Testimony of the learned Jews pag. 12. Chap. 4. Of the publisht Exemplars of the Hebrew Context which are Masoretick Of the Art of the Masorites Of its Original and what Opinion we are to have of it pag. 22. Chap. 5. The parts of the Masora in relation to the Manuscript Copies are weighed and illustrated The true Original of the Masora pag. 28. Chap. 6. Other parts of the Manuscripts in reference to the Manuscript Bible are examin'd Their true Original and the Masoretick Lection confirm'd pag. 35 Chap. 7. Some things unprofitably and superstitiously noted by the Masoreticks are illustrated out of the Manuscript Copies of the Bibles pag. 44. Chap. 8. Some Examples of different Writings are produc'd from the Manuscripts which vary from the Masoretick Versions pag. 48. Chap. 9. Whether the Jews corrupted their Bibles of set purpose The Opinion of the Fathers concerning this matter examin'd pag. 56. Chap. 10. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the Hebrew Manuscripts is examin'd and refuted pag. 71. Chap. 11. Of the Samaritan Bibles their Targumim or Paraphrases pag. 81. Chap. 12. Of the Bibles of the Sadduces and Karraeans pag. 92. Chap. 13. Of the Targumim of the Jews or the Translations of Sacred Scripture and first of the Chaldee Paraphrases pag. 98. Chap. 14. An Appendix of the other Translations of the Bible in use among the Jews pag. 137. Chap. 15. Of the Translations of the Bible of greatest Authority with the Christians and first of the Septuagint pag. 140. Chap. 16. A more particular examination of the Greek Septuagint Translation pag. 150. Chap. 17. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the seventy Interpreters is examin'd The Vindication of St. Jerom. pag. 157. Chap. 18. Of the rest of the Greek Translations of Sacred Scripture and the Hexaples of Origen The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the disposition of the Hexaples refuted pag. 172. Chap. 19. Of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church pag. 186. Chap. 20. Concerning the Authority of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church and first of the Vulgar In what sense it may be said to be Authentick pag. 193. Chap. 21. Of the Translations of Scripture us'd by the Eastern Church and first of the Arabic Coptic Aethiopic Armenian c. pag. 201. Chap. 22. Of the later Versions of the Bible and first of all of Latin Versions done by Catholick Divines pag. 209. Chap. 23. Of the Latin Translation of the Bible made by Protestants pag. 215. Chap. 24. Of the Translations of the Bible in the Vulgar Tongues and first of all of those made by Catholicks pag. 221. Chap. 25. Of the Bible done into the Vulgar Tongue by Heterodox Translators pag. 226. Chap. 26. Of the Translations of the Bible which were writ in the Vulgar Tongue and their rise from the Geneva Schools pag. 233. Chap. 27. Of the Polyglot Bibles pag. 240. Animadversions upon a small Treatise of Dr. Isaac Vossius concerning the Oracles of the Sybils and his answer to the objections in a late Treatise Intituled Critica Sacra pag. 249 CRITICAL ENQUIRIES Into the Various EDITIONS of the BIBLES at several Places and Times CHAP. I. Of the Bibles in general as well among the Jews as Christians THE whole Context of Sacred Scripture is remarkably known among the Christians by the name of The Books that is to say The Books so call'd for their Excellency above all others and these Books contain both the Old and New Testament The Jews however allow of no more than only the Books of the Old Covenant Of the Old Testament and those only written in the Hebrew Language for as for those which the Church has receiv d from the Hellenist Jews in the Greek Language they deny them to be Canonical and therefore will not admit them into their Synagogues Whereas the Church inspir'd with the Holy Ghost admits them likewise to be of Divine Authority As to which difference they who among Christians assume to themselves the Name of Protestants and Reformed rather chuse to take the Synagogues part than to joyn with either of the Churches that is the Eastern or Western And therefore the Christians have only admitted into the Church those Books of the Old Testament which they receiv'd from the Jews As for the New Testament Christ the first Author of it committed nothing of it to writing but his Disciples after his Passion made publick those Books which we call the Books of the New Testament The New Testament Now who were the real Authors of those Books some there are who very much doubt as if the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John were not assuredly theirs For say they they would not then be entitl'd the Gospels according to Matthew Mark Luke and John but the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John had they been wrote by them and thus we generally say the Books of Moses and not according to Moses But the Titles of the Gospels and other Books are plainly different For that the Gospel which Matthew published was not Matthews but Christs and therefore it is rightly inscrib'd According to St. Matthew that is to say the Gospel of Christ according to the Testimony of St. Matthew upon which the Christians ground their Faith Pauls Epist to the Romans But now to return to the Jews with whom the Oracles of God were first entrusted as the Apostle speaks it the Holy Bible among them is called by several Names For sometimes they call it Mickra The names of the Scripture among the Jews or Reading in which sense those words of Nehemiah are to be taken where he says c. 8. v. 8. And caused them to understand the Reading For though it be true that Nehemiah in that place discourses particularly of the Levites reading the Law of Moses yet afterwards that name was not unfitly attributed by the Jews to all the rest of the Books of Holy Scripture Sometimes they denote the Scripture by these words Gâ—esrim ve Arbang or Twenty four under which name they comprehend the number of the Books of Sacred Writ To which St. Jerom seems to have alluded where he says Which are not of the Twenty four Antient Praelections upon Nehem. and Esdr have not equal Authority with Divine Writ Now what is to be understood by the Twenty four Antient the same St. Jerom more manifestly declares in Prolog Galeat Neither is there any thing to be more frequently found than this name of the Sacred Writings which they generally affix to the beginning of their Manuscript Bibles intimating thereby the whole Context of the Old Testament Although Josephus a notable Witness in this Argument affirms the Sacred Books allowed by his Nation to be no more than Twenty Two Which seems to have been so concluded to the end the number of the Books might be the more readidily and stedfastly retained in the memory by the numbers of the Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet which are also twenty two Nevertheless it
presume to alter the expositions of your Fore-Fathers who lived with Ptolomy King of Egypt saying that it is not so in the Scripture as they translated it but behold a young Woman shall conceive c. Now there by Scripture is meant nothing but the version of Aquila to which the Jews always adher'd in their disputes with the Christians In like manner Justin accuses the Jews to have eras'd out of their Bibles these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à ligno from the wood Psal 95. But if we consider the matter more attentively those words seem rather to have been obtruded upon the place then omitted And therefore they must of necessity be deceived who too unwarily follow Justin Martyrs opinion too peremptorily giving his Judgment upon things which he did not altogether so well understand I should for my part rather hearken to Trypho the Jew whom Justin brings in answering his Dialogue concerning the mutilation of the Scripture done by the Princes of the Jews The thing seems incredible I say it seems to be incredible it is more horrible then casting the Molten Calf or Children offered to Devils or the killing of the Prophets themselves Certainly the Jews had such a Reverence for their Holy Bibles which would not permit them to corrupt them on set purpose Moreover by the answers of Trypho which Justin supplies it is apparent that the Jews at that time so zealously devoted to the letter of the Scriptures and the subtleties of Allegories adhered the more closely to the Hebrew Text that they might the more vigorously inforce them upon the Christians For which reason they made Greek Translations which might more truly correspond with the Hebrew Text then the Septuagint For which reason Justin also many times praises as well the Jewish as Christian Version to the end that disputing with the Jews he might convince them out of their own Books Lastly there is no reason why the Jews should be called in Question for depraving the Copies of their Bibles if they have translated one and the same Hebrew word in that signification which was most proper for their business as when Justin in the same Dialogue objects against Trypho that the Jews read the 49th of Genesis amiss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 donec veniant quae reposita sunt ei Till those things shall come which are laid up for him Whereas the words in the Greek version of the Septuagint are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 until he shall come for whom this is laid up For the Hebrew Word Shilo may be rightly rendered in either sense neither is it certain whether the version which Justin so confidently avers to be that of the LXX Interpreters was really theirs or no whereas the Roman Edition owns that for the true one which Justin attributes to the Jews where the Scholiast observes that it is the same in Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius Chrysostom Cyrill Cyprian and Austin among the Latin Fathers The next in order is Irenaeus who accuses the Jewish Rabbies L. 4. c. 25. for setting up their Law contrary to the Law of Moses wherein they add some things take away others The Opinion of Irenaeus and other places they interpret as they please But the blessed Irenaeus there explains himself and professes himself only to speak of the Constitutions of the Rabbies who as he says make a mixture of Traditions with the Precepts of God and confirms his meaning out of the words of St. Matthew Why transgress ye the Precepts of God through your Traditions In which place Christ never thought in the least of the depravation of the Bible Nor is there any more weight in any other of the Testimonies of the Fathers which are commonly brought to destroy the Jewish Exemplars Morinus tax'd and I wonder that John Morinus a most Learned person who in reckoning up the Fathers that thought the Hebrew Bibles to be corrupted numbers Irenaeus and affirms it from these words of his Which Jews had they thought there would have been Christians Ireâ—l 32.5 and that they would have made use of Testimonies out of their Scriptures would never have scrupl'd to have burnt their Bibles which make it evident that all other Nations participate of Salvation whereas the contrary may be rather asserted from thence For there by the Scriptures Irenaeus means the Translation of the LXX Interpreters which was made use of in the Synagogues which Translation being before the Nativity of Christ and made by the Jews he blames from thence the Version of Aquila as naught and deceitful and infers the propensity of the Jews to destroy the Bible from that Translation which they allow'd in hatred of the Christian Faith forsaking the Version of the Septuagint which was compil'd by their own Country-men So far was Irenaeus from asserting the Jews to have maim'd the Bible that he rather confirms their entireness and denies them to be really depraved only adding a conjecture of his own of what might have been probable Only this depravation of the Holy Scriptures Irenaeus acknowledges with the rest of the Fathers which got footing in the Hebrew Manuscripts when the Jews remain'd in Captivity and which afterwards was reform'd by Esdras Prince of the Great Sanhedrim the Hebrew Exemplars being restor'd to their former Purity by his Industry The third in order is Tertullian but the Arguments which he brings against the Jewish Manuscripts are so frigid Tertul. lib. de habit mul. c. 3. that they scarce deserve a Refutation First these words of his are produc'd We read that the Scripture being proper for Edification was inspir'd from Heaven that afterwards it was therefore rejected by the Jews as all other things that savour of Christianity Neither is it any wonder that they rejected any Scriptures speaking concerning him The Judgment of Tertullian when they would not receive him speaking to them However there is not a word of the Corruptions of the Text in this Testimony of Tertullian Only Tertullian endeavours to vindicate a Book of Enoch's which most men deservedly suspected to be an Imposture and they correspond with the proof which was taken from the Authority of those Jews who did not reckon that Book among the Canonical and therefore he says those Doctors condemned many things as Apocryphal which afterwards the Church receiv'd as inspir'd I know saith he that this Treatise of Enoch which attributes this Order to the Angels is not receiv'd by some because it is not admitted into the Jewish Magazine Nor did Tertullian say as his words are cited by Morinus that the Scripture was resected or mangled but rejected by the Jews For there is no mention there made of the Scripture mutilated but of whole Volumes which the Jews suspicious of their credit rejected And this is confirm'd out of the Editions of Tertullian's Works by Rhenanus Pamelius and others Nor is there any more strength in those other words of Tertullian This Heresie will not admit of certain Scriptures
or in what Age they liv'd Concerning their Antiquity also the Christians much dispute while others led by the Testimonies of the Jews believe their Paraphrases to have been made about the time that Christ liv'd upon Earth Others think them later than Origen or St. Jerom because they neither make mention of them Yet it might be that in those very times they were known to the Babylonish Jews where they seem to have had their Original but not being yet reduc'd into one body they were not made commonly publick And thus I have lighted upon some Exememplars of the Pentateuch to which there was added to every word of the Hebrew Text an Exposition in French yet a French Paraphrase upon the Law of Moses was never yet cited by any of the Jews And therefore it is very probable that certain Doctors of the Babylonian Schools expounded the Hebrew words in Chaldee for the benefit of the people out of which in process of time an entire Paraphrase was compil'd And to make me so believe the purity of the Chaldee Language wherein they are written induces me Which is to be understood of the Paraphrase only that goes under the name of Onkelos upon the Law of Moses and of that other upon all the former and latter Prophets which are attributed to Jonathan For that same Jonathan or whoever else were the Author of the Paraphrase upon the Prophets did by no means compose that other which is publish'd by certain Jews under Jonathan's name so different is the stile of both which I wonder was not taken notice of by Huetius and other Criticks who confound this same Pseudo-Jonathan with the True and Antient Jonathan as if one and the same Author had paraphras'd upon the Pentateuch and the Prophets But as for that story of the Talmudick Doctors of the Voice that spoke from Heaven to deter Jonathan from explaining the Hagiographers there is no wise man but takes them for the dreams of the Jews But first we are to take notice of what has been observ'd concerning the diversity of the Babylonish and Hierosolymitan Dialects by the same Elias who seems to set little or no value upon the rest of the Paraphrases which are extant upon the Hagiographers because they were written by men of no name To which we may add that their Authors frequently swerve from the words of the Hebrew Text foisting in the room of those Talmudick Fables and Stories of the same nature Onkelos and Jonathan stick much closer to the sense of Scripture and yet sometimes they are not so very careful to express it verbatim as Elias the Levite testifies But saith he The Paraphrasts do not always observe the Rules of Grammar For sometimes they render the Praeterperfect tence by the Future and the Future by the Praeterperfect tence and sometimes the Participle by the Praeterperfect tence and Future Sometimes they interpret a Verse as they judge most agreeable to the Targumick Language not so much minding the Biblick Context To this Elias adds the Testimon of Salomon Isaac whom we erroneously call Jarchi who observes Onkelos not to be very curious of the Grammar of Scripture but to have follow'd his sense and judgment in many things and sometimes those Paraphrasts have omitted not only whole words but whole sentences For indeed it is the common Fate of all Paraphrasters who translate Books out of one Language into another to follow the freest method of translating So that if there occur any difference from the Translation it is presently to be referr'd to its Cause and Original and we are diligently to enquire what might have been the Product of the various Readings of the Codex's and what might be alter'd according to the Fancy of the Interpreter However this is chiefly to be taken notice of that the Writing of the Chaldee Paraphrases was heretofore very confus'd and disorder'd For there was no Analogy of Orthography the Letters Vau and Jod being without any distinction made use of and inserted into words without any signification In like manner the Author of the Chaldee pointing observ'd no method in putting the Titles to the Chaldee Context as Elias the Levite plainly testifies who was the first that polish'd the Chaldee Language Now how difficult it was to frame a Chaldee Grammar I rather chuse to shew from the words of Elias himself than my own Many saith Elias ask'd me whether a Grammar could be fram'd for these Targumims I answer'd according to my own sentiments that I could not do it in regard the Exemplars vary'd among themselves as well in words as in letters and altogether in the points which differ'd almost beyond all possibility of reconciliation And that proceeds from hence because the Paraphrasts wrote their Versions without points which were not yet invented as I have truly demonstrated in my Preface to Masoreth Hammasoreth To this we may add that the most Antient Exemplars are all without points because the Authors of the Masora never pointed them as they pointed the rest of the Scripture But a long time after they were pointed by one or more persons tho of no note as they thought good Therefore there is no Analogy observ'd neither can there be any method produc'd for the making of a Grammar And indeed unless it were so who could imagine that from the time that the Targums were compos'd there should be no persons among the Jews who had Erudition enough to frame a Grammar as Rabbi Juda did who was the * In this Elias is mistaken in affirming R. Juda to be the first Grammarian among the Jews when there was before him Rabbi Saad as whom he afterwards nominates first Grammarian of note whereas before him there was no Hebrew Grammar But because he found the Sacred Books of Scripture noted with points and accents as also furnish'd with a Masora by the Masorites he began to assist the Israelites and to enlighten the exil'd Jews with his Grammar Him follow'd R. Jona and after him came R. Saadas Gaon and after them an innumerable company of Grammarians But there was no person who animadverted upon the Targum to correct what was amiss all slighted that business so that it came forth perverted which is only preserv'd Therefore I began to think of a way whereby every one might be able to make a Targum Grammar in such a manner that he might take his foundation out of such things as were wrote in the Books of Daniel and Esther and only upon that might build his superstructure and deduce his Grammar Rules if not altogether yet in part Soon after he adds these words in the same Preface In times past before the Art of Printing was invented there was not found above one Targum in the City and one in the Country Therefore there was no man who minded them But there were many Exemplars of the Targum of Onkelos found because they were bound to read two Sections of Scripture and one of the Targum every
condemns his Version and calls it Rabbinical But that most learned Father encountring those Reprovers that know how to find fault but could not mend practised the Critical Art and in his Writings sufficiently satisfy'd those persons that made such a noise against him Nor indeed was it so much to be wondâ—ed at that St. Jerom in some things more seriously considerative and furnish'd with a better stock of Oratory made no scruple to vary from the Ancients For Justice never defends manifest Errors I know indeed that in matters of Faith the Consent of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church carries something of Authority But he is neither generous nor religious who in matters that concern not Faith is afraid to depart from the Opinion of the Fathers and had rather believe other mens Writings then his own Eyes or Experience St. Austin of old thought far otherwise of himself who wishes that other men would judg of his Works I would have no man Aust de don Persev c. 21. saith he so devote himself to all my Writings so as to follow me unless in those things wherein he finds me not to Err. Therefore have we no reason in this particular to agree with Vossius who contrary to the Opinion of St. Jerom would have the 70. Interpreters to be inspir'd with the Holy Ghost and free from all manner of Error Nay as if he had been asham'd to have given those Interpreters the Names of Prophets as if it were correcting himself he affirms the word Prophet among the Antient Writers to signifie no more than Interpreter and those to be Prophets according to the Testimony of the Apostle who rightly interpret the Scriptures But why does Vossius here seek Subterfuges and retire to prophane Learning meerly to shew St. Jeroms Error where he writeth that a Prophet is one thing an Interpreter another as if he had contradicted the Apostle who in several Places uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Interpretari or to interpret But St. Jerom is in no Error in this particular who best knew the Force of that word when he observes a Greek Poet to have been call'd a Prophet by St. Paul Hierom. Commeat in Ezech. But in his answer to the Objections of the late Critica Sacra Vossius shews himself a faint Combatant ever and anon betaking himself to his lurking holes But what reason he had to produce the Opinions not only of the Apostles and Evangelists but of Philo Festus Plato and others Voss in resp ad Objâ—ct Crit. sacr p. 6. to make it out that not only they who foretold things to come were call'd Prophets but they who unfolded either past or present Predictions we cannot find though indeed there was in that matter no cause of difference between him and the Author of the Critica Sacrae While St. Jerom denys the 70. Interpreters to have been Prophets and asserts them to have been only Interpreters in that same place he thought a Prophet to be no other than a Person inspir'd with the Holy Ghost in which Sence all the Fathers had call'd those Greek Interpreters Prophets nor has Vossius made use of that word Prophet upon any other Accompt who has so confidently asserted their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Inspiration De sept interpret c. 25. I am not ignorant says he that I shall not only incur the reproof but the hatred of many for having such transcending thoughts of this Version so that I can hardly forbear to give it the Title of Divinely inspir'd And indeed I desire to know what reason can be imagin'd why I should not believe that which has been believed by all the Christians from the Aposties time excepting only some few too much favouring the Jews of later Ages Among which no question but he meant St. Jerom. Then he endeavours to prove more at large their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Inspiration opposing their Arguments who affirm they could not be inspir'd with the Holy Ghost or the Gift of Prophesy the Jews affirming That during all the time of the Second Temple the Gift of Prophesy and Inspiration ceas'd Which says he is altogether Rabinical and Fictitious But no less idle is that which he produces against St. Jerom in these words Seing there the words Prophets and Prophesie were used in so large a Sence even among the Hebrews Ibid. c. 26. they are not to be admitted who deny the 70. Interpreters to have been Prophets as being the Chief Priests of the Jewish People and not only Interpreters of things past but of things likewise to come As if it had been the business in question whether the Title of Prophets might be applicable to the Interpreters while the word Prophet signifies no more than an Interpreter when he had endeavoured to prove in so many words that they were Prophets who were inspir'd with a Holy and Prophetick Spirit In resp ad Critic sacr Nay he esteems them injurious to St. Jerom who abuse his Testimonies to overthrow the Authority of the Seventy Interpreters When he himself being now of riper Years was of opinion that their Errors are not to be imputed to the Interpreters themselves who Translated the Holy Scripture by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost but to the Scribes and Amanuenses But we have already made appear what was the Sentiment of St. Jerom concerning this present matter which Vossius understood not for now he was arrived at Years of more Maturity when he explained his Books by Commentaries And how often he there corrects not only the Scribes but the Interpreters themselves there is no man can be ignorant Tho I deem the History carry'd about under the Title of Aristaean to be an Illegitimate Birth yet I willingly acknowledg that the Interpretation which is attributed to the 70. Interpreters was made by the Jews of Alexandria in the Reign of Ptolemy Philodelphos and copyed out of the Hebrew Manuscript in Chaldee or Babylonic Characters in regard the Jews made no use of any other Letters for transcribing the Scripture but only those after their Return out of Captivity But as for the other Greek Version which Vossius believes to have been made by a Person learned neither in the Greek or Latin Tongue badly and negligently copyed from the same Hebrew Exemplar in Samaritan Letters it is a meer Fiction taken out of the Pseudo-Aristobulus who nevertheless speaks not one Tittle of the Letter wherein Vossius maintains the same Copy to have been written neither did any body besides Vossius ever dream of 'em so far is it remote from all probability of Truth They mistake indeed as Vossius well observes who believe that Version was deriv'd from any Chaldaic or Syriac Paraphrase there being no such thing extant at that time and it being as certain that Philo takes the Hebrew and the Chaldee Language promiscuously for the same However we may have some reason to conjecture be had some
