft Diminution however of the " Authority and authentick Qualification of the Original, or of the " Chapter, Ut veterum Dijiincl. 9. which ordains, Ut veterum librorum " Fides de Hebrais voluminibus examinanda eji, it a novorum Veritas Graci tf fermonis normam defiderat."
He confirms this Interpretation, which he has given of the Canon made at Trent, from the Council itfelf's having made an Acknow- ledgement of fome Defects in the Text of the Vulgate, and ordered the fame to be corrected. He likewife obferves, that thofe who were pre- fent at this Council, and made a Part of it, and all that have made Apologies for it, have explained this Decree, juft as he has done. The Council referred the Correction of the Vulgate (which by the Multipli- city of Copies, and the Carelefnefs of Tranfcribers, had contracted a Multitude of Faults) to the Care of the Pope. But it was near forty Years before any Care was taken in this Matter. For this Order for correcting the Vulgate was made in the Year 1546; but the Correction was not entered upon until the Pontificate of Sixtus V, which began in the Year 1585. Thofe who were employed by that Pope in this Work, were directed to revife the Text after the ancient MSS.; and where there was any Ambiguity or Variety in the MSS. there they mould have Recourfe to the Hebrew and Greek, to determine which Reading ought to be preferred.- This Work being finifhed, the Pope took great Care to have it fairly and correctly printed in the Vatican ; and aflures us, that he had with his own Hands corrected the Errors of the Prefs. And, by his Bull prefixed to this Edition, (which was publish- ed 1590 at Rome) " He declared, with the Advice of the Cardinals " deputed for that Purpofe, according to the Plenitude of his Power, " that this Edition of the Old and New Teftamenr, being without u Queftion the fame Verfion declared by the Council of Trent to be ** authentick, and printed with all the Exactnefs imaginable, mould be
" read
44 A DiJJertation on the
«« read only in all the Churches j forbidding any Impreflion to be madb " for the future of this Verfion that fhould not be conformable to this, " or to add any various Lections in the Margin : Ordaining at the fame «6 Time, that all the Books of the Offices of the Church fhould be '* corrected according to this Edition, under the Pain of the great Ex- " communication incurred ipfo failo, to be referved to the Pope; and " other Penalties mentioned in the fame Bull at Sanfta Maria Majoriy " Mar. i, I589." But Pope Sixtus V. dying foon after he had pub- lifhed this Edition, and prefixed his Bull to it, three other Popes aifo dying within two Years after him, this Edition was foon fup- preffed. And
Pope Clement VIII, who fucceeded to the Papacy in the Beginning of the Year 1592, did that Year publifh another Edition, very different from this in many Places, which he fortified by his Authority as the only authentick one ; forbidding by his Bull, dated Nov. 9, 1592, to print any other for the future. Dr. Thomas James the firft Keeper of the Bodleyan Library at Oxford, a Man of great Learning and Induffry) compared thefe two Editions, and collected the Differences between them with great Exactnefs ; which amounted to above 2000. It is true, fome of them are but trifling, but many of them (as Du Pin is forced to acknowledge) are of no fmall Confequence. Clement VIII. has more clofely followed the Hebrew Text, and his Edition is much more correct than that of Sixtus V ; though he expreffes himfelf in far more moderate Terms, in his Preface prefixed to his Edition.
The Prctejlants have very juftly obferved, that thefe two Bulls of Pope Sixtus V, and Clement VIII, which are fo contrary the one to the other, are a demonstrative Proof that the Pope, even in Cathedra* is not infallible : For, if Pope Clement's Bull was right, that of Pope Sixtus was wrong; and vice versa. What Anfwer the Partifans of the Court of Rome, who maintain the Infallibility of the Pope, give to this, I know not. They may cavil at the Argument, but I think they can- not anfwer it. Matter of Fact is a ftubborn Thing, and will not yield to Sophiftry. But whatever becomes of the Pope's Infallibility, we eu^ht to have a due Regard for the Latin Vulgate, whofe Antiquity may jufily render it Venerable, and on that Account makes it ufeful to determine the true Reading, when the original Hebrew or Greek may be ambiguous. There appears alfo a Kind of facred Simplicity or Plainnefs in the Style, which none of the later Tranflations have been able to reach.
Having, I think, faid enough of the Greek and Latin Translations, I muft now give you fome Account of the Samaritan Pentateuch. I need not tell you, that thefe Samaritans were the Pofterity of thofe Na- tions which the King of JJJjria brought from Cuth, and other Parts of his Empire, to repeople the Country which belonged to the ten Tribes (which under Jeroboam, the Son of Nebat, revolted from the Houfe of David) after he had carried thofe ten Tribes into Captivity, of which the Scriptures give us an Account 2 Kings xvii. Where we find, that bec3ufe they feared not the LORD, he fent Lions among them, which flew fome of them : Wherefore the King of Jljfyritt fent back a Prieftj who taught them how they ihould fear the LORD, and fo
they
Ancient Verfton of the Bible. 45
they worshipped him, together with their other Gods, As the revolted Tribes had no more of the Scriptures than the five Books of Mofes, fo the Prieft could bring no other with him but thofe Books written in the Old Phoenician Letters, which, upon the Return of the Jews, Ezra changed for the Cbaldee, which we now call the Hebrew Letters. Thus the Samaritans continued to mix the Worfhip of the true God and of their falfe Gods together, until the Days of Nehemia ; and he requiring thofe who had married ftrange Wives to put them away; and as we learn from Nehem. xiii. 28. finding one of the High-Prieft's Sons had married a Daughter of Sanballat, the Governor of Samaria, and would not part with her, banifhed him the Land. This Man, (as Jofepbus tells us in his Antiquities, L. ii. c. 7.) whofe Name was Manajfeh, fled to Samaria, where his Wife's Father Sanballat was Governor, who built a Temple for him, like that at Jerufalem, upon Mount Gerizim^ and made him the High-Prieft of it. Manajfeh brought with him fome other apoftate Priefts, with many other Jews, who difliked the Regu- lations made by Nehemia at Jerufalem. And now the Samaritans hav- ing gotten an High-Prieft, and other Priefts of the Defcendents from Aaron, they were pretty foon brought off from the Worfhip of their falfe Gods, and became as great Enemies to Idolatry as the beft of the Jews. However, Manajfeh gave them no other Scriptures than the Pentateuch, left, if they had the other Scriptures, they mould find then that Jerufalem was the only Place where they Should offer their Sacri- fices. And though he brought with him the Book of the Law, yet he caufed it to be written in the old Character, which had been long ufed by the Samaritans, and not in the new Chaldee Character of Ezra. John Hyrcanus, a Prince of the Race of the Maccabees, having conquered Samaria, intirely demolished this Temple, about 200 Years after it had been built by Sanballat. Neverthelefs, the Samaritans ftill kept up their Altar, and offered there their Sacrifices upon it. And forgetting that they derived their Original from the Cutheans, they accounted them- felves true Ifraelites, who had preferved the Obfervation of the Law in its Purity, and had High-Priefts defcended in a direct Line from Phi- neas, the Son of Eleazar, the Son of Aaron. And indeed their Priefts are thus defcended, and fo many apoftate Jews have mixed with them, as may give many of them a Claim to a Defcent from Jacob. And John iv. the Woman of Samaria, called Jacob Father ; and from her Words to our Saviour, it is evident they expected the Meffiah as well zsihe Jews: However, the Jews would have no Dealing with them, as we learn from the fame Chapter. Jofephus tells us, that when the Jews were in Profperity, the Samaritans would pretend to be the fame People with them : But when the Jews were in Adverfity, then the Samaritans would fay they were not Jews, and fhew their Defcent from another Nation.
There is ftill a Remainder of thefe Samaritans, who continue to have their High-Prieft and other Priefts of the Race of Aaron, (as they fay, and perhaps fay true) who offer their Sacrifices on Mount Gerizim to this very Time. This Sect is now reduced to a very fmall Number, the Chief of which refide at Sichem, afterwards called Flavia Neapolis, and now Naploufa, the Town to which Mount Gerizim belongs. They
have
46 A Dijjertation on the
have Synagogues in other Parts of Palejlin, and alfo In Egypt, The Pentateuch ufed by them is no Tranflation, but only a different Copy of the fame Hebrew Original, written alfo in different Characters. It was well known to many of the Fathers, who have quoted it: But as feveral of thofe Fathers are believed not to have underftood Hebrew, it is thence believed there was a Greek Tranflation of it. Thefe Quotations are all elder than the Year 600. From that Time, for a 1000 Years, we find no mention of this Samaritan Pentateuch, until about the Be- ginning of the laft Century; when Scaliger having got Notice that it was ftill preferved by thofe of that Seel, and complaining that no body had taken care to get a Copy from thence, Archbifhop Ufber, by the Means of Mr. Thomas Davis, then at Aleppo, and (as I fuppofe) Chap- lain to the Factory there, procured two or three Copies of it out of the Eajl. Not long after Sancius Harley, a Prieft of the Oratory at Paris, and afterwards Bifhop of St. Malo's in Britany, brought another Copy into Europe, which he repofited in the Library belonging to that Order in Paris : From which Copy, Morinus, another Prieft of that Order, publilh d it in the Paris Polyglot.
The Samaritans, befide the Pentateuch in the Original Hebrew, have alfo a Tranflation of it into the Language which was vulgarly fpoken among them : Which is alfo publifhed together with the Original in the Paris Polyglot ; and it is fo exactly literal, that Morinus thought one Latin Tranflation might ferve for both. And Bifhop Walton has followed the fame Method in his Polyglot', only when there are any Variations, they are marked at the Bottom of the Page. This Sama- ritan Pentateuch has fome Additions, Variations, and Tranfpofitions, whereby it differs from the prefent Jew'ijh Copies. But that there fhould be fome Differences is not fo much to be wondered at, as that there are not more, after that, thofe who adhered to the one, and thofe who adhered to the other, had not only broke off all manner of Com- munication, but had conftantly been at the bittereft Variance poflibfe with each other for above 2000 Years : For fo long had pafTed from the Apoftacy of ManaJJeh to the Time when thefe Copies were firft brought into Europe. In fo many Ages, many Differences might hap- pen by the Errors of Tranfcribers ; and the mod that are between thefe two Copies are of this Sort.
After Sanballat had built the Temple on Mount Gerizim, the Sama- ritans and apoftatd Jews would not allow Jerufalem to be the Place which God had chofen; but contended that Mount Gerizim was that Place : And argued as the Woman of Samaria did to our Saviour, John iv. 20. That their Fathers worjhipped in that Mountain. For they plead, that there Abraham (Gen. xii. 6, 7. and xiii. 4.) and there Jacob (Gen, xxxiii. 20.) built Altars to God, and by offering Sacrifice upon them, confecrated that Place above all others to his Worfhip. That there- fore it was appointed by God himfelf (Deut. xxvii. 12.) to be the Hil! of Bleffing on the Coming of the Children of Ifrael out of Egypt ; and that accordingly Jojhua caufed the Bleflings of God to be declared thereon. Alfo, that having paffed the River Jordan, he built an Altar on it of twelve Stones, taken out of the River Jordan in his Paffage over it, according as God had commanded, and offered Sacrifices on
it.
Ancient Verfion of the Bible. 47
it. (Deat. xxvii. 1 — 7.) And this they held to be the very Altar on which they ftill facrifice. But to make out this laft Part of their Argu- ment, they have corrupted the Text : For whereas the Command of God is, that they fhould build the Altar on Mount Ebal, they have inftead thereof put Mount Gerizim. The Jezvs loudly charge them with this Corruption ; and they retort it, and accufe the Jeivs of hav- ing altered the Text j and bring this Argument for it, That Mount Gerizim having been the Mountain appointed by God to declare his Blefiings, and Mount Ebal to denounce his Curfes, the Mount of Bleflings was very proper, and the Mount of Curfes very improper, for an Altar of God to be built upon. But notwithstanding this Allega- tion, all other Copies and old Tranflations make againft them, and prove the Corruption on their Side. And it very much aggravates their Guilt herein, that they have not only corrupted the Scriptures in this Place, but have alfo interpolated them with this Corruption in another ; that is, in the 20th Chapter of Exodus, where, after the tenth Commandment, they have fubjoined, by way of additional Precept thereto, Words taken out of the nth and 27th Chapters of Deutero- nomy, to command the erecting an Altar on Mount Gerizim, inftead of Mount Ebal, and offering Sacrifices to God in that Place. They hav- ing thus made a wilful Alteration in one Place, and a corrupt Addi- tion in another, this (fays Dean Prideaux) gives the lefs Authority to their Copy, when it differs from that of the Jews. But, I conceive, though the Samaritans might alter a Text, and make an Interpolation to ferve a Caufe, it does not from thence follow, that they fhould wilfully and needlefly make Alterations, where they had no Caufe to ferve.
The Chaldee Paraphrafes are Tranflations of the Scriptures of the Old Te/lament, made directly from the Hebrew Text into the Language of the Chaldeans. Thefe Paraphrafes are called Targums, which, in the Chaldee Language, fignifies an Interpretation or Verfion out of one Language into another. Thefe Targums were made for the Ufe and Instruction of the vulgar Jews, after their Return from the Babylonijh Captivity : For although the better Sort ftill retained the Hebrew Lan- guage, and taught it their Children, and the Holy Scriptures that were delivered after that Time (excepting only fome Parts of Ezra and Da- niel, and one Verfe in Jeremiah) were all written therein, yet the com- mon People, fo long convening with the Babylonians, learnt their Lan- guage, and forgot their own. Therefore, when Ezra read the Law unto the People, {Neh. viii. 4 — 8.) he had Men ftanding by him well (killed in both Languages, who interpreted to the People in Chaldee, what he read to them in Hebrew. And this Courfe of Reading and Interpreting was afterwards continued. And that the whole Law might be read in a Year, they divided it into fifty-four Sections; be- cause every third Year at leaft they intercalated a Month, and then had fifty-four Sabbaths; and in other Years, when they had fewer Sab- baths, they as often joined two Sections together, fo that the whole Law might be read within the Year. Until the Time of the Perfec- tion by Ant'mhus Epiphanes, they read only the Law ; but being there prohibited to read the Law, they then divided the Prophets into fifty- four
48 A Dijfertation on the
four Sections ; and inftead of a Section of the Law, read one out of the Prophets every Sabbath-Day. And when the Reading of the Law was reftored by the Maccabees, then they read a Section of the Law as a rirft LefTbn, and a Section out of the Prophets for a fecond Leffon : And fo it was practifed in the Times of the Apoftles. For (Aft. xiii. 15.) when St. Paul entered into the Synagogue at Antioch, in Piftdia, it is faid that he flood up to preach, after the Reading the Law and the Prophets.