though St Jerom sometimes gives a reason of those Notes somewhat different Origen had added also other marks to this Work in the fashion of a small Label concerning the use of which the Criticks of our Age do not agree and which has been hitherto revealed but by a few we are to understand that Greek Edition of the Septuagint with all those illustrating and killing Notes in the Hexaples of Origen was found together with the Translations of Aquila Symmachus and the other Interpreters as the words of Rufâ—inus seem to prove Oâ—igen's Intention was to shew us what manner of Reading the Scriptures was observed among the Jews and wrote the several Editions of them every one in his proper Columes and whatever was added or taken away in any of them he noted with certain marks at the beginning of the Verses and in that which was another mans and not his own work be affixed his own marks only that we might understand what was wanting or superfluous not in respect of our selves but of the Jews that disputed against us Moreover the same Origen illustrated that vast work of his Hexaples with Scholiasts of several sorts which he placed in the Margent of the Book that he might give some Light to that Edition of the Septuagint which appeared in the midst between all the rest For first you might easily apprehend what was the distinction between the Antient or Vulgar Edition of the 70 and his own new Edition by the benefit of this Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which stands for 70 in Greek that Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoting the common Lection Then in the same Scholiasts the Interpretations of Aquila Symmachus and Theodosion were every one demonstrated by their proper Letter A' denoted Aquila Σ ' Symmachus and Θ Theodotion The fifth Edition was marked with E ' and the sixth with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He also set Notes in the Margent of his Book for the verbatim exposition of the words of sacred Scripture which are Printed in his works under the Title of Scholiasts And more then this if we will believe Vossius it is not improbable but that Origen marked in his Hexaples the various reading of the Samaritan Codex If any one will rather choose to believe that Origen did not insert the Samaritan Exemplar into his Hexaples and Tetraples but only marked the various Readings I will not much dispute the Business Thus Vossius fickle in his Judgment sometimes avers sometimes denies and whereas before he had so confidently asserted that the Exemplar of the Samaritan Pentateuch was extant in the Hexaples written in the Samaritan Characters now in a doubt he dares not be positive in a thing wherein he has so little of certainty to make out But as it is no way probable that the Samaritan Exemplar which was the same with the Judaick was extant in the Hexaples so it is very likely that Origen might transfer into his Scholiast the different reading of the Samaritan from the Judaic which he did not take out of the Samaritan Exemplar written in those Original Hebrew Letters but from the Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch corrected by the Samaritans themselves This is the Oeconomie and Disposition of the Hexaples of Origen which Persons the most learned could not comprehend while they do not mind that the Greek Interpretations of Aquila Symmachus and Theodosion were twice set down in one and the same work that is entire in the work it self and part in the Scholiasts in the Margent but Origen who was desirous to be beneficial to all Persons reduced into a Compendium that vast Pile of the Hexaples by the help of Notes and Scholiasts to the end that they who could not buy the Hexaples entire might Transcribe at least the substance of the Text out of the Hexaples themselves and by the same art he published the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common Edition of the Septuagint together with the new Edition which because he thought more corrected he inserted whole into his Hexaples adding in the Margent of the common and the various Sections under the mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore some are grosly mistaken who not understanding this disposition of the Hexaples undertake to maintain that there is in them a double Edition of the 70 Interpreters as well the vulgar as that corrected and pure one of which Origen and St. Jerom so often make mention placed in two distinct Pages and for that reason that the Hexaples did not derive their name from the distinct Columns but the several Versions but these things are apparently untrue and proceed only from the Ignorance of the order of the Hexaples to the Margent of which the ancient reading of the 70 was transferred and thus both Editions of the Septuagint appeared in the Hexaples now because few could purchase those vast volums that had emptied St. Jerom's Pocket most persons transcribed that interlin'd Edition mark'd by Origen with Asterisks and Daggers and other notes of Distinction from whence arose the greatest confusion in the World in the Greek Exemplars and from that time the ancient Interpretation of the 70 was no longer read in the Churches but the interlin'd one of Origen which or another like to it was afterwards transmitted to the Eastern Church by the Care of St. Jerome CHAP. XIX Of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church THe most contentions in disputes concerning the Bible which have disturbed the Church for these many years have been hammered in the Shops of certain Criticks and Gramarians who being bred in the Schools there is nothing which they do not call to the bar of Controversie presuming to prefer their own wit before the Authority of the Church and as if their Critick Art could by no means brook the Ecclesiastical decrees they presently oppose them with all their might and main but questionless without a cause for that the Church does by no means disallow of such Critical Observations as are every day made upon the Scripture by Persons conspicuous for their Poetry and Learning nor if any one more strictly enquire into the reason of the Biblick Context then another does she reject their Labours so they do not detract from the Ancient Editions And therefore it is lawful for the Protestant Divines in imitation of the Fathers to have recourse to the Hebrew Originals and to make new Translations from them so that they learn from the same Fathers That the Sacred Scripture is the proper possession of the Catholick Church and that they have the same sentiments concerning the Church and her Books which one of their own belief wrote in these words against those who neglect the ancient Versions and long allowed by the practise of the Church Let the Authority of our Mother the Church be preserv'd entire to it self let the Fathers enjoy the honour due to them to whose venerable gray Hairs if any one refuse to rise and contradict their decrees let them not be
his Brains a work for a more accurate Version though his second attempt was so far from being embraced by the more wise of his followers that Sebastian Munster was not affraid to give his Master the Title of a very Fable Translatour Munst praef on the Bible and Notes on the 2d Chap. of Jonah and no great Conjurer in the Hebrew This made Bucer maintain that Luthers Translation was faulty and Melchior Zanchius write a whole Book of the Authors Errata Hence it was that the Zinglians confided in themselves and turned the Hebrew Bible into the German that sighting Luthers poor endeavours they cast themselves upon one Leo Judas though these proceedings were not well taken by the above mentioned Translator Hence it was that the Low-Country Protestants mighty Adorers of this High-German Translation together with those of Suecia Finland Denmark Ireland and the rest of the Northern People who had formerly stuck close to Luthers Errors openly declare their readinss for a new Translation of the Bible being that That of Luthers was done all in a hurry and that as John Leusden Hebrew Professor in the University of Vtretcht testifies Luthers Works lay under a great many gross mistakes whereof some indeed might inveagle themselves in but that others without dispute arose the sluggishness of the Author slumbring over the Low-Dutch Translation And yet as Mr. Luesden tells us the Anabaptisis stood up Tooth and Nail for this Lutheran Translation resenting it very highly that Johannis Vrtenovis should take upon him to Correct Martin Luther upon the New Testament Though the Protestants of Low-Germany in the Synod of Dort as they call it rejected Luthers Translation which with all kindness they had formerly caressed looking upon it as spurious and degenerate an off spring nothing related to the Mother Hebrew wherefore they were delivered of a Translation of their own and Christned themselves the Revisors and Interpreters of Dort Now 't is our Province to enquire what order and method Martin Luther observ'd in his farewel Translation of the Scriptures Since he publickly asserts that the Hebrew is void and ineffectual that the Jews are not men to be believed and that St. Jerom himself in Translating the Scriptures was not inspired with Christian wisdom jumping into Ruffinus his opinion who gave out that the above named Holy Father was a Jew in heart For he wonders that any Christian will concern himself with the ridiculous Comentaries of the Jews The Jewish trifles saith the same Luther argue their Authors to know little or nothing of Holy-Writ and yet forsooth these are the Idols of our Modern and Famous Divines Divines most dexterous in the Hebrew Tongue and yet the most apt to hunt after such like whimsies He hath likewise a touch upon those Rabbys whose Talent is most commonly employed and laid out in Grammatical affaires decrying them thus That they may know perhaps the Nominal and bare signification but as for the real and intrinsic that they are ignorant of it and that therefore nothing of soundness and solidity may be expected from them Hence it is that he rejects the Hebrew Translators and their adherents as a pack of Fools Ideots who would pretend to shelter the Jewish Translations within the roof of the Scriptures And he thought it much better that the more obscure places of Scripture should be expounded by the Analogy or Rule of Christian Faith than by any Rabinical Books by reason the once lost Hebrew is impossible to be retrieved and that the true signification of a great many words in that Language is yet unknown even by the Jews themselves as well as by the Christians The use and knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue saith Martin Luther is so much lost and estranged that it can never be recovered neither do the words only but also the very Phrases and Construction lye under a most doubtful and various obscurity Hence it comes to pass that we know not the force Figures and Emphasis of a great many words and sentences which if any Christian may ever sift out so as to know their meaning he must necessarily be one of those men who with the help of the New Testament hath acquired to himself the full knowledge of the Scriptures That several particulars in this Method of Luthers may be hooted at is past dispute more especially those objections which he offer'd against the Translators of his Time in that they depended too much upon Rabbinical Books And yet the true reason why he pretended to calumniate these men was because they had spoke against the impropriety of his Translation Luther I surmize was in the fault when he stood dissatisfied not only with the Books of the modern Jews but also with St Jerom and the ancient Interpreters whom when he had strangely disrespected he betook himself as though all the world were Fools but his worship to a certain imaginary rule of Faith upon the faith of his own Brain Moreover being no great Critic in Grammer he was found guilty and condemned of several misinterpretations so that truckling under Prejudice and Opinion he giveth us for these words in the 4th Chapter of Genesis Possedi hominem per dominum I have gotten a man from the Lord. Possedi hominem Dominum I have gotten the man Lord. Certainly Luther was no stranger to the Cabalistical Doctor 's Opinion who out of this place would gladly raise up a Messia Besides Luther in the first Edition of his Translation had rendred these very same words thus acquisivi hominem Domini I have got the man of the Lord which Interpretation was much more disconsonant to the Hebrew Text than the other For truly it was not possible that such a Novice in the Hebrew should not sometimes lye under most palpable mistakes Wherefore his own Disciples were not affraid to revise and correct their Masters Translation a Translation I confess which they allowed some elbow room within the Bible and descended so far as to write their own corrections in a different Character or to imprison them within two stroaks which you may see in the Vinariensian Bible where Luther's Translation and the abovesaid Animadversions are exposed to the view of the World yet how much men of his own principles esteemed it we may easily conjecture since the Corrections added to it procured it the general applause of the Lutherians as the most accurate Edition Paulus Eberus who calleth himself Pastor of the Church at Wittenberg used the Protestants in the same manner as Isidorus Clarius did the Catholicks This man corrected the vulgar Latin and added thereunto Luthers German Translation declaring that in as much as was possible for him he followed the ancient Latin Translator whom notwithstanding you may afterwards find very much ashamed of his Animadversions having so low thoughts of his endeavours that he desired his Bible might not be republished because that being distracted by other business when he compos'd it he had run into some mistakes
Lib. 18. de civit Dei c 36. which is to be understood only concerning the two first Books of Maccabees for the third is rejected as well by the Church as by the Synagogue To which opinion St. Jerom seems to adhere though frequently in his works he shews himself a most stout defender of the Judaick Canon For when Ruffinus objects Lib. 2. Apoll. adversus Rufus that Jerom in his own Edition of the Bible would allow no Authority of Scripture to the Story of Susanna the Song of the three Children and the Story of Bell and the Dragon which he had called Fables the learned Father answers that he did not speak his own Sentiments but only explain'd what the Jews were wont to urge against the Christians but Jerom had said that Origen Eusebius Apollinarius and other Doctors of Greece would make no answer to Porphyrius for those Visions which had no Authority of Scripture and the same Jerom thus writes concerning the Book of Judith This Book the Synod of Nice is said to have numbred among the Holy Writings upon which Erasmus thus observes He does not say it was approv'd in the Synod of Nice but the Synod is said to have numbred it and really St. Jerom in his Preface to the Book of Kings had denied both Judith and Tobias to be Canonical Now the question is whether St. Jerom do not seem to contradict himself when he affirms the same Books of Judith and Tobias to be read by the Hebrews among the Hagiographers who nevertheless both here and in another place had written that these Books are not extant in the Canon of the Jews and therefore to be accounted Apocryphal But what those Hagiographers of the Jews that were mentioned by St. Jerom in these places Joseph Scaliger confesses he does not understand because the Hagiographies were received by the Jews into the Canon of Holy Scripture long before St. Jerom liv'd But Huetius believes St. Jerom to be deceiv'd in this particular in that he thought the Jews had no Hagiographies without the pale of the Canon and he brings against Scaliger the famous Bath Kol or the Daughter of the voice by whose assistance the Jews set forth their Hagiographies and their inspir'd Scripture But they are the meer dreams of idle triflers which the Circumcised Doctors have invented concerning Bath Kol Then it is certain that they never receiv'd among their Canonical Authors the Books of Judith and Tobias Therefore they are all fictions which Huetius and others alledg concerning the twofold sort of Hagiographers among the Jews and they may be refuted not only by the Testimonies of Josephus and Jerom who positively witness that Tobias Judith and other Books set forth in Greek now comprehended within the Canon of the Roman Church were never reckon'd by the Jews among the Prophets or Hagiographers but also by the Authority of the more Modern Jews who when they number up the Sacred Books make no mention of them at all but only cite them as sententious Writings wherein however they did not believe there was any thing of Divine Inspiration If therefore in this our Age nay in the ancient Ages of the Church they were numbred among the Canonical Books that is to be attributed to the Judgment of the Church and not of the Synagogue Therefore there is a double Canon to be allowed that of the Church and that of the Synagogue And by the first Rule they may not erroneously be called Ecclesiastic Books which the Church taking no notice of the Jewish Canon have thought fit to admit into their Canon and to be read in their Congregations For it is certain that even from the very first Infancy of the Church these Books were accustom'd to be read and sung in the Congregations of the Faithful which Erasmus admires to hear so frequently sung and read in Churches at this day But that it was so Eras Schol. in Prefat Jerom in Dan. Erasmus might have learnt out of the Invictives of Ruffinus against St. Jerom. All these things Sixtus Senensis egregiously illustrates at the beginning of his Bibliotheca where he divides the Books of Holy Scripture into two Classe's Sixtus Senens l. 1. Bibl. S. In the first he reckons those which he calls Protocanonical or Canonical of the first Order And these are they which are received beyond all Controversie by the unanimous consent as well of the Jews as Christians In the other Classis he places those which he calls Deutero Canonical or Canonical of the second Order which formerly saith he were called Ecclesiastic That is to say those of which there was for some time a dubious Opinion among the Catholicks and which came late to the knowledge of the whole Church Among the Books of the first sort he only numbers those which the Synagogue admitted into their Cannon Into the next Classis he admits those which in the ancient Ages of the Church were reckon'd by most among the Apocriphal Writers to which he adds the Book of Esther in regard that some of the Fathers were doubtful of its Authority the only difficulty arises from the Authority of St. Jerom who in contradiction to the belief of all the Jews and his own Testimony has written that the Books of Tobias and Judith are extant with the Hebrews among the Hagiographies I admire that Scaliger and others so well skill'd in Critic Animadversion did not observe that in the Prefaces of Jerom upon Tobias and Judith we were not to read it Hagiographa as it is now read but Apocripha For though I want written Manuscripts to maintain that Lection yet the words of St. Jerom himself manifestly make it out The Book oâ— Tobias saith the Learned Father which the Hebrews pruning off from the Catalogue of Divine Scripture have condemn'd among those which they call Hagiographa Who does not presently apprehend from hence that the word ought to be read Apocripha not Hagiographa since it is apparently manifest that the Jews never cut of the Hagiography from the Catalogue of Divine Scripture The same observation is to be made in the Preface of St. Jerom upon Judith where instead of Hagiographa it ought to be read Apocrypha For thus the words run at this day Among the Hebrews the Books of Judith is reckon'd among the Hagiographa whose authority is not so sufficient to strengthen the convincement of those things which give occasion of dispute If the authority of that Book be not sufficient to confirm our Faith certainly it can be none of the Hagiographa which without Controversie are accounted Canonical and inspir'd among the Jews but of the number of the Apocrypha which are of dubious and uncertain Credit as St. Jerom thought the Books of Judith and Tobias to be Thus much concerning the Apocryphal Books upon which we have insisted longer then the purpose of our Subject required But we did not think it a deviation from our Argument to unfold a Dispute highly intreagu'd by the Contentions of
Joshua or rather by the Senators of the Grand Sanhedrim of which Joshua was the Chief are vulgarly thought to be added to the rest of the Text. For it was the Custom that the publick Transactions should be register'd in the publick Acts by those who were appointed for that Employment in which Sence Moses is said to have written some things in the Volume of the Law of the Lord that is the Covenant which he had made with the People To say truth there are many things extant in the Pentateuch which plainly declare that the Books of the Law were written by Moses Thus we read in Exodus Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. And in Deuteronomy After Moses had writ the words of the Law Exod. 24. Deut. 31. But these and many other passages of the same kind are only to be meant of some parts of the Law of which mention is made in those places as Simon has demonstrated Whence Jerom Oleaster Prol. in Pent. a great Hebrician and perfectly read in Scripture Learning denies that it can be effectually prov'd by Scripture that Moses himself was the Author of the Law which we have under his Name Next to the Pentateuch is the Book call'd Joshua and which the following words seem to prove to have been written by Joshua And Joshua wrote all these words in the Volume of the Law of the Lord. That is Joshua after Moses's Decease Jos 24.26 or his Scribes by his Order set down in the publick Registers the Transactions of that Time in which Sense they are said to be as it were added to the Volume of the Law Nevertheless 't is strange to see how they wrangle among themselves who handle this Argument so that even St. Austin himself durst not possitively affirm Joshua to be the Author of the Book which goes vulgarly under his Name Whether that Book says he which is call'd Jesus Nave were written by him meaning Joshua or by some other person Theodoret affirms That it was not written by Joshua but taken out of some later Book and among the modern Authors the learned Massius asserts That it cannot be said that all those things which are now extant in the History of Joshua Com. in c. 10. Jos proceeded from himself He also confirms what has been already mentioned concerning the publick Scribes and their Employments and extends his Arguments to other Books of the Scripture The Opinion of the Talmudists is That Joshua wrote his own Book and eight Verses of the Law But the judicious Rabby Isaac Abravanel scrupl'd not to differ from them and asserts himself induc'd so to beleive not only by those words which are added at the end of the Book of Joshua And after these things Joshua the Son of Nun Dy'd but by reason of many other passages that frequently occur in the Context it self of which he denyes that Joshua could be the Author Of which sort the first is that concerning the twelve stones which he set up in the midst of Jordan Jos 4.9 of which it is said and they remain there to this Day To which the Author of the Book of Joshua presently adds these words Jos 6.8 The Name of that place is call'd Galgala to this present Day I pass by many other expressions of the Nature frequent in the History of Joshua and which Abravanel maintains could not be written by Joshua Had Joshua saith he wrote all these things would he have said To this present day To these things he adds what we read in the History of Joshua concerning the Danites taking Lachish by assault which nevertheless did not happen till toward the end of the Judges and consequently long after Joshua's Death But these and other passages of the same Nature do not serve so much to prove that Joshua or rather the Scribes that were under him Register'd the publick Transactions of the time as to shew that other Scribes afterwards review'd those publick Acts and added several clauses and intervening passages to unite the Sense and Series of History and for Explanations sake Nor does the Book Entitl'd Shoftim or Judges seem to be written but in the same manner as being full of the same Expressions Wherefore D. Huetius follows the judgment of Dorotheus in this particular who affirms That the Scribes of that Time Recorded in Commentaries the Transactions which happened under the Judges out of which Saemuel afterwards composed the Book of Judges Who that Dorotheus was I do not at present Dispute it is enough from thence to infer that Simon 's Opinion was not of Yesterday by which he constitutes publick Scribes in the Hebrew Nation who Recorded the publick Transactions of their Times whose Collections other Scribes or Prophets embody'd into those Histories which go now under the Names of Joshua Judges Samuel and Kings this opinion is confirmed by the Syrians For we read at the end of the Syriac Exemplar these words added But for the Book of Judges Excâ—d Usser Tom. 6. Pol Angl. though the Name of the Author be not set down it is known that it was wrote by some of the Priests of the Sons of Aaron who in the times of those Judges officiated in the Priesthood The last cited Dorotheus refers the Book of Ruth also to the same Scribes which seem much more probable then the Opinions of those wherein there is nothing of sure Foundation Concerning both thus Sixtus Senensis It is said that Samuel Collected the Book of Judges and added the Story of Ruth the Moabitess Bib. 8. lib. 3. Some think that Ezekiel others that Esdras was the Author of both Books As for the Books of Kings Theodoret has made these Remarks upon them That there were many Prophets among the Hebrews of which every one wrote the Transactions of his Age and hence it came to pass that the first Book of Kings is call'd both by the Hebrews and Syrians The Prophesie of Samuel soon after he adds They therefore who wrote the Book of Kings wrote them out of those writings long after as their leizure serv'd them And some while after he thus expresses himself concerning the Books of the Chronicles There were some other Historiographers who digested those things that were omitted by others which Book so written they call'd Parah Pomona the remainders As to the first and second Book of Kings which go under the Name of Samuel Sixtus Senensis adds these words The Book of Samuel is said to be written by the Prophet Samuel partly by the Prophets Nathan and Gad. Samuel Collected the Acts of Eli Saul David and his own which are related in the first Book of Kings to his Death Nathan and Gad wrote the Books of Kings from the Death of Samuel to the end of the second Book What Sixtus Senensis writes in this place though in general I may not think them remote from Truth yet if they be specially weigh'd they cannot be sure in every part for that as to