Thefe Sections were divided into Verfes, which the Jews call Pefa- kim. They are marked out in the Hebreiv Bibles by two great Points at the End of them, which the Jews call Soph Pafuk, i. e. the End of the Verfe. This was invented for the Sake of the Chaldee Interpreters, that when the Reader had read one Verfe in the Hebrew, the Inter- preter might render ,t in Chaldee. Which proves, that this Divifion of the Old Teftament into Verfes muft be as ancient as the Way of inter- preting them into Chaldee in the Synagogues. This Way of reading, the Law and the Prophets, firft in the Hebrew, and then interpreting them in the Chaldee, or when the Greek or fome other was the vulgar Language, into that Language, was continued, as I have before ob- ferved, to the Time of the Emperor Jujlinian, that is, to about Anno Bom. 550 ; and foon after that Time the Jews would allow their Scrip- tures to be read in their Synagogues in Hebrew only, or together with the Chaldee, though that was alfo become a dead Language.
The Divifion of the Bible into Chapters (except the Pfalms, which were always divided as at prefent, for the fmall Difference between the Hebrew and Greek Divifion need not here be mentioned) is of a much later Date. For though the Hebrew Bibles were divided into Sections and Verfes, the Greek, Latin, and other Tranflations, had no fuch Divifions. The Sections alfo of the Hebrew Bibles were very large, and the Verfes had no Numbers placed to them. About the Year 1240, Hugo de Santfo Caro, a Dominican Monk, and the firft of that Order who was made a Cardinal, and commonly called Cardinal Hugo, projected the making an Index or Concordance to the Latin Vulgate. In order to which, he found it neceflary to divide every Book of the Bible into fuch Partitions as we call Chapters ; otherwile, when his Concordance referred to a Text, the whole Book referred to muft have been fearched to find it. And for the yet more readily finding the Text required, he pla.ed thefe Letters, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, in the Margin, at an equal Diftance from each other, according as the Chap- ters were longer or fhorter : In the longer Chapters all thefe Letters were ufed, in the fhorter fewer. The Subdivifion into Verfes came afterwards from the Jews: For about the Year 1430, Rabbi Nathan , an eminent Jew, having often Difputes with the Chriftians, thereby came to the Knowledge of the great Ufe they made of the Latin Con- cordance of Cardinal Hugo, and the Benefit they had thereby in find- ing any Place they had cccafion to confult: Wherefore he immediately went ab ut making fuch a Concordance to the Hebrew Bible for the Ufe of the Jews. Here he followed the fame Divifion into Chapters which Hugo had made; which had the like Effect, as to the Hebrew, that Hugo's had as to the Latin, that is, it caufed the fame Divifion
to
Ancient Verfion of the Bible. 49
to be made in all the Hebrew Bibles, which were afterwards written or printed for common Ufe. For this Concordance being found of ex- cellent Ufe amona: thole for whom it was made, they were forced to comply with this Divilion for the Sake of having the Benefit of it. But he did not fubdivide the Chapters by the Letters A, B, C, &c. as Hugo had done; but by affixing Numeral Letters in the Margin to every fifth Verfe. Vatablus, a Frenchman and an eminent Hebrician, about an 100 Years after Rabbi- Nathan, taking his Pattern from him, pub- lished a Latin Bible with Chapters and Verfes, numbered with Figures : Which Example was foon followed in all other Editions, in all Lan- guages, fince publifhed in thefe Wefiern Parts of ChriftenJom. Robert Stephens, a very learned Man in the Greek Tongue, and an eminent Printer at Paris, and Contemporary to Vatablus, taking the Hint from him, made a like Divilion of the Chapters of the New Teftament into Verfes, for the Sake of a Concordance, he was then compofing for the Greek Teftament, afterwards printed by Henry Stephens, his Son; who gives this Account of it in his Preface to that Concordance. This Dean Prideaux tells us is the original Divilion of the Old and New Teftament into Chapters and Verfes, which we now follow. But to return from this Digreflion.
As Synagogues multiplied among the J civs beyond the Number of thofe Interpreters;, it became neceflary that Verfions fbould be made to fupply that Defect. This Work having been attempted by divers Perfons, it came to pafs, that there were anciently many Targums, and of different Sorts, as there were anciently many different Verfions of the fame Holy Scriptures into the Greek Language, of which we have fufficient Proof in the Oclapla of Origen. No doubt, anciently there were many more Targums than we now know of. Thofe that are yet remaining were compofed by different Perfons, and on different Parts of Scripture, and are thefe eight following. 1. That of Onkelos on the five Books of Mofes. 2. That of Jonathan Ben Uziel on the Prophets ; that is, on Joflma, Judges, the two Books of Samuel, the two Books of Kings, Ifaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor Prophets, 3. That on the Law, afcribed to Jonathan Ben Uziel. 4. The Jerufaicm Targum on the Law. 5. The Tar gum on the leffer Books, called the Megilhth, i. e. Ruth, EJlher, EcclefiaJles, Song of Solomon, and the La- mentations of Jeremiah. 6. The fecond Targum of Ejther. 7. The Tar- gum of Jofeph the one Eyed on Job, P/alms, and Proverbs. 8. The Targum on the two Books of Chronicles. On Ezra, Nehemia, and Da- niel, there, is no Targum at all.
The eldeft, and therefore moft valuable of thefe Targums, are thofe of Onkelos on the Law, and Jonathan on the Prophets. Thefe two are juftly believed to have been written a little before, or at leaft foon after, our Saviour's Birth. If there were any of an elder Date (as Dean Pri- deaux fuppofes there were, by reafon of the Neceffity the vulgar Jeivs had for them J they are all now intirely loft. The Targum of Onkelos is a Ariel Verfion, rendering the Hebrav Word for Word : Jonathan takes the Liberty of a Paraphrof, by Enlargements and Additions to the Text. Though the Prophecies? in the Old Teftament, concerning
'Vol. UT. D the
^o A DiJJertation on the
the Me/Jiah, are explained in thefe two Targums, as they are by us Chrijlians ; yet they are in fo great Efteem among the Jews, that they hold them to be of the fame Authority with the original facred Text. It has been already fhewn, that when the Chaldee became the vulgar Tongue of the Jews, the Weekly Leflbns, out of the Law and the Prophets, in their Synagogues, having been firft read in Hebrew-, were, by an Interpreter, ftanding by the Reader, rendered into Chaldee, This continued for fome Time : But after, when Targums were made, the Interpretation was read out of them, without any more employing In- terpreters for this Purpofe: And the Readers did firft read a Verfe out of the Hebrew Text, and then the fame again out of the Chaldee Tar- gum ; and fo went on from Verfe to Verfe, till they had read out the whole Leflbn. And this Ufe of them was retained in fome of their Synagogues, even down to late Times, and in Places where the Chaldee was as little understood as the Hebreiv : For Elias Levita, who lived about 200 Years ftnce, tells us, that they were thus ufed in his Time in Germany, and elfewhere. And agreeable to this Purpofe, though only for private Ufe, they had fome of their Bibles written out in Hebrew and Chaldee together ; that is, each Verfe firft in Hebrew, and then in Chaldee ; and thus from Verfe to Verfe in the fame Manner through the whole Volume. In thefe Bibles, the Targum of Onkelos was the Chaldee Verfion for the Law ; and that of Jonathan, for the Prophets ; and for the Hagiographa, the other Targums that were written on them. One of thefe Bibles, thus written, Buxtorf tells us, he had feen at Strajburg: And Bifhop Walton acquaints us, that he had the Perufal of two others of the fame Sort, one in the publick Library of the Church of IVeJlminJler, and the other in the private Study of Mr. Thomas Gataker. The other Targums are all of a much later Date than thofe of Onkelos and Jonathan, and of far lefs Authority : However, Bi(hop Walton has put the moft of them into his Polyglot.