all those things which are related by Samuel to his Deaeth many passages declare that they could not be written by him For it is hardly to be believ'd that he writing of the Transactions of his own time and of which he was an eye-Witness should write these words Therefore neither the Priest of Dagon 1 Sam. 5.5 nor any that come into the House of Dagon tread upon the Threshold of Dagon to this day In like manner neither could those things be related by Samuel concerning the Ark in the next Chapter where it is said and the Stone remains in the Field of Joshua the Beshemite to this Day To this we add That Samuel could not be the Author of that Clause which we find in his History Heretofore to every one spake that went to take Counsel of God for he that is at this day call'd a Prophet was then call'd a Seer However notwithstanding all these Objections it is probable that the History which goes under Samuel's Name was written by himself till the Relation of his Death And as for those things which are alleadg'd to the contrary that there was a review of some Scribe or Prophet perhaps Jeremiah as some think who added some things for Explanations sake tho' others choose rather to add these Additions to Esdras and his Collegiates The Syrians also affirm That the first and second Book of Kings were call'd the third and fourth in the Latin Versions were written by a certain Priest whose Name was Johanan As for the Book of Chronicles Sal. Comment in Paralip Kimchi praef in paralip or Parilapomena by whom they were Collected there is some reason to question Most of the Jews will have Esdras to be the Author of them which R. Solomon and R. David Kimchi asserts to be the Tradition of their fore-Fathers making also Aggai Zachary and Malachi assistants to Esdras Yet not so that they should be said to write the History anew but only to have reformed the Antient History of the Kings of Israel and Judah rejecting those things which did not seem so proper for their purpose and adding some things which were omitted in other Books of Sacred Scripture from whence they deriv'd the Name of Paralipomena among the Greeks which word afterwards crept into the Latin Wherefore St. Jerom not improperly calls the Book of Chronicles an Epitome of the Old Testament In Epist ad Paul Nevertheless he reports the Opinion of the Jows concerning this thing with whom Grotius also agrees who believes these Books to have been written by Esdras and by the Jews to have been call'd Dibre Hajamin the words of the Days or taken out of the Kings Diaries As for the Book of Esdras the greatest part of it was written by himself as the Transactions therein contain'd do manifestly declare But Nehemiah confesses himself in the Front of the Book to be the Author of the second Book of Esdras The Book of Psalms is by the Jews call'd Sepher Techillim or the Book of Praises which sometimes St. Austin seems to believe to have been all of David's composing nor does he scruple to ascribe those to David which it is manifest were written long after his time because he was both a Musitian and a Prophet Nor could the Names of Asaph Jeduthun and other Musitians said to be the Authors of some of the Psalms beat off St. Austin from that Opinion because that David might supply the Matter which afterwards they polish'd and set to several Tunes But St. Jerome is more in the right who asserts the Psalms to be theirs whose Names they bear in the Titles that is Davids Asaph's Jeduthuns the Sons of Core's Eman's the Ezrahite Moses's Solomon's and theirs whom Esdras comprehends in the first Volume with St. Jerom also most of the Jews agree And the Prudent Aben Ezra affirms That the Psalms were made by them whose Names are prefix'd Praef. in Psalm though there are some who have no Name at all But in this that Rabby corrects St. Jerome because he does not absolutely pronounce the Psalms to be made by them whose Names are prefix'd but that those which carry the Names of David and Solomon were either theirs or compos'd from them by the Musitians Yet Christ seems to attribute the whole Book of Psalms to David where he says And David himself says in the Book of Psalms But Christ only spake according to the common Opinion of the Jews for they call'd them generally David's Psalms not that they thought them to have been all compil'd by him for the Matter it self speaks the contrary but because he was the chiefest of all the Authors and for that he is call'd the most excellent Singer of Israel Yet the above-cited Aben Ezra writes that there are some of the Rabbys who attribute the whole Psalter to David and acknowledge him to be a Prophet The Book which is called the Book of Proverbs is generally said to be Solomons whose Name it carries at the beginning though the whole Method of that Work seems to demonstrate that it was nothing but a Collection of Sentences which being first gather'd together by Solomon and others were afterwards embody'd in one Volume That Solomon composed many Parables those words prove which he speaks of himself Eccles 12 9. And because the Preacher was wise he still taught the people knowledge he sought out and set in order many Proverbs which are number'd up to be above three thousand in the third Book of Kings of which at this day no more are extant then what we find in the Holy Writings C. 4.32 To the first nine Chapters of that Work the Name of Solomon is prefix'd and other fifteen Chapters which also bear his Name And this Aben Ezra believ'd to be the second part of his Parables or Sentences The third part of the Proverbs begins from these Words of the 25th Chapter v. 2. It is the Glory of God to conceal a thing Which distinction was made by them who reduc'd the Books of Scripture into that Order which is now observ'd for it is not to be believ'd that Solomon fix'd his Name to his Proverbs but only the Scribes who divided that Work into parts And so that Verse which we read at the beginning of the 25th Chapter These are the Proverbs of Solomon which the Men of Ezekiah King of Judah Copyed out Aben Ezra believes to have been written by Sobna who was King Ezekia's Scribe And indeed I am ready to believe that Sobna and others of King Ezekia's Scribes did extract out of the whole Volume those Sentences of which the first is the Glory of God c. and this the Word which the Men of Ezekiah Copy'd clearly demonstrate The fourth part of the Proverbs of Solomon begin at the beginning of the 30th Chapter where we read in the Latin Edition the Words of the Assembler but in the Hebrew Text the Words of Agur. But who that Agur and Assembler was the Interpreters of
was only a Translation of his into Hebrew out of some Forreign Language But letting these things pass if we may conjecture in a matter so obscure I believe they are nearest the Truth who fix the Composition of this Piece in the Time of the Babylonish Captivity For the Language is hardly Hebrew and abounding in Chaldee Phrases bespeaks a Person who by Forreign Converse had corrupted his Hebrew Speech In which Sense the words of St. Jerom are to be explained when he tells us That he Translated Job out of the Hebrew Arabic and Syriac Language To which we may add that the Jews whose Affairs were then in a desperate Condition took great Delight in reading that Book as the Comfort of their Afflictions Therefore the Author relates an Action that lately happed and because he takes upon him to perform the part of a Poet tho the Argument be not fictitious yet he makes use of Figures and florid Language mixing sometimes Probabilities with Truth observing only a Decorum between the Interlocutors The Prophets by St. Austin are call'd Pronouncers or Publishers of the word of God to Men. For they Quest in ex as the Interpreters of the Divine Law preach'd to the People whom they taught the Law of Moses confirming his Authority Then what Threats and Promises Moses had only in general promulgated they applyed to the several occasions of their Times and that after the manner of Orators which is the reason that they abound in Comparisons Metaphors and Hyperboles and not content with a plain and bare Relation they amplify it in many words For saith St. Jerom the History and Order of things is not related barely by the Prophets Praef. in Lib. 18 Com. in Isai but all places are full of Riddles and Mysteries one thing is contain'd in the words another in the meaning that what you would think to run over with a plain an uninterrupted Sense you find presently involv'd in the obscurities of that which follows Nor did the Prophets so altogether foretell future things but that they frequently repeated things already done as is evident from the Prophesie of Zachariah which is a Relation for the most part of what was past or was at that same time transacted Thus that most dilligent Interpreter of the Scripture in expounding some words of the Prophet Amos blames the Exposition of the Jews maintaining in the same place a Prophesie of the future where there is nothing said but of what is past and sâ—on after he adds these words worthy observation In c. 3. Amos. We are under a scarcity of Sacred Authors for we read of many things in the Prophets which are not to be found in Sacred History In like manner St. Jerom attests that the Prophets in their Relations do not mind the Order of things as they were Transacted Among the Prophets saith he there is no order of History observ'd while we find under the same King those things that were last transacted Com. in c. 25. Jerom. first related and those things that were first in action last recorded This preposterous Order Pseudo Dorotheus attributes to the Scribes De vit mort Proph. who committed to Writing the Predictions of the Prophets as they receiv'd them from their own Lips as if the Prophets had not wont to write down the Sermons which they made to the People The same observation Cornelius a Lapide makes upon the Prophesie of Jeremy who believe that Baruch who was the Scribe belonging to that Prophet collected all his Prophesies which he had preach'd at sundry times and embody'd them into one Volume not regarding the Order of time wherein they were preach'd And John Calvin himself confesses that the Prophesies of the Prophets never came to our hands digested into that order as they ought to have been nevertheless he does not believe it any derogation to their Inspiration They Calv. praef in Isai saith he who have diligently and judiciously convers'd with the Prophets will grant me that their Sermons were never digested into that method as they ought to have been but as Opportunity offer'd so the Volume was perfected He believes that the Books of the Prophets were preserv'd by the diligence of the Preist whose Duty it was to recommend the Prophesies to Posterity though the Preists were profest Enemies to the Prophets The same Calvin writes also that after the Prophets had Preach'd to the People they wrote out the Heads of it which was affix'd to the Doors of the Temple that all people might read them which being afterwards taken away by the Officers of the Temple was laid up in the Treasury for a perpetual Monument and Record of that Sermon from whence he conjectures that the Books of the Prophets now extant were Copy'd True it is that from the words of Isaiah and Habaccuc whom Calvin produces for his Witnesses this one thing seems easie to be prov'd that the Prophets wrote their Sermons plainly and legibly upon Tables that they might be read by all the people But of the Doors of the Temple to which he believes they were affix'd they make no mention at all Then again he Conjectures amiss that Summaries of the Sermons were only Copyed out and not the Sermons at length Though there is no skilfull Critic who will presume to aver that the Prophesies which we have now are entire The same Calvin and the Divines of Geneva farther conjecture that the Inscriptions which declare the Names of the Prophets and the Years when the Prophesies were pronounced were added by the Priests whose Duty it was to keep them safe for the satisfaction of Posterity These are their Words Il semble che ces Tiltres ayent estez adjoustez aux Revelations des Prophetes par les sacrificateurs et Levites qui avoit charge de garder les Prophetes au Tresor du Temple apres qu' elles avoient este proposees au Peuple suivant le contume des Prophetes It seems probable that the Titles were added to the Revelations of the Prophets by the Priests and Levites who had the charge of those Prophesies in the Treasury of the Temple after they had been exposed to the people according to the custome of the Prophets To which Opinion Hugo Grotius also gives his Vote There is only this difference between him and them that he does not attribute these Inscriptions to the Priests and Levites but to the Men of the great Synagogue who collected the writings of the Prophets and set down the time of their being written This seems more probable because it is taken for granted among all that the Senate where Esdras presided did add something to the Sacred Text by way of Connexion and Explication Thus also Thomas believes that the Inscriptions fix'd to some Psalms were inserted by Esdras Com. in Psal 6. and were done partly as things were then acted partly according to what happned Lastly it is is very probable that those Histories which are inserted in some of the Sermons of the Prophets were added by the same Senators when they review'd the Sacred Books and form'd the Canonical Scripture as now we have it which is the reason some believe those words were inserted in the 51. Jeremie Thus far the words of Jeremie Which conclude the Prediction of the Prophet in regard the following Chapter is no Prophesie but a History taken out of the end of the 4th Book of Kings And in this the Rabbies agree with most of the Christian Doctors For R.D. Kimchi testifies that those words which run on to the end of the Prophesie of Jeremiah do not belong to the Prophesie only that he who Copy'd the Book inserted here the story of the Israelites being carried away Captive Com. in c. 51. Jer. as it is in the end of the Book of Kings On the otherside Abravanel conjectures that Esdras or the Senators of the Grand Assembly were the Authors of that Supplement as the History of Ezechia was tranferr'd out of the 2 Book of Kings cap. 18. into the Prophesie of Isaiah From all that has been said it may be easily discern'd who were accompted Prophets among the Hebrew People what was their Office and Function and what their method of writing Moreover this also seems worthy Observation that the Prophets did not only preach to the People and foretel future events but also digested the Histories of their times and wrote them into the publick Records And thus Isaiah who wrote the Acts of Hosea bears the Title no less of a Historian then a Prophet or rather the name of Prophet among the Hebrews comprehends all those significations So that whoever was a revealer of the Divine will or foretold future Accidents or wrote the Translations of his Time was call'd a Prophet From whence questionless it came to pass that the ancient Jews adorn'd the Histories of Joshua Judges Samuel and Kings with the Titles of Neviion Prophets because they were written by Persons who being full of the Holy Spirit were call'd Prophets In which sence Josephus affirms that in his Nation Books were not written by every one but by Prophets only Jonathan also has rightly understood the force of that word who instead of the Hebrew word Navi Prophet sometimes mixes another word in his Paraphrase which signifies only Scribe as if Prophets were the same with Scribes And thus much concerning the Sacred Writers I pass by the Apocriphal Books which the Jews do not admit into their Canonical Number because their Authors as the word Apocryphal signifies are uncertain and hidden in obscurity Let the Learned Vossius therefore forbear to bark at the most worthy Simon a Person so well deserving of the Sacred Scriptures who has publish'd nothing concerning the Writers of the Old Testament but what has been already approv'd by Persons most Grave and solid and highly Eminent both for their Piety and Learning Into a wicked Heart Wisdom shall not enter FINIS
Rabbi did not deem himself so religiously bound to follow the Decrees of the Masorites and their Exemplars that he thought it a crime to depart from them Therefore at the end of his Book Jesed Mora he thus writes Id. in lib. Jesed Mora. There is no necessity at all to observe that those Letters Jod He Vau Aleph being chang'd one into another are sometimes added sometimes left out c. Wherefore in his Writings he does not so much regard the manner as the reason of the Transcription Thus in his Commentary upon Psal 5. he believes the word Nasah written with a Samech and He Id. in Psa 5. to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nasa written with a Sin and an Aleph It was not from the purpose saith he that He should be the same with Aleph and Samech the same with Sin In like manner expounding the 2d Chapter of Joel after he has observ'd that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proceeds from the Root Peer he presently tells ye that R. Japhet deriv'd the same word from another Root As if the Letter Aleph were in the number of those Letters that are superfluous as the Masorites term them and unprofitable as if the word were to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an Aleph and were Lashon Shachoth or the signification of shining Blackness In which sense this word is taken by most of the Interpreters and this Reading is confirm'd by Judaeus who compil'd the Masoreth with this Marginal Note added to the Hebrew Text This word is of the number of those which are written with an Aleph in the middle that is never express'd Lastly There seem not to have been wanting among the Jews certain Criticks who have employ'd all their time in noting the Readings of the various Copies Of whom the principal are Rabbi Menahem de Lonzano in a Treatise entitled Schethe Jadoth and the Author of a certain other Treatise entitled Minchath Cohen He divides his whole work into two parts and every part or hand contains five fingers of which the first illustrates all the various Lections which he could find in the several Manuscripts of the Mosaical Law by the help of ten written Copies which he thinks to have been written within this five or six hundred years and he compares them with the second Edition of Bomberg in Folio which is the most accurate of all he also strictly examines the Words the Letters Points and Accents of this Edition But all this indefatigable labour and diligence of R. Menahem tends no farther than to demonstrate that the various Readings of Scripture which are found in the several Copies of the Bibles ought to be tryed by the Masora as the most certain Rule of Reason and Writing Of the same Opinion is the Author of the Little Treatise called Minchath Cohen who there most acutely discourses of what words are to be written fully and which defectively And studies to reduce several Lections to their natural exactness by the help of the Masora and the corrected Books Of necessity therefore those Masoretick Copies are to be examined whose sincerity is so highly applauded by the Jews whether they are so pure and correct that it may be thought a point of Faith to swerve from them CHAP. IV. Of the Publish'd Exemplars of the Hebrew Context which are Masoretick Of the Art of the Masorites Of its Original and what Opinion we are to have of it Of the Modern Copies of the Bible IN the latter times the Exemplars of the Biblick Contest are no other than what are vulgarly call'd Masoretick For the Jews for many Ages together have acknowledged no other and from them they came into the hands of the Christians Whence arose that general Agreement between so many Copies of several Places and Times excepting those few and trivial Niceties which are rather the slips of negligent Transcribers than various Lections For how could it otherwise be whenas the Jews who look upon the Masora to be as it were descended from Heaven scruple not to make that their Rule for the Reformation of all Bibles rasing out of all other Manuscript Copies Letters Words and whole Sentences to make them conformable to the Masora And this is easie to be observ'd by those that run over all the Manuscript Copies that have been written for these four or five hundred years last past and hence it is that there is such a wonderful concurrence among the Printed Bibles To which while not only the Jews but also the most Learned among the Jews do not give a sufficient respect admiring overmuch the Exactness of the Hebrew Copy they shew themselves the Promoters of the latter with a more than needful Zeal Therefore Arias Montanus boldly affirms that the Hebrew Context has been preserv'd with so much care by the help of the Masora that it never could be discern'd by the most diligent and piercing Wit or Judgment to have admitted the least variance in several Exemplars In like manner Buxtorf a person that had very much and long turmoil'd in these studies extols the Masora even to excess in these words as if it had been sent from Heaven Herein as far as the East and West extend the Word of God is to be read in one Language and after one manner Here is to be seen a general Consent of all the Books that are in Asia Africa or Europe without any variance 〈◊〉 never happened that we find such a felicity has befallen any Books either of the Chaldeans Greeks Romans or any other People However this egregious Applauder of the Masorites speaks rather out of a preconceiv'd Opinion of the Jews than according to the verity of the Thing He has seem'd to translate into his Commentary upon the Masoreth all the Fables of those his Masters to whom he wholly dedicated himself And by that means he has drawn in most of the Protestant Divines especially the Northern to his own or rather the Jews Opinion of the Exactness of the Hebrew Context being as it were overwhelmed under the Testimonies of the Rabbins They who have been conversant among the Monuments of the Antients especially in the Commentaries of St. Jerom and are therefore better experienc'd in Critick Learning think far otherwise of that Work Nor do they presently swallow those things for Truth with which the Jews half asleep are illiterately contented Rather Elias the Levite is to be listened to in this particular who alone among the Jews apply'd himself to the study of the Masora then to the Rout of the Jews who were altogether ignorant of it That most Learned Rabbi being requested in a Letter by Munster Elias Levit. in Epist ad Sebast Munster to tell him what sort of persons the Masorites were especially those of Tyberias thus answered in the Jewish Language R. Jonas writes that the Jews of Tyberias were well vers'd in the holy Language R. Aben Ezra also writes that from them the
abundantly declare CHAP. VI. Other parts of the Manuscripts in reference to the Manuscript Bibles are examined Their True Original and the Masoretick Lection confirm'd MOst of the Jewish Rabbies not unwillingly acknowledge that the Sacred Manuscripts of the Old Testament do not altogether retain that Form The Antient disagreement of the Heb. Bibles according to the Rabbies which the most Authentick and Original Copies represented and they believe that this Alteration of their Bibles happen'd after they were carry'd into Captivity at what time they had no Rabbies to read to them the Mosaick Law their Form of Worship being utterly abolish'd and their Civil Affairs in that deplorable condition that they had no time to look after their Books Therefore D. Kimehi frequently asserts in his Works R. D. Kim That they perish'd in the Babylonish Captivity and they being destroy'd nothing but confusion follow'd with many other expressions of the same nature R. Ephod R. Ephodaeus is also of the same Opinion who writes That in those Seventy years of the Babylonish Captivity corruption and confusion began to overwhelm the Sacred Writings For that as Kimchi says the Doctors of the Law were dead From thence therefore that before the time of Esdras the Sacred Writings vary'd in several places they believe it may be made out that Esdras who examin'd those Books left several Lections which he met with in the Copies of his Time unmedl'd withal in the Books which he himself examin'd and for this reason they give great credit to the differing Scriptures which were mark'd by the Criticks of Tyberias as if they proceeded from Esdras who was inspir'd with the Holy Ghost than which there is nothing more idle or remote from Truth Aben Mel. in liâ— 1. Paraliâ— This Aben Melech observes upon the words Diphath and Rodanim Diphath in the Book of Chronicles is written with a Daleth and in the Book of Genesis with a Resch Rodanim is written with a Resch and in Genesis with a double Daleth because Resch and Daleth are alike in their form and they who ever viewed the Books of Genealogies written in the Antient Times some write Daleth others Resch Therefore in the Book of Genesis the word was written one way in the Chronicles after another to shew that the word was the same whether written with a Daleth or a Resch Thus Jod and Vau are written promiscuously because they are alike in their figure And the same is to be said for the mute Letters Aleph and He in the end of a word as in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a He in the end which is the same as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Aleph in the end For Aleph and He are agreed to be both Aspirates and every one makes use of them at his pleasure Thus has Aben Melech written almost word for word from the Commentaries of R. D. Kimchi The same Aben Melech produces many other Examples of several other varieties of the same nature which he testifies to have collected out of the Tractates of R. Judas Jonas Aben Esra Kimchi c. Thus he observes Alin and Alevan to be read in Scripture promiscuously with a Jod sometimes and sometimes with a Vau. Hemeran and Hemdan with Resch or with Daleth Jaakan and Vaakan with Jod or with Vau with many others which I omit for brevities sake They never minded saith he the change of a Letter or two and he observes it to have been frequently done He also makes mention of the transposition of words and upon those words in Chronicles Bathsceva the Daughter of Amiel he makes this observation Bathsceva the Daughter of Amiel she is Bathsceva the Daughter of Eliam 2 Sam. 11. which some read Barsceba Aben Mel. ad c. 3. Chron. others Bathsceba because they are near in pronunciation In the same manner Amiel and Eliam are the same but that the Letters are transposed which transposition of Letters is to be observ'd in the first place there being several Examples to confirm it in the Hebrew Copies of which the LXX Interpreters made use R. Levi Ben Gersom makes the same observation upon the word Jabes R. L. Ben Gersom I believe Jabes with an Ain to have been one of the Judges and to have been that person who in the 12th of the Judges is call'd Abetson with an Aleph For Aleph and Ain are near in pronunciation and often changed one into another Don Joseph also the Spaniard R. Joseph Comment in Chron. in his Exposition of the Book of Chronicles inquiring why there appears so much difference in the Genealogies between that Book and the Books of Moses Joshua Samuel and Kings unfolds this question in these words That Esdras seem'd to have found those words or hard names in some Compendium and so wrote them down as he found them Then observing a vast difference of names and things he presently adds Neither ought that to be a wonder for that in the Series of many Ages great alterations happen both of names and things But Esdras wrote down those Families in the same manner as he found them scatter'd in little Manuals some out of one place some out of another and in words abbreviated And therefore the Family which he mentions is described in many places without order and method Lastly The same Rabbi believes that the Jews had forgot their Genealogies and that Esdras wrote what occurr'd to his memory though it were written without order R. Jos ad l. 1. Chron. c. 9. and at several times And therefore most of the Jewish Rabbies rather chuse to accuse the Books which they believe Esdras made use of in digesting the Context of the Bible than the oscitancy and carelesness of the Scribes that came after In this indeed the Fathers of the Church agree with those Jews that both ascribe to Esdras the Title of Restorer of the Sacred Context at that time in great confusion only the Fathers believe that being inspir'd with a Prophetical Spirit he reform'd it from many faults In Prâ—fat in Psal That most admirable Esdras saith Theodoret transcrib'd those Sacred Writings which by the carelesness of the Jews and the Impiety of the Babylonians were entirely corrupted And these are rather to be believ'd than the hair-brain'd Jews who will have Esdras to publish the Scriptures deprav'd and corrupted as they were with all their faults and so they attribute all those various Lections which the Masorites denote under the terms of Keri and Cetib to the same Esdras as if those various Readings which the Criticks daily remark upon the Margins of their Books were to be attributed to men inspir'd by God We must therefore conclude that the Masorites of Tyberias by the help of the Antient Copies and assistance of good Judgments corrected what Errours had crept into the Copies of their Times through the Ignorance of the Scribes But bearing a Veneration too superstitious toward the Sacred
Criticks of Tyberias in vain turmoil'd and weari'd themselves in counting how many times this or that word was full and how many times defective For example they diligently consider how many times the word Otham is written at large in the Text they observe that it was written in the Law thirty nine times full or with the Letter Vau and thus they run through all the Books of Scripture But upon comparing the Manuscripts together they could never once agree among themselves after what manner the said word was to be written Moreover this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being fully thus written does not only signify them or those which is its true and genuine signification but sometimes with them as if it were written Ittham and were defective in the writing So true it is that in these words the sence and not the Character is to be regarded But above all there is nothing like the Superstitious niceness of the Jews in writing the word Ieruschalaim while they diligently observe all the places of Scripture where it is to be writ at length with a Jod and where without And yet neither the Hebrew Manuscripts nor the Masoretick Examplars agree one among another How many fictions have they raised about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Meoroth or Lights which in the Beginning of Genesis is written without a Vau contrary to the rules of Proportion and because the Jewish Rabbies have raised a thousand fictions from this manner of writing such a Notable word hence the Scribes have been very careful to observe that manner of spelling True it is that the Insertion or Omission of those letters which depend upon the pleasure of the Scribes seldom prejudice the sense and therefore in such cases neither the one nor the other is of any moment But sometimes it happens that they alter the sense As 2 Sam. 20. In the third of Sophonia where we read Nogue Sad as the Interpreters vulgarly render it from Jaga Rabbi Solomon expounds it remote or forraign as if it came from the Root Haga without any regard to the Masoretick reading There are not wanting some Rabbies who derive the word Nechiloth in the Title of the 5. Psalm from Chalal as if it were to be written without a Jod not much heeding the Rules of the Masorites for full and defective words I omit above six hundred of this nature frequently to be met with in the Commentaries of the Jews by which the Greek Translations of the LXX Interpreters and the Latine of St. Jerome may be Illustrated in many places Neither is St. Jerome to be commended for this that he blames the Greek Interpreters for differing sometimes from him in that sort of reading For this reason he taxes those who in the 14. Chapt of Isaiah for Angels as it is in the Hebrew Exemplar translate Kings because that in their Copies they find the word Malkim without the Letter Aleph not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Letter Aleph as St. Jerome had it But the Greek Interpreters were not to be governed so much by the reading of Copies as by the sense which was most proper to the place especially when the Manuscripts and printed Editions do not agree about the Insertion of the Letter Aleph As in Jeremy the Seventh v. 18. Where the modern Exemplars read Limleketh to the Queen without an Aleph yet in a single Manuscript it is written with an Aleph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And hence arose those Masoretick observations of Redundant Letters CHAP. VIII Some Examples of differing Writings are produced from the Manuscripts which vary from the Masoretick Lections AFter that the Hebrew Language ceas'd to be familiarly spoken among the Jews and that the Chaldee Language became the Speech of the Country the Writers made many alterations in their Transcriptions by reason of the Affinity of the Languages Nor were they so curious of neat Letters as they were before From whence without question it came to pass that the Letter Aleph so much in use among the Chaldaeans is many times mistaken for the Letter He and added to words without any reason And from hence I suppose it happened that there are so many Chaldaeisms in the Hebrew Text as Shelechebeth Flame by the Addition of the Letter Schin according to the custom of the Chaldeans Magnath abin and Calabin instead of Magnathabim and Calabim with several others of the same nature which I omit that I may come to those other variations of writing frequent in the Manuscript Copies of most credit and Authority In the writing of these words El Elohim Jehovah Col and the like which are frequently redundant with the Greek Interpreters the Manuscript Copies do not a little vary from the printed Masoreticks Which because they are more frequent in speech are sometimes inserted sometimes omitted by the Scribes Thus in the beginning of the 16. Psalm the word Jehovah is thus repeated in one Spanish Copy Thou hast said Jehovah L' Jehovah Jehovah to Jehovah thou art my Lord but in the modern exemplar only once In the same exemplar Ezech. 30. v. 3. The word Jehovah is thus twice repeated The day of the Lord the day of the Lord approaches But the Masoretick Copy repeats the Lord but once nor does St. Jerom seem to have read it otherwise in his exemplars Neither do the Seventy Interpreters repeat the sentence saying no more then once the day of the Lord approaches On the other side in the same Spanish Manuscript Judges 1.1 The word Col is omitted and the Lection is thus The Children of Israel went forth but in the printed Editions Col Benei All the Children of Israel went forth But it is needless to repeat any more examples of these Variances which nevertheless St. Jerom writing to Sunias and Fretelas very carefully enumerates for the thing it self informs us that those sorts of words might easily have been added or omitted in the transcribing of the Copies Moreover in the Spanish Manuscript already recited toward the end of the 2d Chap. of the 1 Book of Chronicles the Lection is conformable to the Greek Interpreters and to what St. Jerom had read in his Copies Maacha Calebs Concubine brought forth Seber and Thirana The Spanish Copy reads Jaldah brought forth in the Faeminine Gender but in the Masoretick Editions it is written Jahad in the Masculine Gender he begot and so cannot be joyned with the Faeminine Concubina or Concubine Wherefore the modern Interpreters of the sacred Text who follow the Masorites over zealously for fear of erring against the rules of Grammar make use of this Periphrasis Maacha Caleb's Concubine of whom he begat Sebar and Thirana In the 3d Chapter v. 19. of the same Book where we find in the Printed Books Vben Zerubbabel with a Masoretick marking the margent denoting the Opinion of the Masorites that it should be read in the Plural Number Benei and not in the singular Ben in the Spanish Copy it appears to be Benei
Anno 1618. But this Edition was much inferiour to the rest there being many things reform'd and amended or rather spoil'd by the Inquisitors especially in the Commentaries of the Rabbins Another Bible was also set forth at Venice by Daniel Bomberg but less exact Nevertheless those are not to be contemn'd which the Jews caus'd to be put forth for their own use at Pisaurum Sabionesa Mantua Frankfort and other places Buxtorf also publish'd a new Edition of Bomberg's Bible which was overlook'd by R. Jacob Ben Hajim which he believes to be corrected in many things by himself especially in reference to the Tittl'd Vowel of the Chaldee Text. But as for the Edition Printed at Basil 1608. it seems much inferiour to that of Bomberg out of which it was taken and is contemn'd by the Jews Imperfect also are the Bibles Printed by Robert Stephens in Quarto and Decimo Sexto and by Plantin in Quarto and in other Volumes compar'd with that which R. Menasseh Ben Israel and other Jews caus'd to be Printed at Amsterdam in Quarto 1635. and in Octavo 1661. Moreover the Jews especially they who inhabit the Eastern parts highly commend an Edition set forth at Venice in Quarto in a large Paper by Lombrosus which contains the Literal Notes The Rabbi also himself explains the most difficult places of the Text in the Spanish Tongue To these might be added other Editions of the Bible and those a great many publish'd by the Jews not only in Italy and Germany but at Constantinople Thessalonica and Hadrianople but it suffices to have given an account of the most remarkable We have also said that the Christian Bibles are not so accurate as those set forth by the Jews but the Christian Characters are far superiour to those of the Jews The Five Books of Moses also are set forth apart by themselves with a threefold Targum and the Commentaries of Solomon Isaac Thus was the Pentateuch printed at Hanovia 1611. with verses distinguished by Number according to the Latin Editions CHAP. IX Whether the Jews corrupled their Bibles of set purpose The Opinion of the Fathers concerning this matter examined ALthough there be a very great difference between the Exemplars of the Hebrew Context which are now extant and those which the Seventy Interpreters and St. Jerom made use of and that in our days they very much vary one from another yet we ought not thence to conclude that the Jewish Bibles were by themselves corrupted in hatred of the Christians as some Divines bearing no good will to the Jews Leo Castro have been pleas'd to report Leo Castro a Spanish Divine urges highly for this the common opinion of the Fathers and produces a great train of their Testimonies After the same manner Johannes Morinus shews himself somewhat too severe against the Jews for though he adjudge this Opinion not altogether so probable yet he musters up a long Catalogue of the maintainers of it to impose upon the more ignorant And what seems to exceed all belief Isaac Vossius among the Heterodox has uttered many bitter reproaches against the Jews as adulterators of sacred Writ But if the weight of their reasons be considered rather than the number of their reasons we shall find their accusations to have quite another face True it is that they condemn under the name of the Jews the versions of Aquilas Theodotion and Symmachus in regard that the Jews continually set them up in opposition to the Septuagint Therefore as often as the Fathers question the Jews for corrupting the sacred Scripture they only speak of those versions or of something like them as hereafter we shall make it appear Upon which accompt St. Jerom labouring to excuse himself for having translated the Scripture out of Hebrew into Latin gives this reason Epist 89. I have not so much endeavoured to abolish the Ancient as to produce those Testimonies which by the Jews are either omitted or corrupted that ours might understand what the Hebrew truth contains In which words he sharply taxes Aquilas Symmachus and other Interpreters whom he frequently calls by the title of Semi-Christians For when the Fathers in their disputes with the Jews concerning the truth of the Christian Religion made use against them of no other Scripture but the Septuagint on the other side the Jews still had recourse to the Hebrew Books that is to Aquila and other Interpreters who had made new translations out of the Hebrew for this reason chiefly was St. Jerom induc'd to make a new translation from the same fountains And for the same reason Origen before him had compos'd his Hexapla with wonderful Art Justin Martyrs Opinion explained The first that comes into the field is Justin Martyr who disputing against Tryphon accuses the Jews of false and crafty exposition of the Scripture As when he objects to them their ignorant and malicous applying the words of the Psalm Psal 110. The Lord said to my Lord to Ezechiah which are only to be understood of Christ As also their misapplication of the words of Isaiah Before a child knows to call his Father and his Mother c. To the same Ezechiah which as he demonstrates ought to be interpreted concerning Christ Then he affirms many things to have been taken out of Scripture by the perverseness of the Jews because they favoured the Christian Religion and then that some words were changed into others However in all this there is nothing argu'd against but the perverse exposition of the context or misinterpretation not against the text it self in regard Justin could give no Judgment concerning the Integrity or falshood of that as being one that was utterly Ignorant of the Hebrew Language which is palpable from the Etymology which he gives of the word Israel This name Israel saith he signifies a man overcoming Power For Isra is a man and El Power But this above all the rest is most worthy observation that Justin by the word Scripture understands nothing but the Translation of the seventy Interpreters So that when he accuses the Jews for depraving the Scripture he also taxes the version of Aquila which in many things differs from the Septuagint Which led several learned men into mistake not heeding what Justin meant by the name of sacred Scripture And thus he condemns the Jewish Rabbies for rashly asserting that there was never any such thing wrote by Isaiah as Behold a Virgin shall conceive but Behold a young Woman shall conceive The whole controversie lies about the Translation of the word Gnalmah which the Seventy Interpreters Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 virgo a virgin But Aquila 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 puella and after Aquila the Jews of that Age. Which Interpretation nothing alters the Hebrew Text. But Justin allowing no Scripture but that which was publickly received for the use of the Church that is the Septuagint opposes the Authority of that Translation against the Jews But you saith he in these things
Tertul. de Praescrip adv her c. 17. or if she receive any she perverts them to her own purposes by Additions and Omissions or if she receive them she does not receive them whole or if she do that nevertheless she perverts them by feign'd Expositions Adulterated Sense being an equal Enemy to Truth with a corrupted and mutilated Text. But here Tertullian plainly taxes the Hereticks not the Jews Now from these words you may give a shrewd ghess whether that Learned person had just reason to break forth into these passionate expressions after he had produc'd the Testimonies of Justin Irenaeus and Tertullian against the Jewish Bibles From hence then says he Morin Exercit Bib. that Principle or Foundation is apparent that the Jews corrupted both their own and our Bibles in hatred of Christ and the Christians and ras'd some Books out of the Canon was taken for granted by our most holy Fathers and upon the confidence of that Foundation they did sometimes unfold several occurring difficulties and answer'd the Objections of the Hereticks and Jews But with the good leave of that most learned Man I must needs say that he never consulted the Fathers in this matter but only made use of what he had read in other Authors and in the works of Leo Castro a mortal Enemy of the Jews and inserted their words verbatim into his Exercitations Nor am I one who believe an obligation of standing to the Opinion of the Fathers in this matter Their Authority is of great moment in matters of Faith but in Critick Learning it is then to be esteem'd when it agrees with Truth and for this we have the Authority of the Prince of the Latine Divines St. Austin who as he was a man of a most acute Wit and piercing Judgment was not afraid to recede from the Opinion of other Fathers upon that Argument which is now the Subject of the Controversie because he thought it less probable So that when he came to consider the difference of the Greek and Hebrew Copies in the years of Methusalem's Age he could not favour their Opinion who preferr'd the Greek before the Hebrew Copies Though St. Austin readily acknowledges with the rest of the Fathers that work to be the work of the Prophets He relates the Opinion of some persons of his Age in these words They admit not that here might be a greater mistake of the Interpreters De Civit. Dei l. 15. c. 11. rather than that it should be false in that Language from whence the Scripture was translated into our Language by the Greek but they say it was not likely that the LXX Interpreters who at one and the same time agreed in sense could err or would impose a falshood where no Interest could sway them But the Jews while they bear us ill will because the Law and the Prophets are become common with us by Interpretation have made some alterations in their Copies to lessen the Authority of ours This Opinion or rather Suspition let every one accept as he thinks good but certain it is that Methuselah liv'd after the Flood Here St. Austin seems to be guided rather by the weight of reason than a cloud of Writers who as he well knew did not make a right computation of Methuselah's Years Wherefore handling the same Argument again he openly affirms that he cannot agree with them who believ'd that the Jews had corrupted their Scripture of set purpose He denies that the Jews being a People scatter'd into all parts of the World could joyn in such an Universal Conspiracy to a Falshood that should be never discover'd At length he adds I could never doubt but that it would be well done that when there is any thing of variance found in both Copies when there cannot be Truth in both let the Truth be judged by that Language out of which the Translation was made by the Interpreter And that St. Austin should be of this Opinion contrary to the Judgments of almost all the Doctors of his Age nothing but the Truth over-rul'd him I wish that other with St. Austin would rather consider the things themselves then the Authority of others For this Diversity in Opinion might easily be reconcil'd I pass by the Testimony of other Fathers of whose names Leo Castro gives us a long scroll to little purpose for it will be sufficient to produce them who understood the Hebrew Language For it would be an idle thing to produce Witnesses that know nothing of the business Among the Greeks only Origen among the Latines only Jerom applied himself to the understanding of the Hebrew Language For to omit all the rest Epiphanius whom Jerom cryes up for his knowledge of five Languages having a smattering of Hebrew understood nothing of the Critical Learning St. Jerome scrupl'd not to call Origen next after the Apostles Master of the Church by reason of his singular Learning especially in the Scriptures but if we seriously consider Origens Hebraick Industry we shall find him but meanly vers'd in that Language But for that he is to be pardoned that grasping at many things he sometimes speaks not so exactly imitating Philo and such kind of Authors But he was furnished with Hebrew Learning sufficient to understand the discrepancies of various Editions Origens Opinion concerning the Jewish Manuscr explained though he were inferiour to St. Jerome in that particular Therefore his Judgment concerning the Purity of the Hebrew Text is not to be despis'd These Writers that promote the Jewish Copies bring many Quotations out of Origen by which they seem to traduce the Jews for being Corrupters of the Sacred Writings Thus in reference to the words of Jeremy The Sin of Juda is written with an iron Pen he argues the Jews to have plainly falsify'd who translate the words their Sin instead of the Sin of Judah Again in the Epistle which he wrote to African concerning the History of Susanna he asserts that the Jews have cut off many passages from their Bibles lest they should be read by the Plebeians We must say that as to those things which contained the Reproach of Elders Magistrates and Judges they took away as much as they could from the knowledge of the people which are kept among their Arcana And as an example of that Corruption he brings what the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews relates of Isaiah and affirms that the words there written concerning the Prophets they were stoned they were sawed and put to several deaths are not in the publish'd Bibles but that the words concerning Isaiah's being cut in two with a Saw were taken by Tradition and preserved in some secret place Which saith he was craftily of set purpose done perhaps by the Jews some undecent words being inserted into Scripture to abrogate the belief of the whole Other Examples he adds but of the same kind in the same place and all to prove the same thing which Christ in the New Testament objects to