Whether the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan were read alternately with the Hebrew Text, one Verfe in the Hebrew, and then the fame in the Chaldee, we cannot fay : But this feems certain, if not thefe par- ticular Targums, yet fome other then were written for the Inftruclion of the People; and were among them in private as well as in publick for this Ufe; and that they had fuch, not only on the Law and the Prophets, but alfo on all the other Hebrew Scriptures. For it was not the Ufage among the Jews to lock up the Holy Scriptures, or any Part of them, from the People in a Language unknown to them : For when difperfed among the Greeks, they had them in Greek; and when the Chaldee was the vulgar Language, they had them in Chaldee. And when Chrift was called out to read the fecond Leflbn in the Synagogue of Nazareth, of which he was a Member, he feems to have read it out of a Targum: For the Words then read by him out of I/aiah lxi. i. as recited by St. Luke iv. 18. do not exactly agree either with the Hebrew* or theLXX, in that Place; and therefore it feems moft likely it fhould be read out of fome Targum ufed in that Synagogue. And when he cried out upon the Crofs in the Words of the Pfalmijl, Pfal. xxii. I. Eli, Eli lama Sabaclhani, he quoted them, Mat. xxvii. 46. not out of e the
Ancient Verfion of the Bible. o
the Hebrew, but the Cbaldee Paraphrafe\ for in the Hebrew it is, Eli, Eli lama Azabtani, the Word Sabaclbani, is no where to be found but in the Cbaldee Tongue.
The Language moft commonly ufed among the Chriftians of the Eafii next to the Greek, is the Syriac. It is properly a Dialed of the ancient Cbaldee, which the Learned divide into three different Dialects :
1. Into that of Babylon, which is the Chaldean Language in its Purity.
2. Into that of Jerufalem, which is what was ufed by the Jews after their Return from their Captivity at Babylon. 3. Into that of Antiochia, which was ufed by the Cbrtjlians of Comagena, and fome other Provinces bordering upon Syria, when this was the native Language of the Country. This Jaft is that which is now more particularly called the Syriac Language. And into this Language was both the Old and New Teftament tranflated ; if not before the Death of St. John the Apoftle, yet certainly very foon after. The Tranflator was a Chriflian, weli fkilled in the Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac Languages. And the Learned, who have examined this Verfion, and compared it with the Original, both of the Old and New Teftament, tell us, That of all the ancient Verfions, which are now confulted by Cbrtjlians for the better under- ftanding the Holy Scriptures, as well of the New Teftament as of the Old, none can better ferve this End, than this old Syriac Verfion, when carefully confulted, and well understood. And to this Purpofe, the very Nature of the Language aflifts much ; for it having been the mo- ther Tongue of thole who wrote the New Teftament, and a Dialect of that in which the Old was firft given to us, many Things of both are more happily exprefled in this Verfion than can well be done in any other Language.
This Syriac Verfion of the whole facred Scripture is (till ufed by the Maronites, a Number of Chrijlians dwelling about A-Iount Libanus, called fo from Maron, the Head of a large Monaftery in that Place; where alfo the Syriac is in fome Villages the vulgar Tongue. They have a Patriarch, whofe Seat is for the moft Part in Mount Libanus, and fome- times he refides at Tripoli. Their Liturgy is alfo in this Language. It is ufed alfo by the Ne/lc*ians, fo called from Neftorius the Heretick, condemned in the Council of Epbefus; but whofe Herefy (Bifhop Walton fays) they feem now to have forfaken. Their Liturgy is alfo in this Language. Thefe Chrijlians are fpread (though mixed with Mahometans, to whom they are fubject (through the Regions of Baby- lon, Ajfyria, Mefopotamia, Parthia, Media, in all which Places they are numerous, they extend northward to Crabia, and fouthward to India; their Patriarch lives at Muzal, on the Tigris. The Jacobites alfo, fo called frdm James, a great Zealot for the Eutychian Herefy, condemned in the Council oiChalcedon, (though Bifhop IValton fays, they have now relinquifhed that Herefy) ufe this Syriac Tranfiation of the Scriptures, and have their Liturgy alfo in the fame Language. They are difperfed in Syria, Cyprus, Mefopotamia, and Babylon. Their Patriarch calls himfelf Patriarch of Antioch, but refides at Caramit, an old Metropolis of Mefopotamia. There is another Syriac Verfion of the Old Tefta- ment, made from the Greek of Origen's Hexapla j but that is not much cfteemcd.
D2 The
*z A Dijfertation on the \
The Arabic Language, which, until about A. D. 600, was little known beyond the Confines of Arabia^ was foon after, by the Victories of the Saracens, fpread over a great Part both of the Eajl and Weft, and is to this Day much in Ufe among the greatest Part of the Eafiern Na- tions. This Language is very ancient, exceeding copious, and of great Ufe for the well understanding the Hebrew Text, they having many Roots in common betwixt them, from whence it comes to pais, that Recourfe muft often be had to the Arabic, for the better explaining fuch Hebrew Words as are of a doubtful Signification. There are likewife many ufeful Obfervations, and fome Ceremonies mentioned in the Bible, which may be beft explained by Arabic Books.
We know not of any more ancient Tranflation of the Bible into the Arabic Language than one, that was made by Saadias Gaon, a "Jew of Babylon, about A. D. 900. But there have been feveral Translations made fince into that Language, both by Jews and Cbrijlians. The Eaftcrn Cbrijlians have (I think) all of them fome Arabic Translation of the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Teftament, made for the Ufe of their People, fince that became the vulgar Language amongft them. Thefe are moftly made from the Septuagint, or from the Syriac, and are neither very ancient, or of any confiderable Authority. The beft Ufe to be made of them is, that they may ferve to illuftrate fome difficult PaSTages. Among the Arabic Translations, made by Chriftians, there is one printed in the Polyglots of Paris and London. Both the Author, and the Time when it was writ, are uncertain.
There are alfo in the London Polyglot, published by BiShop Walton^ and (I think) in that of Paris, alfo published by Mr. De Jay, an Eibi- opic and a Perfic Verfion of the Scriptures. But as thefe Tranflatioqs are not of all the Books of Holy Scripture, but of fome only, and like- wife of no great Antiquity, I Shall fay nothing more of them.
And now you may reafonably aSk what Occafion for thefe Polyglots? For after all this Variety of Translations, all Cbrijlians, at leaft in thefe Parts, whether they be Papifts or Protejlants, are agreed in that Rule which you quoted from the Canon-Law, (Diftinct. 9.) Ut veterum li~ brorum Fides de Hebrais voluminibus examinanda cjl, ita novorum Veritas Grttci fermonis nor mam dcjiderat. And therefore when Origen, Hefychius and Lucian propofed to publifh new Editions of the LXX, which had been corrupted. by Tranfcribers, they corrected it by the Hebrew Ori- ginal. And notwithstanding the Council of Trent declared the Latin Vulgate to be authentick j yet two Popes, one after the other, got it corrected by the Hebrew for the Old Teftament, and by the Greek for the New. And all Protejlants have translated the Scriptures into their feveral Languages from the Hebrew and Greek in like Manner, without Regard to thofe old Translations. Why then, if upon any Occafion we defire to be fully fatisfied of the Faithfulnefs of our prefent Englijh Tranflation, Should we trouble ourfelves further than to confult the Hcbreiv for the Old Teftament, and the Greek for the New ?
I anfwer, that although the Original is always to be preferred to the beft and mod exact Translation, and therefore, if we had the original Hebrew Text, as written by the infpired Penmen, the Matter would not bear a Difpute; yet,' as this authentick Original has been loft for
many
Ancient Verfion of the "Bible, 53
many Ages, and there are only Copies remaining in this original Lan- guage, all which have fuffered by the Overfights, Ignoiance, or Bold- nefs of Tranfcribers, an old Tranflation may be of great Ufe to fettle the true Reading, by informing us how the Text Mood in that old" Copy, from whence that Tranflation was made. For where the LXX, and other ancient Tranflations, differ from the prefent Hebrew Copies, (except there be fome plain Reafon to the contrary) it is Proof that it was fo written in the Copy from whence that Tranflation was made, and ought to be received as a various Reading : And where there is a various Reading, the true Reading will be beft difcovered, by confider- ing which is moft agreeable to the Context, and to the other Parts of Holy Scripture.
There is another Ufe alfo to be made of thefe ancient Verfions. The Hebrew is not only a dead Language, and has ceafed to be the vulgar Language of any Nation for above 2000 Years j but is aifo a Language in which we have only one Book remaining, that is the Scriptures of the Old Teftament. And in this Book there are fome Words which occur but once or twice in the whole Book; which makes it very difficult, not to fay impoflible, to know the true Mean-" ing of them without the Afliftance of fome Tranflation, for the Con- text will not always help us. Whereas the Greek and Latin, though dead Languages alfo, are preferved in a great Number of Books ; fo that if we are at a Lofs, to know the Meaning of a Word in one Book, the Conftruclion of it in others will inform us. Therefore the old Tranflations, made before the Hebrew had been fo long out of vulgar Ufe, may greatly help us. And we may reafonably believe, that the Translators of the LXX were better fkilled in the Hebrew Tongue than any now can pretend to be, and fo were Onkelos and Jonathan, who made the Tar gums, and thole who made the old Syriac Verfion. The Arabic Tranflations, though modern, compared with the former, yet it is ftill a living Language, and has fome of thefe Hebrew Words' in it, which but once or twice occur, and whofe Meaning the Jews confefs they received from the Arabians.
There is yet another Reafon for which the LXX deferves our Re- gard ; and that is, that it was, together with the Tranflations made from it, the only Scripture of the Old Teftament, (except in fome Parts of Syria) which the primitive Chrijiians had for their Inftruclion ; and even the Apoflles themfelves quoted it, and that often in Places where it differed from the prefent Hebrew ^ and confequently from our Englijl) Tranflation. To give an Inttance or two, Rom. x. 18. St. Paul quoting the Words of Pfal. xix. 4. fays, Their Sound ivent into all the Earth. But in the prefent Hebrew, and our Bible Tranflation made from it, it is, Their Line is gone out through all the Earth. And Rom. xv. 12. Again Efaias faith , There Jhall be a Root ofjejje, and he that fall rife to reign over the Gentiles, in him Jhall the Gentiles trvjl. So it is in the LXX, Ifai. xi. 10. But in the Hebrezv, and from thence in our Englifh Bibles it is, There Jhall be a Root ofjeffe, which Jhall ' Jland for an Enfign of the People, and to it Jhall the Gentiles feek. There may many fuch Tnftances be given, which you may eafily find, if, when you meet with a Paffage in the New Teftament quoted from the Old, you will
D 3 compare
54 d Differ tat ion on the
compare it with the LXX, and with your Englijh Bible. There are alfo feveral Paffages of the Old Teftament quoted in the New, where the Senfe only is given, but the Words differ both from the Hebrew and the LXX.
The Latin Vulgate, in which the Pfalms and Hymns, tranflated from the LXX at the Beginning of Chrifiianity, are ftill continued, may in thofe Places be of great Ufe to afcertain the true Reading of the LXX in any doubtful Paflage : And the other Part being of St. Jerom's Tran- slation from the Hebrew, may difcover fome various Reading, wherein his Copy, from which he tranflated, differed from the prefent Hebrew Copies. And the fame may be faid of the Syriac, and other ancient Verfions, made immediately from the Hebrew Original.
But here it may be faid, if the LXX, and other ancient Verfions, are fo different from the Hebreiv; and this be a Proof that the Hebrew Copies from which thofe Tranllations were made, was different from the Hebrew Copies we now have ; and there is no Original or Auto- grapbum of the facred Penmen by which thefe Copies may be corrected, nor has been fince the Deftruction of the Temple by the Romans; and that we muft depend upon the Judgment and Care of the Maforites, as the only Evidence we have of the Authenticknefs of the prefent Hebrew Text of the Old Teftament; and that as they lived not till above 400 Years after the original Copy of thofe Scriptures was deftroyed, how {hall we be fure that we have the true Scriptures which were written by Mofes and the Prophets ? Befides, as to the Books of Mofes, there is the Samaritan Pentateuch preferved in the Hebrew Language, only written in a different Character, which in many Places differs from the Pentateuch we have received from the Jews; and that all thefe, whether Originals or Tranllations, have fuffered much by Copiers, how (hall we be affured that we have the true genuine Scriptures of the Old Teftament, or indeed of the New ? For that has fuffered alfo by the Overjight, Ignorance, or Boldnefs of Transcribers.