greater than of the Synagogue Who can be ignorant that the Authority of the Church has not been able to make good the Purity of its own Exemplars or to justifie them from being clear from all manner of faults when the Version of the Seventy Interpreters of which the Eastern and Western Church made use has not been entire from the very time of Origen However I readily grant that the Hebrew Exemplar is to be chiefly preferr'd for the Christians borrowâ—d the Books of Scripture from the Jews and not the Samaritans Only the Authority of any Assembly whatever does not make a Book to be without Errour or Fault but only declares it to be receiv'd and fit for practice There are also other faults with which the defenders of the Hebrew Text load the Samaritan Copies For first they enendeavour to prove it mutilated by the Example of some few words and then they say that some words are foisted into the place of others They also object the differences of the Hebrew and Samaritan Texts one with another as also the carelesness of the Scribes who confound the Letters Aleph and Ain He and Heth and other Letters resembling in form But they kill themselves with their own weapons when the same things may be objected against the Hebrew Texts themselves In this the Patrons of the Jewish Text are deceived The Samaritan text vindicated because that out of a preconceiv'd Opinion of some of the Jews they think it to be free from all Errour which is to be only affirm'd of the Originals We have already shew'd you that the manner of writing of the Hebrew Context was very inconstant and perhaps more free than among the Samaritans who never hunted after the Trifles of Jewish Allegories Even in this the Samaritan Codex's excel the Jewish for that many things which Superstition foisted into the one are wanting in the other To this we may add that the Hand and Character of the Samaritan Text plainly proves Antiquity On the other side the Jewish Manuscripts being reform'd by several Ages at length obtain'd the name of Masoreticks Lastly the Jewish Text may in many things be illustrated by the Samaritan Thus Gen. 2. we read in the Hebrew that God finish'd his work upon the Seventh Day but in the other upon the Sixth Day which seems to be the more proper Lection Gen. 4. This Sentence which is in the Samaritan Let us go into the field v. 8. seems to be wanting in the Hebrew and many of the Jews mark this gap in the Margin of their Scriptures in these words pausa in medio versus a rest in the middle of the Verse I know that St. Jerom in his Hebraick Questions upon Genesis has observ'd this Pericope for superfluous both in the Greek and Samaritan Exemplars Superfluous saith he is that in the Samaritan and our Volume Let us go into the field But it appears that St. Jerom in these Questions where he professes himself an Assertor of the Jewish Text did not speak so much his own as the Opinion of the Jews Exod. 12. where we read that the sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years the Samaritan Exemplar comprehends Their Fathers with the Children or the sojourning of the Patriarchs in the same Egypt Which Lection agrees with the Truth but is not Jewish But it might have been that they supply'd all these things in their Books and that they might have been glosses for the Explanation of the Hebrew Text which is frequently very obscure On the other side there are several things written with more freedom in the Samaritan Codex which seem to have been added for Illustrations sake out of other parts of the Pentateuch by some of the Samaritan Doctors Which Supplements without doubt argue the Copy to be vitious In like manner the word Garizim Deut. 17. which they have put in the place of Ebal which was the Antient Reading shews that the Samaritans were not over-religiously exact in their Copies whence it is manifestly evinc'd that neither the Samaritan nor Jewish Exemplar are free from all manner of Errour so that they are to be lookt upon as Copies of one and the same Book which may be useful to one another yet so that the Jewish Copy though it have its Imperfections is to be preferr'd before the Samaritan not only because all Religion and the Scripture descended from the Jews to the Christians but because the Exemplars seem to be less obnoxious to Errours However that ought to be no impediment but thaâ— the Jewish Copy may be mended by the Samaritan where a manifest Errour shall appear and the Samaritan Lection preferr'd before the Jewish if it be more correspondent to Truth For indeed the Reading of the Hebrew Text among the Samaritans seems to be nothing near so strict in regard their Copies make no use of pointed Vowels which confine the manner of Reading the Hebrew Context And it is certain that Points were a Modern Invention of the Jews nor are they added to those Volumes which are made use of in the publick Synagogues And there I think the Samaritans rather to be commended than blam'd for retaining their Antient form of Letters The Excellenâ—y of the Samaritan Codex Besides they have a Tradition for the Reading of the Text as the Jews had before the Points were invented by the Doctors of Tyberias Lastly The Samaritans excel the Jews in this that they have retain'd the Antient or Mosaick Characters of the Hebrew Language whereas the Jews upon their return from Babylon devoted themselves wholly to the Babylonian or Chaldaean to which they had been accustom'd which was the reason why the Samaritans first accus'd the Jews especially Esdras as a corrupter of the Sacred Text of Scripture But laying these Quarrels aside let us in a few words examine what may be thought of the first Hebrew Letters For the Samaritan Characters the sounder sort of Criticks and the Antient Coins of the Samaritan Nation fairly plead so that Joseph Scaliger gives them the Title of Asses who will not subscribe to the Opinion of St. Jerom where he says That certain it is Prolog Galeat that Esdras the Scribe Doctor of the Law after the taking of Jerusalem and restoration of the Temple under Zerobabel found out other Letters which we now make use of whereas till that time the Hebrew and the Samaritan Characters were the same This Opinion of St. Jerom concerning the Samaritan Characters was renew'd not long since by Guilielmus Postellus Blancuccius Villalpandus Morinus Capellus Mayerus Perescius and among the Jews by R. Azarias and several others Postellus who had long convers'd with the Jews attributes the cause of that change to the hatred which the Jews had to the Samaritans as being Schismaticks That Party says he who intermix'd with the True Religion the Worship of Idols In Alph 12. Linguar c. de Samar is adjudged by a grave and pious person to
Language of which Perescius testifies himself to have one in his Epistle to Morinus Pestellus also makes mention of their Grammar Which Writings were they Printed would give great Light into the Samaritan Language and how the Samaritans pronounce the Hebrew and what signification they give to some more difficult words CHAP. XII Of the Bibles of the Sadduces and Karraeans Of the Bibles of the Sadduces CErtain it is that the Sect of the Sadduces in the time of Christ's being upon Earth was the most noble Sect and one which had the chief management of the Publick Affairs among the Jews But after the Destruction of Jerusalem and that the Jews were scattered into several parts of the World that famous Sect became so entirely extinct that there is not the least footstep of it There only remain'd the Sect of the Pharisees whose Room the Rabbanists and Talmudists vulgarly so call'd in after-times usurped For they are the same with the Pharisees whose Traditions the Jews so greedily swallow'd and ador'd as if proceeding from the mouth of God Therefore the Scriptures of the Old Testament came to the Christians from the Pharisees and not from the Sadduces Vossius de Septuagint Interpret c. 17. But in this Isaac Vossius and several others seem to have been deceiv'd St. Jerom himself being their guide and directer while they affirm that the Sadduces in imitation of the Samaritans translated no more than the five Books of Moses For what reason was there why the Sadduces who were but a late Sect among the Jews after the Volumes of the Prophets were confirm'd by the publick practice of Reading should only believe in Moses Therefore there is no question to be made but the Sadduces receiv'd all the Books of Sacred Text or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that was written rejecting only the Traditions of the Pharisees which seem'd to them to be only the Figments of idle persons More notoriously do they mistake who believe the Carraeans to have followed the Samaritans in this particular And which seems almost incredible Isaac Vossius otherwise a Learned Person places the Carraeans among the Ebionites Nazareans and other Sects of the Jews who retaining the Ceremonies of the Mosaick Law believ'd the Gospel Therefore it behoves us to relate in short what the Sect of the Carraeans was and what was their Opinion concerning the Sacred Scriptures The word Karrai from whence the Carraeans derive their name signifies a man exercis'd in the Reading of Scripture But that name which was formerly reverenc'd became to be hated by reason of the Sect of the Carraeans that first began to spread it self toward the beginning of the 10th Century They like the Rabbanists allow of twenty four Books of Scripture with the Tittl'd Vowels and other Masoretick Marks In expounding the Sacred Scriptures they follow the Masoretick Lection every where esteeming it no less than Aben Ezra Kimchi or any other of the Jewish Grammarians and in imitation of them are great searchers after Grammatick Quirks Therefore was Buxtorf horribly mistaken where he writes We have read of the Carraeans who rejecting all the Traditions only adhere to the Text that they not only differ extreamly one with another De pâ—nctor Antiquitat as to the understanding and Exposition of things but also in the Reading of Scripture as refusing points which they look upon as a piece of Oral Law or Tradition Buxtorf had had a quite contrary Opinion concerning the Carraeans if he had lighted upon those Books which he seems not to have been furnish'd withal For they do not altogether reject the Talmud and Traditions of the Jews but they presume not to compare them with the Sacred Scriptures as the Rabbanists And therefore laying those aside they endeavour after the manner of the Criticks who are free from all prejudice to draw forth that which seems to them to be the truest sense of Scripture by comparing one place with another taking little notice of the Talmudick Expositions which many times make large Excursions far from the matter And therefore if the Jewish Rabbanists speak ill at any time of the Carraeans as Corrupters of the Biblick Context it proceeds out of meer Envy and Malice not from heat of Dispute All which things may be more perspicuously seen in the Books of the Carraeans themselves Aaron the Son of Joseph of the Sect of the Carraeans who wrote the Commentaries upon the Law An. 1294. at the beginning of his Book deplores the lamentable state of the Jews and their being scattered into all parts of the World asserting that Vision and Prophecy was taken from them and that they had almost forgotten the Hebrew Language But saith he several Doctors appear'd among the Israelites who searched out the Scripture which contains the 24 Books in use among us Therefore the Carraeans do not agree with the Samaritans upon this point but with the Rabbanists allow the whole Scripture to be Canonical and Regular And they also frequently call it a Prophecy thereby to distinguish it from those other Traditions which the rest of the Jews are not afraid to obtrude upon us In the same place he rebukes the Cabbalick Doctors who many times propound for Scripture the Figments and Fables of their own Brains and to use his own expressions depend upon the Cabbala and tattle idle stories and boast their Cabbala or Tradition to be above the Scripture However the Carraeans do not reject all manner of Tradition but they separate the ridiculous and uncertain from that which has some appearance of Truth as the same Carraean openly testifies in these words Nor let any one object to us that we are Enemies to the Writing Reason and Doctrine deliver'd to us by our Ancestors For this Tradition which we make use of was not lost and is comprehended in true Scripture not seated in variety concerning which the Israelites in all things agree This is that Tradition which caus'd them to approve by their Authority the Masoretick Scripture receiv'd by all the rest of the Jews with the Points and Accents which will be still more apparent from the above quoted Commentary of the Carraean It is a wonderful thing how studious this Carraean was of Modern Lection and Grammar when they appear useful to the Explication of Scripture Sometimes he appeals to the most celebrated Masters of the Jewish Rabbanists to confirm his Opinion by their Testimonies sometimes he refutes them especially the Cabbalistick and Allegorical Doctors But much oftener he has recourse to the Analogy of Grammar than to the Testimonies of others Thus at the beginning of his Exposition of Genesis he has these words Bereschith is of the same form as Scherith only that Aleph is not pronounc'd Now it is known that the word Reschith is a word that signifies time and that it denotes the time that precedes or that which is first of all as Exod. c. 23. The first of the Fruits of thy Land he adds in
this place that Reschith is a name of time then he reproves a certain Rabby by the name of R. Jesua who believes that the Angels were from the beginning and opposes to him the Opinion of the Misnick Doctors that the Angels were not created the first day and makes it out from the words of Scripture that there was nothing that day created and that this was the common Opinion of the Interpreters Upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 PLACE = marg Gen. 1. Vâ—haarets and the Earth he observes that the Vau prefix'd to this word ought to be taken like the Phe Raphatum of the Arabick Language and that it is not a servant to the word but the beginning of the word That the name of Elohim is proper to the Judges to which he adds that after the word Eloah was found out then we understood Elohim to be a Plural and then calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leshon Tifearath a word of honour or ornament He explains the properties genuine signification of Tohu Bohu and Coshech and illustrates those by other places of Scripture and refutes a nameless person who believes the word Coshech to signifie the Elementary Fire He says that Merachepeth is of the Dagesh Conjugation or Piel He expounds the force of this Sentence according to the Letter and resolves many difficulties arising as well from the Context as from the Exposition of the Interpreters Upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he makes these Observations the Letter He in the word Laielah is meerly additional and there is the same account to be given of all words ending in He whose Accent is Mileel Where we read in the Latin Interpretation Let us make man and in the Hebrew Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nagnaseh who reproves some Interpreters who thought it was to be expounded I will make as if it were written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because in some places the Letters Ethan Aleph Jod Tau and Nun are chang'd one into another which Rule the Carraean does not disapprove but only here denies it to have any effect Upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mechelbehen Of their Fat which is writ with a Tzeri under Beth he makes this note this word is mark'd with a Tzeri under Beth because it is in the Plural to distinguish it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chelbam their Fat which is written with a Scheva and it happens to be without a Jod which is a sign of the Plural number as in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Becol Phagnalec In all thy works and in many other Examples of the same nature In the third Chapter of Genesis he observes upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where that it is read with a Dagesh between the latter Caph for ornaments sake Now by the quoted Examples I suppose there is no person but may easily collect that the Carraeans observe the Modern Reading of the Hebrew Text and depend wholly upon the Masoretick Copies accurately observing the niceties of pointed Vowels and Accents Frequently in this Carraean Author are read these words Great Pathach Little Pathach Hateph Kamets Cholem Sheruc for so he writes it and no Schurec and many of the like nature which are the Inventions of the Jewish Grammarians Nor does he shew himself less experienced in Philosophy and Theology than in Grammar But I pass by these things as being far from our purpose only I will say something concerning their Theology lest any should hereafter confound the Carraeans with the Samaritans as if both did not acknowledge the Immortality of the Soul Therefore upon these words The Theology of the Carraeans Let us make man in our likeness the Carraean so often already quoted observes That the Soul of man consisted of superiour things but the Body of the form of inferiour things for which he brings this reason For that the Soul of man subsists no otherwise than the Angels and adds at last the World shall be for the sake of the Soul Much to this purpose was observ'd by that Jew who over-viewed the Constantinopolitan Edition of the Book Juchasin For in the first page of that Book Hence saith he it appears thaet the Carraeans are not the Sadduces of our Age for they acknowledge Reward Punishment and Resurrection Lastly This Carraean doing the part of a Learned Interpreter of the Scripture reproves exceedingly the method of the Cabbalistick Rabbies who follow the meer trifles of Allegories In the same manner he most sharply rebukes all those things which are feigned concerning the Tree of Life Every one says he has taken up that Argument as a Parable but then proceeding know says he that all which is there written is literally true And then as an Example of their Allegories he produces what those Cabbalistick Doctors dream vulgarly concerning the Serpent They say says he That the Serpent was as big as a Camel and that Samuel rode upon him And that God sporting with the Camel rode upon him also They farther tell us We must not read Tunicas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Coats of the Skin but Tunicas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Coats of Light Which ridiculous Expositions he utterly exclaims against They depend upon their Ancestors for most of those Expositions and others like to them And then cursing those idle Interpreters that abuse their own leisure Woe be to him that impudently undertakes such a work He also doth refuse several Readings which those Doctors of their own brains frivolously intrude into Scripture To that purpose he rebukes certain Interpreters who in the first words of Genesis for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Resch read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Daleth There are some saith he that change Resch into Daleth but it is a fiction of their little brains In the same manner he girds them severely that divide the word Bohu into two words as if it were to be read in the Text Bo Hu. And thus much for the Sect of the Carraeans Now let us return to the Jewish Rabbanists from whom we made this digression CHAP. XIII Of the Targumim of the Jews or the Translations of Sacred Scripture and first of the Chaldee Paraphrases THE Hebrew Language remain'd so long entire and familiar to the Jews while the Prophets abode in Jerusalem who made their Sermons to the People in the Hebrew Tongue which was then understood by all But being carried Captive to Babylon they forgot their own Language at least all the vulgar people Wherefore upon their return to Jerusalem they could not understand the Law of Moses but with the assistance of the Rabbies who interpreted the same in the Babylonish or Chaldee Idioms To which purpose we read in Nehemiah that Esdras made him a Pulpit whence he spake to the People and together with the Levites read in the Law of God distinctly and with a loud voice to be understood And after that Then spake Nehemiah and Esdras the
which if not taken Allegorically after the manner of the Cabbala as the Jews themselves write are manifestly false for the same reason if we are not as attentive to the words as to the manner of writing proper to the Jewish Nation the History of the 72. Interpreters not improbably will seem to spring from the same Fountain whether it really was approved of by the immediate Authority of the Sanhedrim or whether through connivance publickly read in their Synagogues it at length by long use became Authentick which truly seems more agreeable than what the false Aristaus says of the Approbation of the Greek Translation in these words Arist of the 70. near the end The Translation being finished Demetrius did first read it to all the Jews who were assembled in the place where it was perfected the Translators were also by who were complemented and caressed by the Body of the Jews as Authors of so great a good and in like manner they gave Demetrius his due Praise and earnestly requested that he would grant a Copy of that Translation to their Rulers As soon as that Volumn of the Law was read the Standers-by the Priests the Interpreters Elders and Governors of the City and the Rulers of the People said thus because that Interpretation was throughout so exact accurate and divine it is reasonable it should remain so and that no alteration be made therein But if the Men of Alexandria were as skilful in the Greek as in the Hebrew that they could judge from a bare Reading of the goodness and exact Agreement of the Greek Translation with the Hebrew Context why did their King so earnestly desire Strangers when he might have made use of their help And then who can believe that the Hellenist Jews but indifferently versed in the Hebrew could be competent Judges of the Translation from a superficial reading when the Learned of our times well skill'd in both Tongues dare not pretend to it Wherefore what is commonly quoted out of Josephus Philo and others in the behalf of the sincerity of the septuagint Translation is of no Moment neither can it make against the Hebrew Originals because there is nothing of the Greek Translation of the 70. in these Writers but what was first taken out of the false Aristeus Judgment of the Greek transl Although I reject the Story of the 70 Interpreters which goes under Aristeuâ—'s Name as an Invention of the Hellenist Jews yet I would not detract from that Translation which for a long time hath had a Reputation in the Synagogue and Church For I know how much the Antients esteemed this Translation since it was praised by the Apostles and the Christian Religion by no other Testimony propagated through the whole World most Churches do to this day retain it perhaps the Sea of Rome would use it to this time if St. Jerome had not made a new Translation from the Original Hebrew these and other reasons easily to be produced manifestly declare this Translation to be of great moment but it doth not hence follow as is the opinion of Isaac Vossius and some others that this Translation is the only true and least Corrupted Peice of Scripture and to be preferred before the Hebrew Copies It hath been a receiv'd opinion among the Ancient Fathers of the Church that they could have nothing sound in Scripture but what they had had Translated from the LXX because the Church owe its Birth and Growth to their Translation Origen dared not Dissent from this opinion although he hath acknowledged a great difference between the Greck and Hebrew Copies and as he hath testified of himself and hath exercised his ingenuity upon all the Editions of the Bibles and their differences There is no need says he that I speak of Exodus Orig. Epist to African where the Appurtenances of the Tabernacle its Court and Ark where the Vestments of the High Priest and Priests are very much altered insomuch that the Sence doth not seem to be the same let us take heed therefore that we do not imprudently and ignorantly abrogate the Copies which are in many Churches In this passage Origon favours the Septuagint Translation more than the Hebrew Original for this reason least he should be thought to bring Novelties and Corruption into the Church yet at other times among the Learned he did more highly value the Hebrew Verity neither truly the Ancient Church which suspected the Jews sincerity could or ought to have any other opinion of their Copies But the Judgment of St. Jerâ—m and the Learned Fathers of our times ought to be preferred for the Antient Fathers only skilled in the Greek or Latin Tongue could not be positive in things not understood by them but we in this Age can compare the Hebrew Originals with the Greek and pass our Judgments upon them Neither can the Authority of the Apostles who had recourse only to the Greek and not to the Hebrew be any Argument to the contrary What benefit could the Apostles who sowed the first Seeds of the Gospel through the World reap from the Hebrew Copy at that time understood but by a few Jews But as for the Greek Cicero for Arch the Poet. it was become as Cicero doth Testifie the Mother Tongue to most Nations The Apostles there did not use the Greek because they were more perfect than the Hebrew Copies but with Judgment because it was adopted to the genius of those who were to be instructed in the knowledge of the Scriptures the Authority therefore which the Greek Translation of the 70. acquired was extrinsick neither was it the more correct because praised by the Apostles in the new Testament if it were corrupted before their time In like manner the Authority of the Hebrew context it not lesâ—ed because less familiar to the Apostles and the first Fathers of the Church but as the Fathers of the Councel of Trent by their Decree by which the Antient vulgar Translation was made Authentick had left the Hebrew and Greek Copies untoucht In like manner the use of the Greek Translation in the Church time out of mind did not diminish the Credit and Integrity of the Hebrew The Septuagint hath it faults even from the Infancy of the Church many of which Sir Jerom hath marked I do not speak of those which Jerom taking too much Liberty in following his own fancy sometimes doth not so well Correct The Western Church hath patronized Jeroms Censure in leaving the Greek Translation of the 70 so long and so universally used for Jeroms new Translation from the Hebrew Nor were the reasons mean which induced Jerom to this new Translation from the Hebrew Original which afterwards was deservedly used by the Church for as he himself testifieth the many errors in the Greek were not the sole cause of the undertaking of that work which many speak of but that also he had found from his exact knowledg in both Tongues the Greek Interpreters had not