I anfwer, the Cafe is the fame as to all the Books that have been written or copied from Time to Time by feveral Hands. The fame may be faid as to Arijiotle, Plato, Demoflhenes, Virgil, Horace, &c. there are various Readings which have been found in MSS. of thofe Books, even as to whole Sentences, as well as (ingle Words : And if we had Transla- tions of thefe Books near as old as the Originals, no Queftion but various Readings might be gathered from them alfo. Shall we there- fore fay, we have not the Works of thofe Authors, at leaft not their true genuine Works ? Or that fpurious Works are put upon us inftead of thofe which they wrote ? And if there be not fo many various Read- ings to be found in thefe Authors as have been found in the Bible, the Reafon is, becaufe there have never been fo many Copies of thofe Books written as there have been of the Bible. Therefore, though we cannot fay that either the Hebrew or the Samaritan, the Chaldee or LXX, or the Latin Vulgate or the Syriac, or any other ancient Tran- ilation, are without a faulty Reading; yet there is no confiderable Fault as to Faith, Doctrine or Manners, in any of them. Moft of the Differences between one Copy -and another, or between the Ori- ginal and the Verfions, confift only in he different Expreffions, which
are
jfncient Verfion of the Bible. 55
arc more or lefs clear, and which agree better or worfe with the Con- text, going before, or following after, and which make the Senfe more or lefs perfect. There is none where the Hebreiv, or LXX, or any other Verfion, teaches a dangerous Falfhood or manifeft Error, even though a Sentence be in the one, and be wanting in the other; or where there is an apparent Contrariety between the one and the other. Thus, for Inftance, Pfal. xxviii. 1. Unto thee will I cry, O Lord, my Rock, be notfilent to me : Left if tkeu be f lent to me, I become like them that go down into the Pit. Here the LXX have omitted the Words thou be Jilent to me, that is, the Repetition of them as they are in Hebrew, which, though it may make the Paffage lefs emphatical, it alters not the Senfe. So Pfalm xxxiii. 10. the Hebrew reads, The Lord bringeth the Counfel of the Heathen to nought : He maketh the Devices of the People of none Effecl. So the Verfe ends; but the LXX add, He bringeth to nought the Counfel of Princes. Thefe Words contain what is moft cer- tainly true, and very probably were in the original Hebrew, from whence the Translation of the LXX was made; but omitted in the prefent Copies, by an Overfight of a Tranfcriber. But whether it be fo or not, it affects neither Faith nor Morals, the Doctrine it teaches may be abundantly proved by other undoubted 1 exts ; fo that if we fhould grant (which I fee no Reafon to do) that the LXX have here added to the Text what in this Place was not in the truly original He- brew, yet it makes no Addition to the Doctrine of the Scripture, which will continue the fame as to this Particular, whether this Sentence be- long to this Place or not.
Nay, where there is an apparent Contrariety between the Hebrew and the LXX, and other Tranllations, as in the Genealogies in the fifth and eleventh Chapters of Genefis, which Genealogy foever we fol- low, whether that of the Hebrew, or that of the LXX, it affects nei- ther our Faith nor our Morals. The Hebrew fays, Adam lived 130 Years, and begat Seth ; the LXX fays he lived 230 Years, and begat Seth, and fo on for the ten Generations before the Flood ; the LXX add 100 Years to the Age of each Patriarch before he begat his Son, except to fared and Methufala, to the Age afligned him in the Hebrew. The Samaritan agrees with the Hebreiv in the Age of each Patriarch before he begat his Son, excepting that it makes fared 100, Methufala 120, and Lamech 139 Years younger when they begat their Sons than the Hebrew does. Thus the Hebrew makes it 1656 Years from the Creation to the Flood, the LXX 2262, and the Samaritan 3307. In like Manner, from the Flood to Abralwm, the LXX make almoft all thofe Patriarchs to be 100 Years older when they begat their Sons than the Hebrew does j and alfo between Jrpbaaad and Sala put in Cainan9 and make him 130 Years old when he begat Sah^ but in this Period there is no fuch Name as Cainan in the Hebrew Text, but he is named by St. Luke iii. 36. The Samaritan in this Period agrees wish the LXX, only that it has not the Name of Cainan in this Genealogy. So the Hebrew number 448 Years from the Flood to Abraham, the LXX 1169, and the Samaritan 1039. But this different Chronology between the Hebrew, the LXX, and the Samaritan* affects neither any Thing that is neceflary to be believed or pra£Ufed, What is material and
D ^ neceflary
r6 A Differ tat ion on the
neceflary for us to know and believe, in this Part, of the facrec) Story, is the fame in all, there is no Difference between them. They all give us the fame Account of the Creation of the World, the Fall of Man, the Promife of the Seed of the Woman, the Destruction of Mankind, and of all Creatures living on the Earth, except what were preferved in the Ark, the repeopling of the World by Noab and his Sons, the Confufion of Languages at Babel, and fuch like material Parts of facred Hiftory, the Memory of which the Holy Ghoft thought fit fnould be tranfmitted to future Ages, unto the End of the World. But as to the Knowledge and Belief of thefe Things, what does it f.gnify, whether Adam was 230, or but 130 Years old when he begat Setb ? Whether Cainan was the Son of Arphaxad, and Father of Sola ; or whether there never was fuch a Perfon as this Cainan; and that Sala was the Son, not the Grandfon of Arpbaxad? That which God defigned we fnould learn from the facred Hiftory contained in thefe eleven rirft Chapters of Gencfs is not at all affecled by this Difference in the Chronology of the He- brew and LXX.
The Jews have a Tradition recorded in their Gemara, that as the World was created in fix Days, it fhould continue 6000 Years, and then have an End, becaufe it is written, Pfal. xc. 4. A thoufand Tears in tby Sight ere but as Teflerday, that is, are but as one Day. Therefore fay they, as the Creation of the World was finifoed in fx Days, fo in fx thoufand Tears /ball all Things be aceomplijlied. That this Tradition is older than Ckrijlianity is certain, becaufe it is ufed by St. Barnabas, the Compa- nion of St. Paul, in an Epitlle written by him in the Apoftles' Days, and federal other of the earlieft Fathers appear to have been of this Opinion. Therefore fays Mr. Mede, (See p. 897 of his Works,) « That Differ- " ence of the Accounts of the Years of the Wen Id, was ordered by a " fpecial Difpofition of Providence to fruftrate our Curiofity in fearch- " ing the Time of the Day cf Judgment." For our Saviour has taught us {Acls i. 7.) that it is not for us to bioiv the Times and the Seajons, which the Father hath put in his own Power. And nothing has caufed fo great a Difference between the ancient Chriflian Chronologers who follow the LXX, and the prefent Chronologers who follow the He- brew, as this Difference between the Hebrew and Greek of the Age the mofr. ancient Patriarchs were of when they begat their Children.
Many Times the Difference which is found between the Verfion and the Original, or betwixt the Verfions themfelves, as betwixt our Mnglijb Verfion and the LXX, comes from this; that Interpreters do not always tranflate literally; neither indeed can they, if they will write Senfe. For all Languages have their particular Idioms or Forms of Speech, which literally tranflated into another Tongue, will appear harm, and abfurd. This will oblige the Tranflator to gi\e the Senfe of fuch Paffages in a Kind of Paraphrafe, and not in a literal Tranfla- tion. There are indeed many Cafes in which a Tranflator may be obliged to vary from the Ariel Letter of the Original. This may Caufe a verbal Difference between the Tranflation and the Original, and like wife between two Tranilations of the fame Book. Bur thefe Dif- ferences diminiih nothing from the Authority of either the Original or Tranflation, and hinder not but both may pafs as a Rule of our Faith
and
Jncient Verfion of the Bible. 57
and Manners. Thefe different Readings, and fmall Faults, which are generally met with in different MSS, and various Editions of all an- cient Authors, facred and prophane, both in the Originals, and the Verlions, do not prevent our certainly having the authentick Works of thofe Authors, nor hinder our knowing their true Sentiments.
Whatever Differences therefore we find to have happened through the Carelefnefs, or Ignorance, or rafri Boldnefs of Tranfcribers, or by any other Means, with Regard to the Hebrew Text we now have, and the different Copies of the LXX, or other Verfions, are by no Means fufficient to invalidate the Authority of the Old Teftament, or to give any one juft Occafion to fay that the Scriptures of the Old Teftament we now have are not the Word of God. For notwithstanding thefe various Readings, even as to whole Sentences, the Providence of God has taken Care, that no fuch Errors have crept either into the.Hebrew, or LXX, or other ancient Verfions, as may lead Men into Opinions and Practices contrary to the Defign cf the Revelation given. As to Things of lefs Confequence, where neither the Intereft of the divine Government, nor the Happinefs of Men are concerned, to affert it ne- ceffary that God mould interpofe in an extraordinary Manner to pre- vent all Miftakes, fo that there fhould be no Difference between one Copy and another, is to affirm it neceffary that God fhould interpofe in an extraordinary Manner, where there is no extraordinary Occafion for it. The great End of a Revelation from God can only be to ac- quaint Men with his Will in reference to their Duty, and to encourage thereby proper Motives to the Performance of it j that fo they may ob- tain his Favour, and fecure their own Happinefs. This End is equally to be obtained, whether we follow the Reading of the Hebrew^ or LXX, or other ancient Verfions. And therefore all the Objections formed againft the facred Books, upon Account of the Differences found in the feveral Copies of the Originals or Verfions we now have, will appear to be of no Force to prove that the Scriptures we now have were not written by divine Authority, till it can be proved that the original Defign of them is hereby obfeured, and that they are infufR- cient to make Men virtuous and happy. Till this be made out, the Objection carries in it this manifeft Contradiction ; That the Scrip- tures we now have cannot be the Word of God, becaufe there is in them fuch a Number of various Readings as render them infufficient to accomplish that great End for which they are abundantly fufficient.
The Truth is, we have Reafon to admire and adore the Providence of God ; that notwithstanding the Holy Scriptures have been difperfed into almoft all the Nations of the World, and tranilated into molt Languages, have been tranferibed by Chrijliam of many different Per- fuafions and Opinions ; and that, befide the various Readings, which have proceeded from Overfights or Ignorance, or Rafhnefs, there are fome which may feem to have been made to Serve the particular Opi- nions of a Party; yet, not any Article of Faith, any Doctrine or Duty, any Promife or Threatning, has been affected thereby, or rendered precarious by any various Reading or Corruption. The moft that can be faid, where a various Reading, which may give a different Senfe to
any
58 A Dijfertatlon on the
any Text, does occur, that Text, fo varioufly read, will not be a fuf- ficient Proof of that Doctrine it may be alledged for; and the Doctrine might be judged uncertain, if it could not be proved from other Texts, wherein all Copies (except fuch as are apparently faulty) are agreed. But God be praifed, all the Doctrines of Chrijiianity, as received and taught by the Primitive Catholick Church, and from thence by the Church of England, may be clearly proved from fuch Texts of the Old and New Teftament as have no various Readings, at leaft none fuch as make any Difference in the Senfe ; for mod of the various Readings caufe no Difference in the Senfe.
However, in many Places, I believe, I may fay in moft, if not in all, where the Readings are various, we may pretty well judge and fatisfy ourfelves concerning the true Reading, by obferving the follow- ing Rules. As firfr, when any Part of the Old Teftament is quoted jn the New, and in the Place from whence that Quotation is taken, there be a various Reading, we may, I think, allure ourfelves, that the Words, as quoted there, are the true Reading, whether they be quoted according to the Hebrew or the LXX. And whereas the Old Tefta- ment is often quoted in the New according to the Senfe, and not ac- cording to the Letter either of the Hebrew or LXX, and there be there a various Reading, that which comes neareft the Senfe of the Quota- tion in the New Teftament is to be preferred. In the next Place, where a Hebrew Word has one Signification, as pointed by the Maforites, or as interpreted by the Jews, and may well bear a different Signification from that Jewijh Interpretation ; and the LXX have fol- lowed that different Signification of the Word, of which Bifhop Pear/on has given feveral Inftances in his excellent Preface to the Cambridge Edition of the LXX, then, I conceive, we may fafely follow the LXX ; becaufe we may reafonably fuppofe they underftood the Hebrew better than the modern Jews. And the fame may be faid when "2 and J, •7 and 1, and other fimilar Letters might be miftaken by Tranfcribers the one for the other ; becaufe the LXX tranflated from correct Copies, taken immediately from the Jutographum preferved in the Temple. Again, when we find a Sentence or Period in the Hebrew, which is not in the LXX, or in the LXX, and not in the Hebrew; if we find it agreeable to what goes before, and follows after in the Context, we may conclude that Sentence or Period was in the Original, but omitted in the Copies we now have, either of the Hebreiv or LXX, by the Overfight of Tranfcribers. For the Omifiion of a Sentence may eafily happen through Overfight ; but the Addition of a Sentence muft be snade on Purpofe. However, if the Sentence which is found in the Hebrew, and not in the LXX ; or in the LXX, and not in the Hebrew^ be manifeftly incoherent, and breaks the Senfe of the Context, then there is Reafon to believe it an Addition, occafioned by a Note fome Body had made in the Margin of his Book, which an ignorant Tran- scriber put into the Text. By thefe and fome other critical Rules, we may form a pretty good Judgment which Reading we ought to fallow, whether of the Hebrew or the LXX, in moft Places where they differ the one from the other.
TI1US3
Ancient Verfion of the Bible, 59
Thus, Reverend Sir, I have anfwered your Queftion as well as I can ; and, perhaps, more largely than you expected or defired. In- deed, if I had only faid, that the Reafon of the Difference between our Englijli Verfion and the LXX, was becaufe they were made from two different Copies of the Hebrew-, it had been a full Anfwer to your Query : But, I hope, my enlarging upon it may be more to your Sa- tisfaction, and that, upon that Account, you will excufe my not an- fwering you fooner.
I am,
Oaob. i7, Reverend Sir,
J 7*9..
Your mod humble Servant,
T. B.
A N
HISTORICAL ACCOUNT
OF THE SEVERAL
ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS
O F T H E
BIBLE.
3695O80CCNE Thing cenfured by the Church of Rome in our Reforma- % O & tion, is, The committing fo much Heavenly Treafure to fueh &&&& rotten Veflels, the trufting fo much excellent Wine, to fuch muiiy Bottles ; I mean, the Verfion of the Scriptures into the ufual Languages of the common People, and the promifcuous Liberty in- dulged them therein. This they charge as an Innovation of a dange- rous Confequence. But the conttant current of Antiquity does affirm the contrary, which plainly (hews, that the Church did neither inno- vate in this Act of hers, nor deviate therein from the Word of God, or from the Ufage of the beft and happieft Times of the Church of Chrift.
The Word of God, no doubt, was committed unto Writing, that it might be read by all that were to be directed and guided by it. The Scriptures of the Old Tefiament were firft written in Hebrew^ the Vul- gar Language of the Jezvs, and read unto them publickly in their Syna- gogues every Sabbath Day, Jcls xiii. 27. and xv. 21. The New Tefta- ment was writ in Greeks the moft known and ftudied Language of the Eaftern World, for the fame Reafon ; and written for this End and Purpofe, that Men might believe that Jcfus is the Chrift, the Son of God, and that believing they might have Life in his Name, John xx. 31. But being that all the Faithful did not underftand thefe Lan- guages, and that the Light of Holy Scripture might not be likened to a Candle hid under a Bufhel, it was thought good by many godly 3Vf en in the Primitive Times, to tranflate the fame into the Languages of the Countries in which they lived, or of which they had been Na- tives : Concerning which Theodoret (who lived in the Beginning of the fifth Century) ad Grac. Jnfid. Serm. 5. thus fpeaks -3 We Chrijiians are
enabled
An Hijlorical Account , &r7. 6i
enabled to Jhew the Power of Apoflolick and Propbetick Doclrines, wb'uh have filled all Countries under Heaven. For that which was formerly uttered in Hebrew, is not only tranfated into the Language of the Graecians, but alfo of the Romans, the Indians, Perfians, Armenians, Scythians, Sar- matians, ./Egyptians, and, in a Word, into all the Languages that are ufed by any Nation. For the Sacred Writ being the Foundation of the Christian Religion, upon which they built the whole Syftem of their Morality and Doctrine, and which the Christians were obliged to read both in Publick and Private ; the feveral Churches of the World could not be long without fuch Tranllations as might be underftood by every Body.