regard to the Chaldee Language which was familiar to most of the Jews after their Return from Captivity There was at that time neither Chaldee or Syriac Paraphrase yet long before that the Rabbies as well in their Synagogues as Schools read the Scripture Text as often in the Chaldee as the Hebrew Language whence it might come to pass that several words in the Greek Translation were more adapted to the Idiom of the Chaldee or Syriac Tongue then the propriety of the Hebrew Speech The same Vossius invented another Fiction De Sybil orac asserting that until the Time when Aquila flourished there was no other Scripture read in the Synagogues of the Jews then the Version of the Septuagint in regard the Hebrew Language was so forgotten that the Rabbies themselves did not understand it But the 70 Interpreters as Vossius will have it Vossius's Errors flourished at what time the Hebrew Language was familiarly spoken But the Hebrew Language was no more a Familiar Speech in the time of the 70 Interpreters then it was when Aquila lived For that it was abolished after the Jews were carried Captive into Babilon and after their return it ceased to be any longer the Language of the Country How then could it be that it should only continue among the Rabbies who taught it publickly in the Synagogues and Schools or if it be true that till the Time of Aquila there was no other Scripture read in all the Synagogues of the Jews but the Greek Interpretation of the 70 Interpreters How came it to pass that Flavius Josephus expounded the Law of Moses in the Hebrew Language as Vossius affirms and moreover that the same Josephus the most learned of all the Hebrews of his Age set forth his History of the Jews in the Hebrew Language before he wrote it in Greek Yet if we may believe Vossius the Hebrew Language was then wholly lost If it were so why does he call it the Country Language of Josephus He 'l never agree with any who disagrees with Himself It is manifest also from the Writings of Josephus that the Jews of Palestine and the Territories adjacent spake the Hebrew Language which they learnt by practise without any Grammatical Rules which were not invented till after six Hundred as Vossius would have it but not till after nine Hundred Years and more In which sence as Vossius relates Josephus reports of himself that he excell'd in the learning of his Country all the rest of the Jews but that he learnt the Greek by Grammatical Instructions Now he calls his Country Learning the knowledge of the Hebrew Language the Law of Moses which the Hyerosolymitan Jews read in the Hebrew Language in their Synagogues Nevertheless if we believe Vossius who frequently contradicts himself Christ and his Apostles spake Greek in Judea Wherever saith he from the time of Alexander the Great the Grecians dilated their Conquests there also the Greek Language prevailed and a little after as in Egypt Asia and the rest of Syria so also in Judea there was no other Language spoken especially in great Towns and Cities Yes there was in Egypt besides the Greek the Coptick in Syria the Syriac in Judea the Judeac or Chaldee Syriac Vossius might have learnt from the Evangelists that the Language of the Jews who Inhabited Jerusalem which ought to be numbered among great Towns and Cities was the Chaldee or Syriac and that Christ did not speak to the Jews of that City in Greek but in Syriac Which Language the Jews who inhabited that Country afterwards retained tho corrupted as may be prov'd by the Example of the Talmud which is vulgarly called the Hierosolymitan and the Language also wherein that Book is written is called the Hierosolymitan But among the Babylonian Jews as at that time so a great while after the Chaldâ—e Language was most Familiar who have also their Talmud written in the same Language For the most Ancient Books of the Jews except some very few were not written in any other Language then the Impure Chalduic But there is no reason we should spend any longer time in refelling the Assertions of Vossius which have nothing in 'em of Probability Such as are those things which he delivers concerning the Jewish Traditions Voss de Sybill Orac. which he will have to be written in the Gâ—eek Language before Justinian's Raign and of the Book Misua which was translated about that time out of the Greek into the Hebrew because by an Edict of Justinians the Jews were prohibited to read the Book of Traditions in their Synagogues Therefore saith Vossius to elude that command of the Emperor the Book was Translated into Hebrew Risum teneatis Amici But if the Learned Gentleman had apply'd his mind to the Edict of Justinian The Hebrew Text read in the Synagogues of the Hellenists Justin Novel vel Constitut 146. he might have found that the Hebrew Text was read not only at Jerusalem but in the Synagogues of the Hellenists Which is apparently evident from the very words of the Justinian Law We are given to understand That some having only the knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue are desirous to make use of that in the Reading of the Scriptures that others will also take in the Greek Edition We therefore having considered these things believe them to do best who make use of the Greek Translation also in reading the Scriptures and every other Language purely which the place makes more convenient and fitter for the hearers This Law of Justinian supposes the Jews to be of two sorts of which some being wholly addicted to the Hebrew Language read the Scripture in their Synagogues in the Hebrew Language only others because they understood the Greek made use of the Greek Translation likewise By the Edict of Justinian they are permitted to read the Scripture not only in Greek but in any other Language whatsoever Therefore all the Hellenist Jews in obedience to the Law of Moses never read the Scriptures in their Synagogue in any other then in the Hebrew Language to which soon after their Domestic Native Language succeeded Nor is this any way contradicted by the Testimonies of the Antient Jews and Fathers from whom it is apparent that the Jews of Alexandria and all those other Jews to whom the Greek was familiar read the Greek Version of the 70. Interpreters in their Synagogues In like manner it appears that there were certain Synagogues in Jerusalem in which the Law of Moses and the Prophets were read in the Greek Language All these and many other Arguments that might be here collected together serve only to prove that the Reading of the Greek Interpretation was only added for exposition's sake to the reading of the Hebrew Text. As now in our days the Jews according to their ancient Custome every Sabbath day read both in Hebrew and Chaldee because that in the Ancient Synagogues there were both Readers and Expounders which Gift or
Function of Interpreter or Prophet was Translated out of the Synagogue to the Christian Assemblies as appears by the Apostles words in his first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 4. Hence perhaps it came to pass that the Greek Interpretation of the Septuagint in some places less accurately expresses the words of the Hebrew Text in regard that they who made it supply'd the office of Paraphrasters rather then of Interpreters especially in those places that were most obscure But as I have not leisure so do I neither care to refute at present all those things which Vossius has at large produc'd to defend the Translation of the 70 Elders and to magnifie the Exemplars of the Jews against all manner of probability Therefore it will be much more to the purpose to compare St. Jeroms Version with the Greek in some places thence to make manifest how truly Vossius has averr'd that St. Jerom never deviated upon right grounds from the Ancients Resp ad Critic and that he was the first amongst the Christians who compill'd a Rabbinic Version and shew'd others the way to dare as much Far different was the Judgment which Austin Eugubinus gave of St. Jeroms Version which is now read in the Eastern Church Austin Eugub in prefat lib. de Vulg. Edit his words are these Thus if you compare the Hebrew Text with the Edition of the Seventy I might be bold to use this simile in asserting that you compare Light with Darkness Which we shall make out in every part of this Treatise Certainly we shall find this to be so unnecessary to the Church that unless the Divine Jerom had bless'd us with this effect of his Industry we had necessarily remain'd to this day in many Errors I shall therefore cull the Examples of this Comparison out of the Prophets The Greek Version compar'd with the Latin of S. J. roâ— which St. Jerom Translated out of the Hebrew and illustrated with his Commentaries both being extant as well the Old as the New Translation in his Works However it is not my purpose to vindicate St. Jerom from all his slighter mistakes as Vossius earnestly undertakes to vindicate the 70 Interpreters In regard that several things have slipt St. Jerom tho' otherwise most learned while he too much addicted to the Jews of his Time many times too severely corrects the Greek Interpreters But that the Learned Father was so many times deceiv'd as he deviated from them according to Vossius's judgment Isa 2.22 I utterly deny In the Second Chapter of his Comment upon Isaiah upon these words Cease from Man whose breath is in his Nostrils for wherein is he to be accompted of He wonders that the 70 Interpreters omitted to Translate into the Greek so perspicuous a Prophesie of Christ as it seems to him to be and he condemns the Jews for interpreting the word which in the Hebrew is ambiguous in the worst sence Now under the name of the Jews in that place he taxes Aquila and other Interpreters who of set purpose compill'd a different Translation from the Septuagint to which the Jews forsaking the Ancient Interpretation had recourse Now whether this Omission be to be attributed to the Transcribers or to the 70 themselves I shall not now enquire seeing it is certain that those words were not in the Greek Copies before Origen's Time the words being added with a mark of little Asterisms in the Edition of Aquila Nor do I dispute of the excellency of St. Jeroms Translation whether it be to be preferr'd before that of Aquila But hence I infer that St. Jeroms Translation was erroneously call'd Rabbinical by Vossius as if St. Jerom now being old had given credit to the Jews alone in compiling his Translation of the Hebrew Text. In the 5 Chapter of the same Prophet 17 Verse where St. Jerom Translates it according to the propriety of the Hebrew words And the Lambs shall feed after their manner he taxes the 70 Interpreters for that for what reason he understood not they had Translated the words They shall feed rent in pieces like Bulls Understanding Bulls instead of Lambs and for Strangers interpreting Lambs Nevertheless the Hebrew words are not intricate here and the sence is open St. Jerom also reproves the Greek Interpreters for Translating the Text Isa 6.8 And who will go for us Because it is Lanu in the Hebrew and who shall go to this People which words are not in the Hebrew But perhaps instead of Lanu the read Laam or else the same words which follow after Go to this People are here added for Explanations sake in regard the Pronoun lls signifies nothing there as in many other places But much more worthy Observation are those things which St. Jerom reports upon these words which he had Translated according to the Hebrew Text Blind the heart of this People and load the Ears of it when the Greek interpretation seems much more kindly wherein it was written And the heart of this people became obdurate But they who understand the Hebrew Language know well that this variance might proceed from the different pointing of the Vowels and the 70 follow'd the pronunciation most usual in their own time which was different from what was practic'd when St. Jerom liv'd and this is demonstrable from the Mascretic Exemplar Both Readings are confirm'd by Tradition But the Greek is here to be preferr'd before St. Jeroms because the Apostle follow'd it in the Acts of the Apostles However St. Jerom answers to these objections that this Reading ought to be attributed rather to St. Luke the Evangelist then the Apostle Comment in c. 6. Isa The ancient Doctors of the Church saith he report that St. Luke was a most skilful Physitian and understood the Greek better then the Hebrew Wherefore his Language as well in the Gospel as in the Acts of the Apostles is more polite and savours of the Eloquence of the Times And he makes more use of the Greek then the Hebrew Testimonies Therefore St. Jerom seems to be of that Judgment that he beleiv'd that St. Paul disputing with the Hebrews did not speak according to the Septuagint but according to the Hebrew Text. But that S. Luke the Evangelist who understood the Greek perfectly and read the Greek Texts made use of Greek Quotations Like proofs to these St. Jerom produces in his Hebrew Questions upon Genesis Where weighing the Difference between the Greek and Latin Exemplars in numbring up the Sons of Jacob who journed with him into Egypt and putting the Question why Stephen in the Acts adhered rather to the Version of the Septuagint then to the Hebrew Text he thus speaks St. Luke who is the Author of that History while he was sending out among the Gentiles a volume of the Acts of the Apostles ought not to have Wrote any thing contrary to that Scripture which was now divulg'd among the Gentiles And in another place But this is generally to be observ'd
that wherever the Apostles or Apostolic men speak to the People they make use of those Quotations which were divulg'd among the People Why the Apostles us'd the Greek Version And therefore it is not to be thought that the Apostles made use of the Greek Version in their Writings because they thought the Author thereof to be inspir'd with a Divine or Prophetic Spirit or because no other Scripture was read in the Synagogues but only the Greek Version as Vossius erroneously affirms but because it was vulgarly in use and by the Testimony of St. Jerom because when the Apostles spake to the People they made use of those Quotations which were most in use among the Gentiles Quite otherwise then as they us'd to speak to the people of their own Nation who understood the Hebrew Vess Resp ad Critic Sacra But says Vossius St. Luke must of necessity have told an untruth had Stephen express'd any other Sence then what he put down in his Sermon As if there were any necessity for him to tell an Untruth who repeats the substance of a Speech in the same words only with some little Alterations of no moment Nor does the Learned Gentleman seem to reach the sence of the Author of the Critica Sacra as if he thought that Stephen had not preached his last Sermon in the Greek or vulgar Syriac but in the Hebrew Language Were the People says Vossius ignorant of the Hebrew Language in the time of the Apostles did the the Evangelist lye What will remain entire in the Gospel if we admit such Fictious as these But he rather feigns Monsters of his own for himself to vanquish afterwards Stephen preach'd in Syriac not in Greek Stephen Preached in Syriac which was then familiar to the Hierosolymitan Jews but the Quotations which he cites he could not cite in any other Language then the Hebrew because the Hierosolymitan Jews read the Law of Moses in their Synagogues in the Hebrew not the Greek Language and if any other Interpretation were added it was done in the Syriac Speech which was the vulgar Language as Vossius here freely confesses not in the Greek which was only used in the Schools and Synagogues of the Hellenists But in this I confess St. Jerom is to be corrected Comment in c. 6. Isai where he says that Matthew and John took their Citations from the Hebrew of the Old Testament forgetful of that Rule which he sets down in his Hebrew Traditions upon Genesis that is St. Jerom taxed that the Apostles and Apostolick Persons made use of the Greek Exemplars for no other reason then because they were common among the Gentiles But as for the Hebrew Copies they were kept only in the Synagogues of the Jews among whom very few were to be found who understood them On the other side the Greek Language was familiar to most Nations But it is to be observed that the Apostles though they stook to the Greek Copies yet they did not altogether so totally depend upon them but that many times they took more notice of the sence then the words Micha 5.2 Wherefore S. Jerom expounding this place of Michah and thou Bethlehem Ephratah makes this observation Some observe that in all Quotations taken out of the Old Testament there is some mistake or other that either the Order or the words are chang'd and sometimes the very sence it self varies the Apostles or Evangelists not looking in the Books but trusting to their Memories that might sometime fail them These words indeed seem somewhat too harsh nor have I quoted them that Vossius should give any Credit to them And yet he can hardly forbear at the same time to beleive John Calvin who commenting upon the same place of Micha thus observes What necessity is there to wrest the words of the Prophet when it was not the purpose of the Evangelist to repeat the words of the Prophet but only to note the Text. In like manner S. Jerom speaking his own and not the Opinion of others concerning these Quotations which are cited out of the Old Testament into the New Com. in 7. cap. Isai in many Quotations Saith he which the Evangelists or Apostles have taken out of the Old Testament we are to take notice that they do not follow the order of the words but the sence But let us now return to our purpose The first words of the ninth Chapter of the same Prophesie are hardly to be understood in the Greek Version Isai 9.1 when the sence lyes open in St. Jeroms Version St. Jerom produceth both in two distinct Colums after this manner At first the Lard of Zebulon and the Land Naphtali were lightly afflicted This was St. Jeroms Translation The Greek Version runs thus Drink this first do it quickly O Region of Zebulon and Land of Naphtali I am apt to believe the word Drink was taken from some other place which changes the sence A little after in the same Chapter St. Jerom taxes the 70 Interpreters for that instead of these words His name shall be called wonderful Counseller the Mighty God the Father of the Age to come the Prince of Peace they affrighted at the Majesty of the Titles durst not adventure to say so much of a Child that he was to be call'd God but instead of these six Titles they have put that which is not in the Hebrew Again he convinces the Grecian Interpreters of a manifest mistake that not minding the spelling of the words they have put Death instead of the Word God sent Death into Jacob whereas it should be the Word as St. Jerom interpreted it who presently adds the Original of the mistake in these words In the Hebrew Language the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is written with three Consonants according to the propriety of the places where it is used if it be read Dabar it signifies a word or speech but if Deber it signifies Pestilence and Death Not far from the beginning of the 10th Chapter of the same Prophet upon these words wo to Assur Isai 10.5 St. Jerom accuses the Interpreters for not having accurately observed the Hebrew Again in the 28. verse of the same Chapter upon these words He is come to Ajath he shews at large how much they differ from the Hebrew and taxes them of Falshood for interpreting it Rama City of Saul for the City of Saul is called Gallna as it is in the Hebrew Moreover St. Jeroms Opinion concerning the Seventy Interpreters is quite different from that of Vossius who believes there is nothing but Greek in it and that it is hardly call'd a Language that had its Original in the Synagogue For thus he speaks in his sixth Book of Commentaries Instead of stranger that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Seventy have Translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in Hebrew Ger Therefore Georas is no Greek word but an Hebrew word declin'd after the Greek
manner Vossius contrary to S. Jerome in his Judgment concerning the Language of the Septuagint which is certain notwithstanding the endeavours of a certain person to deduce the word from a Greek Original because he has the care of the business of the Land For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Land and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Solicitude or care Now how far the Greek Interpreters have deviated from the genuine sence of Scripture in the c. 24 ver 23 of the same Prophet where we read in the Latine Edition The Moon shall be ashamed and the Sun shall be confounded St. Jerom truly observes in these words Instead of that which we Interpret The Moon shall be ashamed and the Sun shall be confounded The 70. have Translated the words the Brick shall be melted and the Wall shall fall And by and by he discovers the reason of the mistake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because that instead of the Hebrew word Levana which signifies the Moon they read Lebena which signifies a Brick and instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chammah which signifies the Sun from his heat they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chomah which signifies a Wall But I stay too long upon these things in regard that St. Jeromes Commentaries upon Isaiah may be read by every body where he frequently taxes the Greek Interpreters of Mistakes sometimes deceived by the Ambiguity of words sometimes upon other accompts However sometimes he spares them as in the 30th Chapter where after he had condemned their inconstancy of Interpretation by and by as it were correcting himself he adds I am apt to believe they did not err from the beginning but that they were deprav'd by the negligence of the Transcribers And E. 40. where he notes some things omitted by the Interpreters he presently adds as it were in some doubt either omitted by the Septuagint I terpreters or by the fault of the Transcribers In like manner sometimes he corrects the Greek Exemplars according to the Hebrew Copies least the mistake should be put upon the Interpreters as upon these words Chap. 45. Thus saith the Lord to my Annointed Cyrus he truly observes that most of the Latines as well as the Greeks did very much mistake in believing the words to be written Thus saith the Lord to my Lord For the Text doth not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Lord but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Cyrus who in Hebrew is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Curosch The same things are to be seen in St. Jeromes Commentaries upon Jeremiah Ezekiel and other Prophets And indeed there is nothing more frequent in his Commentary upon Jeremiah then his observations of things omitted by the 70 or at least of passages not to be seen in the Greek Exemplars For sometimes he accuses the Interpreters sometimes the Transcribers In this Commentary also upon Ezekiel where he observes the Omission of the Creek Copies he presently adds In divine Scripture it is better to take all in that is said though thou understandest not wherefore it is said than to take away what thou dost not know Nevertheless in the 5th Chapter of the same Prophet he scarcely dares adventure to accuse the Interpreters where he says 't is much better to Translate what is written then to seek to defend a thing ill Translated Nor do we say this was done by those to whom Antiquities has given Authority but that after many Ages it was deprav'd through the negligence of the Readers and Writers though both Aristeas and Josephus and all the Schools of the Jews assert no more than only the five Books of Moses to have been translated by the 70 Interpreters Nor is it only in this place but in many other that St. Jerome seems to deny that any other part of Scripture was translated by the 70 unless the five Books of Moses as upon the 5th Chap. of Micah where he has these expressions The Interpretation of the 70 if were done by the 70 for Josephus writes and the Hebrews assert by Tradit on that only the five Books of the Law of Moses were Translated by them and dâ—livered to King Ptolomy vary's so far in the place cited from the Hebrew Truth that we can neither set the Chapters right nor expound their Sentences together But Vossius is of a quite contrary Opinion who not only seeks every where a Defence for a place ill translated to use the words of St. Jerome but openly testifies that he makes no question but that the Prophetical Books were also translated by the Seventy Interpreters though formerly he made a doubt of it And which seems to be above all belief if we may credit Vossius the Greek Interpreters shew themselves most accurate in the more obscure Books of Job and the Proverbs But I believe there is no person sikll'd in both Languages who will agree with him in this particular so trivial is the Greek Translation of those Books in many places St. Jerome sometimes taxes the Greek Interpreters without cause Yet am I not such a one as to pin my sleeve so passionately upon St. Jerome as every where to appove his Errors which are very many Thus not to go farther in the 27th Chapter of his Commentaries upon Ezekiel He taxes the Seventy Interpreters for putting down the Sons of the Rhodians instead of the Sons of Dedan deceived perhaps by the likeness of the first Letter whilst they read Radan for Dadan But that this mistake is rather to be attributed to the Transcribers then the Interpreters those Verses which follow in the same Chapter plainly demostrate where the Seventy write Dedan as in St. Jeromes Translation Again in the 33th Chapter of the same Prophet where mention is made of Gog he observes that the Greek Interpreters in the 24th of Numbers for Agag in the Hebrew have made use of the word Gog But it is a manifest mistake of the Transcriber But to omit a thousand thnigs of the same nature the Observation of St. Jerome is much better in his 40th Chapter of the same Commentaries almost all the Hebrew words and many in the Greek and Latine Translation were Corrupted by long Antiquity and deprav'd through the negligence of the Transcribers and while they are Transcribed out of bad Copies into Copies more corrected of Hebrew words they are made Sarmatic nay of no Nation at all while they cease to be Hebrew and become Forraigne Therefore are those things most carefully to be distinguished and according to the Rules of Criticism which St. Jerome taxes as ill translated by the 70. For as he has rightly display'd the most of their Errors Praef. in l. 7. Com. in Ezech. So he corrects many things which deserve not to be found fault with Nor is it to be wondred at when St. Jerome himself testifies that he could hardly compleat his Emendations in regard there was not an hour scarcely a Moment wherein he did not meet with
the Roman Printed from the Vatican Codex 1587. which was afterwards Printed a Second Time at Paris by the care of John Morinus 1628. with an antient Latin Version and is the same with the English transferr'd into their Polyglotton as being the most acurate of all The Edition of Complutum was the most full of Faults of any of the rest as being examined and mended not only by the Greek but by the Hebrew Codexes also some also attribute to Eusebius and Pamphilus a new Recognition or Emendation of the Greek Version of the Septuagint Eusebius'â— Edition but if there were any Edition of Eusebius it was little different from that of Origen For as St. Jerom reports Eusebius and Pamphilus divulged the Codex's Apâ—l adv Ruffin that were elaborately mended by Origen Eusebius also recites an Epistle of Constantine the Emperor to himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the Preparation of Books written by divine Inspiration As indeed at the end of certain Greek Exemplars the names of Pamphilus and Eusebius are to be found recorded in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pamphilus Eusebius corrected that is to say the Exemplars of Origen which were inserted into the Hexaples were afterwards transcribed by Pamphilus and Eusebius for the Churches of Palestine whence as St. Jerom relates they took the Name of the Palestine Manuscripts as those which were corrected by Hesychius were called Constantinopolitan The Palestins Constantinopolitan and Alexandrian Editioâ—â— and they that were revis'd by Lucian carryed the Name of Alexandrian And this Diversity of Editions appears in several Exemplars in our Age while some relate to those of Origen or the Palestinian others to the Alexandrian Now let us inquire what was the Order and Disposition of the Books in Origen's Hexaples which is variously controverted among the Learned Isaac Vossius promises that he will at one time or other demonstrate that Origen in putting his Haxaples together took another way then is vulgarly believ'd de Sept. Interpret l. 29. Wherefore in his answer to the late Critics he maintains that the Tetraples and Hexaples of Origen were not so call'd from the four or six Columns but that they were call'd Tetraples because they contain'd a fourfold Version Hexaples because they comprehended six Versions That the Author of the Critics errs as to the Octaples while he follows Epiphanius in his mistakes because Origen never wrote any Octables that the Hebrew Codex was never reckon'd into the Number of Versions Origens vast undertaking consider'd by reason that Origen calls the first Columns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Foundation of all Translations Vossius adds that in the Tetraples there were six Columns in the Pentateuch also seven as to which the Samaritan Exemplar might be added Printed in the Original Hebrew Letters as they are call'd by Eusebius and Africanus But because that was only done in the Pentateuch therefore the Tetraples were said to contain only six Columns by the same reason as in the Hexaples tho' in the Psal a seventh Version is also added and yet the Title of Hexaples remains because that seventy Version is wanting in other Books Thus far Vossius who nevertheless cites no other Authors but himself to shew what that new way was which he promis'd to demonstrate yet that we may give the greater credit to his words he adds Since there are no exemplar remaining or at least none hitherto to be found of Hexaples or Tetraples to contend about these things too profusely would but shew the Vanity of a person too lavishly squandring away his leisure After this manner Vossius acquits himself of his prâ—mises to display a new and unheard of Disposal of Origens Hexaples But since he never saw any Exemplars of them it will not be amiss to consult those ancient Fathers of the Church and first of all Epiphanius who describe them as Eye witnesses Dionysius Petavius a most learned Jesuit and no less vers'd in the Greek and Hebrew Codex's then Vossius asserts that no person ever more accurately deliver'd what were the Tetraples Hexaples and Octaples of Origen than Epiphanius And the same Petavius admires that they most who took what they had out of Epiphanius should be deceiv'd in a place so plain and open to the understanding and first he taxes Marianus Victorinus in his Scholiast upon the Second Book of the Apology against Ruffinus where he reproves Erasmus as he says upon the Authority of Epiphanius but very erroneously The Order therefore of the several Editions is here set down in this same Scheme out of Epiphanius himself TETRAPLES Aquila Symmackus Sepâ—uâ—gint Theodotion HEXAPLE'S Hebrew in Hebrew Letters Greek in Greek Letters Aquila Symmachus Septuagint Theodotion OCTAPLE'S Hebrew in Hebrew Letters Hebrew in Greek Letters Aquila Symmachus Septuagint Theodotion Fifth Edition Sixth Edition But saith Vossius the Tetraples and Hexaples were not so call'd from the four or six Columns but from the four fold Version because they comprehended six Translations wherein the learned Gentleman is grosly mistaken For the name of Tetraples Hexaples and Octaples was deriv'd from the number of the Editions And every Edition took up one Column or Page according to the ancient Custom of Writing out their Volumes as the words of Ruffinus plainly evince It was the Intention of Origen to shew us what was the manner of reading the Scriptures among the Jews Ruffin invect and therefore he plac'd every one of the Editions in their proper Columns or Pages The same therefore was the method of Pages and Editions in Origens Hexaples Nor are those Arguments of any moment which Vossius deduces from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Title Origen gives to his first Columns that is to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being the foundation of all Versions I would fain know what else can be thence inferr'd but that Origen had a mind to distinguish by that name the Hebrew Context from the Versions that were made from it as being the ground of all the Translations In which sence St. Jerom calls the same Context the Hebrew Truth Does it less from thence appear that the Context written in the Hexaples in Hebrew and Greek Characters took up two Columns from which equally as from the Versions each of which was written in it's distinct Pages the name of Hexaple was deriv'd Moreover it is a Fiction of the same Vossius which he fains concerning the Samaritan Codex written in the Original Hebrew Letters which was added to the Pentateuch For that was unknown to the ancient Fathers of the Church Epiphanius Jerom Ruffinus as also to Eusebius and Africanus whom he endeavours to draw to his party Neither will ever Vossius be able to demonstrate by certain Reasons what he so confidently asserts touching the Samaritan Codex which was in Origen's hands and vainly he produces for Witnesses Eusebius Africanus Syncellus nay even Origen himself who never so much as dream't in
accounted in the number of their Sons nor of Brethren to us Autor prefat in lib. J. Boys pâ—o defens vulg That Protestant Writer is afraid lest his Brethren Innovators should suffer for the Title which they bear of Reformed who taking the worst method of reforming in the World destroy instead of building up I could wish therefore that the Protestants would reconcile themselves to us seeing that if the present Matter concerning the Ancient Interpreters were more diligently considered they would rather differ in name then in reality from the Divines of the Church of Rome and now most of them carry themselves more mildly then at the beginning of the Schism since the Critica sacra of the learned Cappellus has recall'd them to a right judgement of the uncertainty of the Hebrew Context which is now commonly in the hands of every pretender to Scholarship for they found themselves to be deceived by the Inconsiderate Assertion of certain Grammarians who judged of those Ancient Interpreters by the modern Rules of the Hebrew Grammer The ancient Translation of the Eastern Church Over all the Latin Church almost from the times of the Apostles even to the Age wherein St. Jerom liv'd that Interpretation of Scripture was highest in repute which by some was call'd the Italian perhaps because it was first compil'd in Italy and thence dispersed to other Nations to which the Latin Tongue was familiar by others call'd the Old Translation by reason of it's Antiquity Among the most part it was call'd by the name of Vulgar and Common to distinguish it from those other Versions which could hardly be number'd Who was the Author of that ancient Translation is unknown However certain it is that it was taken from the Greek Translation of the Seventy Elders in regard that no person till St. Jeroms time would undertake to make a new Version from the Hebrew This Edition Flaminius Nobilius having corrected it with a Diligence beyond his Ability caus'd to be Printed at Rome 1588. 1628. which was afterwards reprinted at Paris by John Marinus together with the Vatican Greek Exemlpar but that this was the pure Version of the Latin Church made use of over all the East before St. Jeroms time no skilful Critick will presume to affirm For it could not be that Nobilius could transcribe it entire and absolutely perfect from the writers of the Fathers who did not follow it exactly themselves and if any one of them were learned in the Greek Language they did not think it lawful to make a new Interpretation from the Greek Septuagint To which we may add that St. Jerom repaired that ancient Version which he sound in some places not altogether so accurate but very much varying from it self according to the diversity of Countries and Exemplars in the reforming of which he made use of the Greek Exemplar which Origen had inserted into his Hexaples and which deviates least from the Hebrew Copies But by the venerable Fragments which are still remaining at this day we may easily perceive that St. Jerom left some faults as not being able in so laborious an undertaking to be intent upon every thing St. Jerom imitated the industry of Origen The same St. Jerom to the end he might shew himself no less profitable to those of his own Language then Origen had been to the Greeks in imitation of him publish'd that ancient Version corrected together with additions from the Hebrew Text under the mark of an Asterisk with a Dagger to shew what was superfluous Of which undertaking St. Jerom himself thus speaks writing to St. Austin That Interpretation was the Interpretation of the Seventy Elders and wherever there are any marks like Daggers they denote that the Seventy have said more then there is in the Hebrew Where there are any Asterisks or little Stars they signifie an Addition by Origen out of Theodotion and there we have Translated the Greek here we express'd from the Hebrew what we understood observing rather the Truth of Sence then the Order of the words This new Translation of St. Jerom from the Greek Exemplars was joyfully receiv'd by most Churches as being of singular use in the Explanation of Scripture and shew'd the difference between the Exemplars of the Church and the Synagogue For which how Ruffinus has fum'd and storm'd against that most learned person and so well deserving of the Church can hardly be express'd Who saith Ruffinus would have dar'd to unhallow the Instruments left by the Apostles but a judaic Spirit For Ruffinus does not speak of the Version which St. Jerom afterwards made from the Hebrew but of that which he drew from the Greek Translation of the Septuagint with some additions under the mark of the Asterisk and the little Dagger to shew what was superfluous The same Ruffinus adds many other things for which he condemns St. Jerom of which more hereafter And while St. Jerome by the example of Origen whom he pretends to have imitated in his undertaking defends himself Ruffinus replies upon him that never any Catholick hitherto had presum'd to Translate out of the Hebrew into Latin any thing of Sacred Scripture Withal he shews that Origens undertaking is far different of that of St. Jerom in regard that Origen has introduc'd no Alterations into the Ancient and generally receiv'd Version by the Church But St. Jerom answers most incomparably both to Ruffinus and all other his Detractors But as to that other Version which that most learned Father Translated in his Elder years according to the Hebrew Truth far greater difficulties arise upon it For by reason of that even among his Friends he is tax'd as an Innovator In so much that St. Austin himself could not brook that the Greek Translation which it is manifest the Apostles had us'd should be defam'd as if the Authors of it had mistak'n It will be very hard saith St. Austin writing to St. Jerom if when thy Interpretation shall begin to be frequently read in many Churches that the Greek and Latin Churches should seem to disagree Soon after he confirms the thing by example in these words A certain Brother of ours a Bishop when he had determin'd that they Translation should be read in the Church where he presides another person started an Objection that the Text was by these otherwise Translated in the Prophet Jonah then had been inculcated into the Sence and Memory of all people for so many Ages upon which there arose such a Tumult among the people the Greeks cheifly blaming and clamouring against the Calumny of the suppos'd falshood that the Bishop was forc'd to have recourse to the Testimony of the Jews For this Version St. Jerom brought upon himself the Curses of all people of which he frequently complains even to Irksomness nor is it a Treatise so much as an Apology which he every where writes What shall I do with my Calumniators who if I had diminish'd any thing from the Translation of the
70 would have clamour'd against me as one Sacrilegious and not fearing God especially they who when they differ in the Truth of Faith and follow the Errors of the Manichaeans incense the minds of the ignorant as if they could shew any thing changed from the ancient custom rather desired to err then to learn truth from one whom they Emulate And after something more of this Nature he again adds against Ruffinus and others his followers who reviling his Translation reproach him for a Heretick and an Apostate Our Latin yea envious Christians and that I may speak more plainly Hairs of the Grummian Faction bark against me why we discourse according to the Hebrew If they do not believe us let 'em read those other Editions of Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion let 'em examin the Hebrews not in one place but in several Provinces and when they find them all agree with me in my Error or Ignorance then let 'em understand themselves to be overwise and rather desirous to sleep then learn and let 'em inhabit in the 70 Cells of Alexandrian Pharos Lastly he does not spare the very Eyebrows of the Bishops to use his own words who endeavours to oppress whomsoever they see powerful in the Church and to Profess the word of God But I spend time in vain his Apologies against Ruffinus being every where to be had In which he strenuously defends the reason of his Version and shews how much he profited in his Study of the Scriptures under his Jewish Masters and how much by the same Instructors Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius and several others advantag'd themselves who while they dispute about the Scripture and endeavour to prove what they say produce the Jews for Witnesses and Patrons of their Opinions And because Ruffinus had objected to St. Jerom that while he made his Translation he was not inspired with a Prophetic but a Judaic Spirit He answers Would it not seem tedious or rather would it not savour too much of vain Glory I could shew thee what an advantage it is to wear out the Thresholds of good Masters and to learn Art from Artificers For St. Jerom wrote an Epistle to Pammachius entitled concerning the best manner of Translating wherein he refuses the Calumnies of one Palladius who at the Insligation of Ruffinus had bespattered his Translation He there shews by many Examples that it is not the duty of a good Translator to translate his Authors verbatim when neither the 70 Interpreters nor the Evangelists follow'd that Method of Translation Aquila saith he a Prosel te and contentious Interpreter who endeavoured to Translate not only the words but the Etymologies of words is deservedly rejected by us Concerning the 70 Interpreters in the same Epistle he has this expression It is new too long to enumerate how much the 70 have added of their own how much they have omitted which in the Exemplars belonging to the Church are distinguish'd by Lines and Asterisks These and many other things of the same Nature he throws together into the same Epistle to vindicate his own method or Translation somewhat more free and loose then some of the rest from the Calumnies of his Adversaries and to the end his Detractors might understand That the sence and not the words were to be considered in Scripture Let 'em not think saith he that the State of the Church is endangered by me if through hast of dictating I have omitted some words Readily therefore St. Jerom acknowledges that in framing a new Translation of the Sacred Text he chiefly consulted the Jews as his Leaders and Instructors neither does he question but that many things might slip him as a man so far was he from the Opinion of those who asserted him in that undertaking to be inspir'd with the Holy Ghost whom Mariana egregiously refutes What avails it saith that learned Jesuite after so many Ages to strain for new Fictions to set up new Prophets Shall we call him a Prophet who in the framing his Translation follows sometimes the Greek Interpreters sometimes the Jews of his Age upon whom he more frequently depends Can he be said to be a Prophet who frequently but chiefly in his Commentaries upon the Prophets doubts of the Genuine Signification of the Hebrew Words 'T is true I knew Pagninus and other Writers especially of the Protestant Belief who deny'd that Version to be St. Jeroms which for many Ages has been read in the Eastern Churches but if you except some few Books of that translation which it is certain were not rendred by St. Jerom as they are extant in the Edition no person truly candid will deny but that this Interpretation which goes about under the Title of the Vulgar was really made by St. Jerom though there be something in it of the ancient Latin Version which before St. Jeroms time was only esteemed in the Church So that in some places which however are very few there does appear the reading of the Ancient Version or else a mixture of both And clear it is that that same Translation was made by some native Latinist from the Hebrew Original Now who in the whole Latin Church beside St. Jerom at that time understood both Languages that is the Hebrew and the Latin But they that desire to know more of these things let them consult Austin Eugubin and John Mariana in their Writings upon this Subject Now that we may more perfectly understand the Nature of that Vulgar Edition we must take notice that St. Jerom tho he confesses himself not to have expressed the Words of his Text verbatim and like a Grammarian nevertheless sometimes he sticks more close to his Words then the 70 or the other Interpreters so that he is not always like himself in his Translation Again we are to observe that the modern Lection of the Hebrew Text is not so often to be corrected from the Translation of St. Jerom as it disagrees from it for thohe make profession to have followed the Hebrew Truth yet sometimes he forsakes it to follow the Greek Interpreters Neither do I think that the Hebrew Exemplar of his Masters which he frequently opposes against the 70 Interpreters is to be preferred in all things seeing that St. Jerom himself had no Original Exemplar of the Hebrew Text neither do I think we are to give Judgment upon the Version of St. Jerom by the later Translations which frequently vary from the other but we must have recourse of necessity to other Grammer Rules then those which have been set down by our late Instructors as hath been at large demonstrated and which it is no difficult thing to confirm by many Examples I shall therefore produce only enough to puzzle the less skilful We find according to the vulgar Edition in the oth of Zachary ver 11. these words Thou also in the Blood of thy Testament hast sent forth thy Prisoners out of the Pit but according to the Hebrew Exemplars it ought to be rendred I have sent
forth thy Prisoners and the Pronouns Thou thy thine are in the Feminine Gender and so make the Sence far different from that of St. Jerom which agrees with that of the Seventy Interpreters Many to defend the vulgar Edition in this place reject the J wish Exemplars as corrupted by them on set purpose But it is much more proper to say that the same Pronoun in the Feminine Gender is taken sometimes for the same in the Masculine which the Masorites of Tyberias allow who added the pointed Vowels to the modern Context And thus they demonstrate the same thing to have happened in three places of Scripture which they cite Wherefore if the same occur in any other places which the Masorites have omitted the antient Translators are not therefore presently to be accus'd because they do not agree with the later In the same manner St. Jerom may be vindicated for translating the word Thou hast sent when according to the Hebrew he ought to have translated it I have sent For this difference of Translation arose from the Letter Jod which is noted by the Mazorites to be often superfluous The Mazorites themselves reckon up 43 Places mark'd jather jod that is throw away Jod as redundant Thus Jer. 32 v. 33. where we read Thou hast taught in the second Person The Hebrew word is written with Jod at the end as if it should have been rendred in the first Person And indeed in the lesser Mazorah it is marked to be read without a Jod and in the second Person as Jerom renders it But I pass by these things and many others by which it might be made out that the Latin Interpreter is often undeservedly reprehended by those that do not understand him and measure all things by the Rules of their own Skill CHAP. XX. Concerning the Authority of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church and first of the Vulgar In what Sence it may be said to be Authentic The authority of the Ancient Version of the Church AS it is a thing that seems to be rooted in men by nature to be opiniated in their own Disputations and to be so presumptuous as to take sometimes those things which are false and unjust for Truths so it chiefly happens in this present Argument where the Writers seem to fight for their Lives and Liberties Thus the Jewish Rabbys seem to be incited by no other reason to avouch their Manuscripts to be free even from the slightest Faults and Errors but only as they are Jews and read no other Scripture in their Synagogues than the Hebrew Text. In like manner the Greek and Latin Fathers in the primitive Times of the Church embracing the Greek Version of the 70. Interpreters as Divine preferr'd it before the Hebrew Copies for that the one were skilled in the Greek Learning others preferr'd the Latin or Vulgar Edition of the Bible altogether used by the Latin Church and Translated from the Septuagint not understanding the Greek Therefore is the wisdom of the Fathers of the Council of Trent highly to be applauded for this that they by their Suffrages declared Authentick that Version which being publickly received and made use of in the Church was in every bodyes hands that is which was solely esteemed Authentick among the Latins Nor does that antient Lati Edition which was read for many Ages in the Eastern Church before Jerom's Translation less deserve the Name of Authentic than the modern Vulgar only there is this difference between the one and the other that the other was not declared Authentic by the publick Decree of the General Council Prologue 10 de vulg There Walton is in an Error who denyes this antient Vulgar Edition to have been Authentick as well saith he for that it was translated from the Greek which we have demonstrated not to have been Authentick nor can the Rivulet have more Authority than was in the Fountain nor can any Version be said to be Authentick unless the Interpreter wrote it with the same Spirit as the first Author which never any man affirmed as to this Version nor had the Church of Rome rejected it and entertain'd a new one had she judged it to have been Authentick But Walton understood not what was meant in the Decree of the Council of Trent by the word Authentick while he confounds Authentick with Divine and Prophetical all the while he treats upon the Argument now in hand Therefore it is necessary to consider what the Fathers of the Council of Trent intended should be understood by the word in Controversie Vulgarly among the Lawyers the word Authentick signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the French interpret Originale or Original And in this Sence the Exemplification of a Will is distinguished from the Authentick or Original and Authentick Tables are said to be those which are first drawn from whence as from the Original Copies are made In this Sence the Hebrew Context cannot be said to be Authentick because the Originals of the Hebrew Codex are lost and there remain no other than Copies Therefore the word Authentick is taken by the same Lawyers in another Sense and so Version in their Books carrys the Name of Authentick Thus the Latin Translation of Justins Novels is call'd Authentick because it was rendered out of the Greek verbatim and so it is distinguished from another Version the Author of which is said to be Julian Patricius which is only a Latin Epitome of those Constitutions The first Exemplar was called Authentick as much as to say True and no way maim'd as Antonius Contius has observed Now in this Acceptation of the word Authentick there is nothing which can offend the Protestants But if we must not derive the signification of this word from the Lawyers where it had its rise the same word is several times repeated in the Acts of the Fifth General Synod Where when the Exemplars which Macarius the Patriarch of Antiochia and other Monothelite Bishops offered to the Fathers of the Council were read over again presently the Legates of the Apostolick See replyed That the Testimonies of the Fathers were maimed by Macarius and his Companions Thereupon they require the Authentic Copies to be sent for from the venerable Patriarchal Treasury of the Royal City of Constantinople and to be compared with the Exemplars produced by Macarius and the other Monothelite Bishops There Authentic is no more than that which is not adulterated or of suspected Credit Nor did the Tridentine Bishops pronounce the Latin Version which was only read in all the Eastern Churches Authentic in any other Sense Nor can the Words of their Constitution be wrested to any other Exposition if they be but a little more attentively considered For they were in Consultation about selecting one out of many Versions of the Scripture which were then publick in the world and because the Authors of most were Persons of suspected credit it was in prudence thought fit by those Bishops that