Not to mention other Places, this was done here in England, by Adelm or Aldhelm the firft BiShop of Sherbom, who translated the Pialter into the Saxon Tongue, about the Year 706. This Adelm, iri his Book de Virginitate, praifes the Nuns to whom he writ, that Studying; the Holy Scriptures, they had manifefted their Induftry and Toward- linefs in the daily reading of them. And Bede, I. 3. c. 5. ab Anno 634. tells us how Aidan (a Scotch Bimop, who promoted Christianity in the Kingdom of Northumberland, in the Reign of King Ojwald, and fixed his See in Holy I/land) took Care that all thofe that travelled with him* whether Clergy or Laity, fhould fpend a considerable Part of their Time in reading the Holy Scriptures: And the Saxon Homilies exhort the People with great Earneftnefs, to the frequent Perufal of the Scrip- tures ; and inforce the Advice from the great Benefit of that Exercife. At this Time of Day the Bible was not accounted a dangerous Book; it was not locked up in an unknown Tongue, or kept under ReStraint, or granted with Faculties and Difpenfations. In thofe Days there was a Tranflation of the Scriptures extant in the Vulgar Language, other- wife it had been impoSfible for the Women to have Studied them, when the Knowledge of the Latin Tongue was fo rare in thofe Days, that few of the Clergy underftood it; and this Adelm was the firSt of our EngUJh Nation who wrote in Latin ; having been educated at Rome and in France. He wrote a Letter to Egbert (whom they alfo called Ehfridy Eadfrid, and Eckfrid) Bifhop of Landisfern, extant in Wharton's Aucla- rium Hijl. Dogmat. UJferij, p. 351 ; in which he exhorts him, that for the common Benefit and USe of all People, the Scriptures might be put into the Vulgar Language, which Butler in his Book againft the Vulgar Tranflation, fays he did. And Archbifhop UJher, in his Hif- toria Dogmatica, c. 5. tells us, that the Saxon Tranflation of the Evan- gelists done by Egbert, without Distinction of Chapters, was in the PofTeffion of Mr. Rob. Bowyer. Wharton in his Aoglia Sacra, pars r. p. 695. relates how this Egbert writ, for the Ufe of St. Cuthbert, whilst he was with him in his Monaftery, a very fair Copy of the Four Evan- gelifts in Latin ; which Ethelwold his Succeffor beautified with Gold and Precious Stones, to which Aldred a Prieft added a Saxon Inter- lineary Tranflation, to be feen in Cotton's Library. Egbert dyed Anno 721.
Bede, who flourished about the Beginning of the Eighth Century, fpent his whole Time in Study and Devotion, wrote a great many •Tracts; his laft is Said to be the Tranflation of St. John's Gofpel into
EngUJh -y
(,2 An Hiflorical Account of the
Englijh; and AJferiiis tells us, the laft Sentence was finifhed, when he was expiring. But Cuthbert in his Letter concerning his Death, re- corded in his Life, fays, he went no farther than thefe Words, But what are tbofe among fo many, John vi. g. Fox tells us, out of the Pre- face before the ancient Bibles, that Bede tranflated the whole Bible, into the Saxon Tongue: and Cairn in his Book d&Antiq. Cantab. I. i. relates the fame. Bale fays he tranflated the Gofpel of St. John, the Pfalter, and other Books of the Holy Scriptures into Englifb.
Ingulpbus in his Hiftory, Cent. i. c. 83. makes mention of St. Guth- lack's Pfalter : He lived at the fame Time with Adelm, was the firft Saxon Anchoret; and gave Occafion to the founding the Monaftery of Croyland by Ethelbald King of Mercia, in the Place where he had erected his Cell. Lambert in Refpon. ad 26. Art. Epif. fays, he faw his Pfalter in the Saxon Tongue, among the Records belonging to the Abby of Croyland. And there is in the Publick Library in Cambridge, a Tran- flation of the Pfalms in Latin and Saxon ; and another very old Latin Translation, with an Interlineary Saxon Verfion in Sir Rob. Cotton's Library, in the fame Character with the Charter of King Ethelbald, bearing Date Anno 736, as Archbifhop JJJber tells us, Hift. Dog,
p. 104.
King Alfred, in his Letter to Wulffig Bifhop of London, prefixed to his Tranflation of Gregory the Great's Pajloral, obferves that the Bible written in Hebrew, was tranflated into Greek and Latin; and that all Chriftendom had fome Part of the Infpired Writings turned into their own Language. For this Reafon he caufed to be tranflated the Old and Neiv Teflament into the Englifh Tongue. He undertook the Tran- slation of the Book of Pfalms himfelf, but dyed Anno 900. when it was about half finifhed. This was publifhed with the Latin Interlineary Text, by John Spelman in Quarto, London 1640. There is alfo another Saxon Interlineary Translation of the Pfalter in the Library at Lambeth, which feems to be little later than the Time of King Alfred. And that we may fee how ftrong that King's Inclinations were to provide for the Security of Religion, and to promote the Happinefs of his People; he informs Wulffig that he had a Deiign that all the Englijh who had any thing of Circumftances, or Sufficiency, fliould be obliged to educate their Children to read Englijh, before they put them to any Trade; and if they intended to have them preferred to any Degree of Notice and Confideration, they fhould get them instructed in Latin. Several other Translations of the P/alnis were made afterwards, and of the New Tef anient. One of the laft in the Saxon Tongue ArchbiShop UJber in- forms us, is in Ben'et College Library ; and that another old Saxon Translation of the Four Evangelists, was printed at London Anno 1571, wherein the feveral Portions appointed to be read on Sundays and Holy- Days, were marked out. Such was the Care of the Church of Eng- land then, to inStrudt the People committed to her Charge in Matters of Religion ; that as often as there was any considerable Change made in the Vulgar Tongue, there were made new Translations of the Scriptures, Offices, and Homilies for the Publick, fo far was fhe from thinking Ignorance to be the Mother of Devotion.
For a Proof of this, Mr. Wharton offers a Saxon Englifh Manufcript
in
fever al EngUJh Tranfations of the Bible, 63
in Lambeth Library, wherein are contained fourteen Homilies, feveral other Treatifes, the Lord's Prayer, the Apoftles' Creed, with large Ex- planations, in a Dialed: very different from the old Saxon, but fome- what near to our prefent EngUJh, as it was fpoken after the Norman Invafion : And he looks upon thofe various Readings collected from four Manufcripts, which Spelman publifhed with Alfred's Pfalter, to be (o many different Translations.
Bale, Script. Brit. cent. 2. c. 27. relates how King Athclftan caufed the Holy Scriptures to be tranflated out of the Hebrew, into the EngUJh Saxon Tongue by certain Jews, who ('tis probable) had been converted to Chriftianity, and quotes Malmejbury for a Witnefs. This Archbi- fhop UJher places