Version by the command of Philip the Second was had in esteem beyond all others and was likewise approv'd of by an unanimous consent of many Parisian Divines in the praise of which they spake as follows we saw the holy Bible of Philip the Second set forth in Hebrew Syriac Greek and Latin after the manner of the Complutensian Bibles formerly Printed in Spain We approv'd of the same and in a word thought it fit to be read by all Catholicks in opposition to all false and heretical Translations with which men endeavour to impose upon those that have not arriv'd to the knowledg of the Tongues This Work was likewise approv'd of by two Popes as Franciscus Luca Burgensis relates and Gregory the 13th in his Epistle to Philip the Second of Spain calls it opus verè aureum a work truly great This is farther corroberated by the Authority of 42 Spanish Divines notwithstanding all which Arias Montanus has but an ill repute among many of the Clergy in Spain particularly for that he set forth a Chaldee Paraphrase not only on the Pentateuch as Cardinal Ximenius had done but on all the rest of the Bible except some few Books Of this Andrews de Leon Zamorensis a Minor of the Regular Clerks complains in an Epistle which he wrote to those that Printed a new Polyglot at Paris where concerning the Chaldee Paraphrase publish'd in the Royal Bibles he speaks thus What shall I say of the Chaldee Paraphrase which the Rabbins call the Targum T is vitiated and extreamly corrupted 't is degenerated from it's ancient purity and candour full of Talmudical Fables and Sacrilegious Impostures In this all men agree even Cardinal Ximenius himself in his Preface to the Complutensis asserts it Nay Cajetan himself gives a free account of his method of Translating Hebrew in these words I assure you that whilst I was about this work Interpreters would tell me the Hebrew word sounds thus In his Preface to the Psalms but the Sense thereof is not evident unless it be chang'd into this having heard all the significations I answer'd do not trouble your selves if the Sense be not clear because it is not your Province to explain but interpret as the words lay before you and commit the care of understanding the Sense to Expositors The Cardinal confesses ingenuously that though he was ignorant of the Hebrew yet he Translated the Old Testament into Latin out of the Hebrew Cajetan's method in translating the Bible and in order thereunto made use of two very learned men in that Tongue the one a Jew and the other a Christian and gives this as the principal reason why he did so because unless the Text be just as in it's Original the Text is not expounded but by guess but the Text is expounded as 't is understood by such or such an Interpreter And at last wishes the Fathers had had such an Interpretation though it be lame and imperfect because then says he we should have the genuine Text of the Scripture explain'd and not a Text of Interpreters making But Cajetan who says almost all the Hebrew words are aequivocal could never arrive at a perfect and compleat Interpretation and yet I dare affirm that that most learned Cardinal though an utter Stranger to the Hebrew Tongue has been very happy in expressing the words of the Text and that there is less barbarism in his Version than that of Arias Montanus Gabriel Prateolus who is very free in bestowing the name of Heretic ranks the judgment he has pass'd of the ancient Interpreters as being a little too bold amongst the Heresies Nor was Cardinal Palvacino a little dissatisfied therewith who animadverts thus upon it quel grand ' intelletto alfre opere fuamâ—â—mirato History of the Counsel of Trent l. 6. c. 17. in questâ— per la sciaersi egli trasportar dalla guida di ehi meglio intendeva laâ—grammatica Hebrea chi misteri divini resto in gloriosâ— Malvenda's method I omit the Dominican Thomas Malvenda's Version of some Books of the old Testament who so rigidly affects the Grammatical Sense that it looks like one entire piece of barbarism and had been utterly unintelligible had he not a little illustrated it by his Notes Melchior Canus openly declares against Isidorus Clarius Melchior Canus of wheol places l. 2. c. 13. whose emendation is nothing but a reprehension of the old Interpreter For in the Front of his Works he promises says the same Melchior the old Edition correct and after he has thus excus'd himself from the odium of Novelty he inserts a great many things adds some and changes others the humour and Interpretation of Isidorus Clarius The Bible of Isidorus Clavius Monk of Cassinum who in many places which he corrects in the Latin Interpreter shews himself ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue could not be more oppositely described But this Edition of the Bible is prohibited at Rome and is extant in the Index of prohibited Books under this Title the Vulgar Edition of the Old and New Testament the one whereof is most dilligently corrected according to the Hebrew the other according to the Greek Original so that a new Edition need not be desired and yet the old One may here be found in the year MDXLII The Version extant under Vatablus his name Lastly there are several Latin Copies of the Bible extant under Vatablus his name which yet all the World acknowledg are not his Robert Stephens has put upon the unwary Reader under the name of that learned and most understanding Professor of the Hebrew Tongue in the University of Paris For the Edition which Stephens gave us in the year MDXLV as if it had been exactly taken from the Lectures and Notes of Vatablus affords us only the Version and Annotations of Leo Judah a Zuinglian which for the most part were borrow'd from the Jews particularly Rabbi David Kimchi from John Calvin and other Protestants this Interpretation of Leo Juda Robert Stephens has preferr'd before all others and especially before that of Santes Pagninus because 't was more clear and done into purer Latin Yet the same Stephens in an Edition which he Publish'd in the year MDXLVII chose Pagnine's Translation before all the rest but such as if we may believe him was revis'd and corrected by Pagnine himself therefore neither was Vatablus nor Stephens Authors of any Version of the Bible Yet both of 'em great Masters of Hebrew Learning CHAP. XXIII Of the Latin Translations of the Bible made by Protestants THere are yet greater differences betwixt the Protestants in their Translations of the Bible than the Catholicks Sebastian Munster who turned the Old Testament out of Hebrew into Latin shews the reasons and method of his Translation at the very beginning of it where he plainly tells us how that he followed the Rabbins therein and not the old Interpreters So that if there happened to be any faults in it they were to be imputed
to the Jewish Doctors who were the first Authors of them Sextus Senensis gives us his opinion of this Translation in these words Munsterus ubique horridus senticosus asper usque adeo Hebraici sermonis horrorem sequutus est ut cum multa Latinis auribus molliter accommodare potuisset omnes tamen Hebraici sermonis proprietates phrases adeo servare studuit ut nec ipsos Hebraicorum nominum stridores pretermittere voluerit ingerens Latinis auribus ubique pro Ozia Uzzijah pro Ezechiele Jechezohel c. But I wonder that Sixtus should be so nice and critical seeing he so highly commends Cajetan Pagnin Oleaster and some others who affected a far more barbarous and unpolite Style Likewise Gerebrard treats him with as little candor and moderation passing a sharp and severe censure upon him Munsterus saith he neglecta vocum propria notatione sepe Lutheranisabat a sue Franscisci institute discedebat Certainly none of the Modern especially Protestant Translators have more fully and emphatically express'd the genuine sense of the Hebrew Text than Munster who cannot deservedly be blam'd for any thing but for slighting the antient Interpreters of the Holy Scripture and adhering too closely to the late Jewish Doctors neither is he so rough and harsh in his stile abating some proper names as Sixtus and some others fancy him to be Huâ—tius who seems the most impartial and unbiass'd in his Judgment gives him this Character Sebastianus Munsterus Bibliorum Interpres sane doctus in Hebraica semper stilum collineans ad eaque nunquam non se componens Yet without doubt he had gained greater applause if according to the advice of Conradus Pellicanus his Tutor in the Hebrew Tongue he had chiefly followed the Rabbins in Grammatical niceties consulting in other things as well the Antient Interpreters of the sacred Text as the modern Jews and then he had not disagree'd with the Latin Translators in so many particulars as he did For what necessity was there that for Crescite multiplicamine implete aquas Maris which we find in the vulgar Translations he should put Fructicate augescite implete aquas in fretis which words carry a far harsher sound with them than the former Likewise Leo Juda a Zuinglian Translated the Old Testament or at least the greatest part of it out of the Original Hebrew into Latin and because he died before 't was quite finish'd Bibliander and P. Cholinus completed it Bibliander turned the eight last Chapters of Ezechiel and also Daniel Job Ecclesiastes the Canticles and 48 Psalms out of Hebrew and Cholinus translated the books which the Protestant Divines call the Apocripha out of Greek This Translation was first published at Zurich in the Year 1543. and afterward in the Year 1545 there came forth a second Edition of it by R. Stephanus but without the name of the Author and with the vulgar Translation on one side as we have intimated before But the Parisian Divines rail'd and inveigh'd bitterly both against the Edition and the Publisher of it so that after many hot and wrangling disputes about several things belonging to the Bible Stephanus was at lenght forc'd by the prevailing party to leave his Country and to fly to Geneva for Sanctuary there he writ his Apology against the Parisian Divines and published it both in Latin and French wherein he made grievous complaints of them but in most things he showed himself to be an Innovator and a rigid follower of Calvin Yet he was defended in some things even against the Parisian Divines by P. Castellanus Bishop of Mascon and grand Almoner of France who often carried the matters in controversie to the hearing of the Kings Council for he had observ'd how the Parisians through their Ignorance of the Tongues had laid many things falsly to his charge Neither did this Translation of Leo Juda escape the Censures of Genebrard who thereby got the Favour and Patronage of the Parisian Divines he himself being one of the same faculty But Stephanus was entertained with far more courtesie and civility by the Spanish Divines who without any scrupulous enquiry after the Authors name or without any regard to the censures of the Parisians reprinted this Edition at Salamanca with some small variation of the notes and moreover judged it worthy to be read of all those who were inquisitive after the true meaning of the Scripture 'T is true that Leo Judae render'd some Hebrew words less properly than Munster but be took more care to accommodate them to the Latin Phrase So that he cannot justly be accused for any thing but his translating by way of Paraphrase purposely to avoid obscurity Sobast Castal Interp. The most famous and generally receiv'd Translation of the Bible is that of Castalio of which there are several Impressions But that is accounted the best which was made at Basil in the Year 1573. Sixtus Senensis giving us his Judgment of Munster and Castalio avers that they fall into both Extremes one of them being harsh barbarous and unpolish'd in his Stile and often inclining to the Jewish Idiom the other being as prophane as a Heathen foolishly affecting the Proprieties of the Languages of the Gentiles fancying his Latin could not be pure and elegant unless it were soft and effeminate Sixtus gives several examples of his prophane expressions Castalio saith he calls God the Father Jupiter Divus Armipotens Gradivus Caelicola likewise he calls Angels Jovis Genti Prophets Vates fatidici and holy Men Heroes Genebrard gives an excellent description of him and his Translation in these words Versio Castalionis est affectata Geneb praef in op Orig. plus habens pompae phalerarum quam rei firmitatis plus ostentationis quam substantie plus fuci quam succi plus hominis quam spiritus plus fumi quam flamâ—ae plus humanarum cogitationum quam divinorum sensuum But he is handled more severely by the Geneva Doctors and especially Theodore Beza who upbraids him with ignorance and rashness for his profane imitation of Catulus in his Translations for in the Canticles he does not use the plain word Columba but mea Columba Mea Columba saies he ostende mihi tunâ—â— vulticulum fac ut audiam tuam voculam venustulam lepidum vulticulum habes capite nobis vulpeculas parvas vinearum vastatriculas In this Book he plays the Poet rather than the Interpreter but every where he assumes the liberty of connecting the Periods and Verses that his Translation might appear more graceful and elegant as is evident in the first Chapter of Genesis which begins thus Gen. 1.1 In principio creavit Deus Coelum Terram cum autem esset terrarudis qâ—que iners tenebrisque offusum profundum divinus spiritus sâ—se super aquas libraret jussit Deus ut existeret Lux c. Beza and some other Geneva Doctors will only allow him to be a smatterer in the Hebrew Tongue but with
Calvins was the first that attempted that great work and at last finished it in the year of our Redemption 1535 which was the first year of the Reign of that monstruous Religion set up at Geneva by Jo Calvin since that before that time as the above named testifies some old Copies only of an old French Manuscript were read in these and such like places and those without an Author Now what method Olivetanus followed in his Translation we may know by his Preface which method truly was not ridiculous had he been fit for the undertaking such a task Though in the interim several circumstances sufficiently demonstrate unto us the Translator's ignorance in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues As for the French I dare not say he understood it being that Jo. Calvin who looked over this Translation leaves this for an Animadversion That the Author writ false French Neither truly in his famous Preface doth he shew any competent knowledge he had in the Hebrew when he tells us a Tale of a Tub and stories only fit for three-days-standing Hebrecians where he learnedly observes R. Aben Ezra himself This Olivetanus therefore did not take the trouble upon him to do the Hebrew Copy into French but with much more ease followed some forerunning Interpreters Since he telleth us of two Italian and three German Translations of the Bible at that time extant And yet in the very beginning of his work he protests that he scorned the equipage of a Learned mans Footman that he was free from prejudice and leaving other Translations betook himself to the Hebrew That he had marked the more obscure places of Scripture with an Asterisk and put down other mens Comments in the Margent The same Olivetanus sets a great value upon the different Readings of the Bible more especially upon those which he had observed out of the Greek Interpeters and St. Jerom through the great light which they give to the Scriptures Wherefore he openly declares that he values not the help of the Modern Jews or the assistance of their Books neither is he affraid to maintain that the Hebrew Vowels were first foisted in upon the Bible by the Doctors of Tiberius and therefore for his part prized the Septuagint and St. Jerom much above the common Hebrew Bible Neither in writing Hebrew will he imitate the Modern Jewish Doctors but prefers himself before them looking upon the new Jewish Pronunciations as Monstrous though in the last place he acknowledgeth that St. Jerom knew the Hebrew Tongue better than himself The gifts of Heterodox Men must certainly shine forth in a miraculous manner before they win the applause of the Catholick though Robertus Oliveranus I am fully perswaded knew and â—ppâ—ovâ—d fâ—etter things when he followed the worse who in one baâ—e year punctilio of time in comparison compleated a work which requiâ—ed fiâ—ty years study The Gentleman I must needs confess very seldom takes any notice of the different readings and scarce at all looks back upon the Ancient Translatours Sometimes truly he sticks to a less obvious sense as in 1 Chap. of Gen. where for these words which are in the vulgar and in a manner all Traâ—slations The spirit of God c. he will give you these the Wind of God c. And to the end he would not be called in question concerning any affected novelty he produces in open Court as Witnesses of his true Translation certain of the Greek Fathers who were of the same opinion though at the end of his Book he inserts a dâ—fferent Interpretation Thus Olivetanus slid into a great many gross mistakes not only through his Ignorance in the Hebrew and Greek but likewise in the Latin Hence it is that having a greater respect for the Latin Translator then the Hebrew Copy an Ocean of Errors overwhelm him an Example whereof we have in the 1 Chap. of Gen. where for cete grandia in the Latin Translation he gives us in the French Grandes Baleines But how he can make cote agree to Balana I see no reason being the word generally taken denotes Creatures of an oblong vast and prodigious Bulk And which is much more unsufferable Olivetanus in the 25 Chap. of Gen. where the Latin Translator readeth Lampas he commits a grand mistake by adhering too much to a similitude and setteth down Lampe Jo. Calvins Bible Jo. Calvin though he was no greater Critick in the Hebrew than Robertus Olivetanus yet he openly declares the Translation not only to be Mungril French but that it stood Guilty of a whole Catalogue of Errours And yet he had applauded this very same Translation before and fostered it under his Authority wishing that all learned Men would make it their business to study that immense and laborious work and then to publish a Translation of their own which he would have presented to the more wise knowing and sober Divines Hen Stephens published these Animadversions of Jo. Calvin in the year of our Redemption 1535 who being an Acute Ingenious and very Judicious Man and no Novice in the Holy Scriptures dexterously corrects a great many things in Olivetanus his Edition and through his great ability in the French tongue clear'd it from all the obsolete words And yet he minded the matter more than the words and for perspicuities sake write a Paraphrase in Place of a Translation Now and then no great occasion caling him away he recedes from Olivetanus his Translation tho he keeps to the Gentlemans method and puts down several Notes and Expositions in the Margent tho not so often as Olivetanus himself He is much out in presenting us with a sense less proper in the Context and a more plausible one at the end of the Book which mistake arose from his small acquaintance with the Hebrew Propriety Olivetanus had wisely inserted in his Copies some Marginal Notes borrowed from the Ancient Translatours which Jo Calvin impudently takes away as in the 6th Chap. of Gen. where you may read both in the Septuagint and the Vulgar Latin non permanebit spiritus meus he following Olivetanus translates it ne debatra spes meus non desceptabit my Spirit shall not strive c. having no regard to the Old Translatours which Olivetanus had ranked in his Margent There were several Editions put forth of those Animadversions of Jo. Calvins which were diligently perused even by Orthodox Divines more especially that Edition in Folio published 1357 which came out in pretty handsom Character and had only a few particulars in it altered and the method of it reduced to that of the Vulgar Latin Neither is he here unprovided of St. Jerom's Preambles excellent Mediums to Cajole the vulgar People The Geneva Doctors Bible Cornelius Bertramus Hebrew Professor at Geneva Beza Fayus Rotanus Jaquemotus Goulartius and some others took this abovesaid Tranâ—â—ation in hand and in the Year of our Incarnation 1588 writ Animadversions upon it These Men especially Bartramus having a Competent
skill in the Hebrew put the old Geneva Translation to School again to the Hebrew Doctors yet more particularly they relied upon Munsterus and Tremellius their aid and assistance Both Robertus Olivetanus and Jo. Calvin were most sharply censured by these Revisers who taking upon themselves a more than ordinary Liberty of Animadversion were sometimes very busie when they had little or nothing to do Hereupon whilst they follow Tremellius in the 8 Chap. of Nehem. rendring that Text according to the above said Translatour and they gave the sence of it by the Scripture it self they seem rather to express some of their Geneva sentiments than the words of the Scripture A like passage we meet with in the 4 Chap. of Genesis which Text truly Olivetanus and Calvin had very well according to the Interpreters translated then they began to call upon the Name of the Lord when these Reformado Gentlemen turned it and that both very barbarously and obscurely then they began to read the Name of the Eternal imitating herein the depraved Affectation of Aquila Neither are these same Gentlemen any Sophisters in the French since in my own opinion they go very aukwardly about to translate something concerning Noah's Ark in the 46. Chapter of Genesis doing it thus thou shalt chalk it with Pitch within and without which certainly Olivetanus and Jo. Calvin had more plausibly render'd Thou shalt pitch it with Pitch both within and without as the Latin Translator hath it bitumine lines intrinsecus extrinsecus Besides who can endure to hear that expression in the 30 Chap. of Gen. He pill'd the white Rind But they have ten thousand more expressions of the like nature which I omit at present leaving them to themselves and their ignorance in the French Particles whereupon thâ— true sence and meaning of any Text wholy depends Since this time there was never published any other Correction of the Geneva Translation done by any of those Doctors only some obsolete words were cashier'd that the Translation might look more neat and handsome though indeed you may stumble upon their Notes upon any dark place of Scripture which indeed multiply according to the good will and pleasure of the Geneva who have a most admirable faculty in vamping of their frantick notions of Scripture it self 'T is not long ago since Samuel Desmarets a Calvinistical Minister at Groningen jumbled all his notae variorum Collections out of the Geneva Doctors and the several Editions of the Bible into a full Body whereunto he adjoyned the Geneva Translation A Book published by Himself Himself I mean a man certainly of no great Judgment to swell up his Book into a Folio with a pack of apeless and impertinent Contents The French Bible also which was Translated by Renatus Benedictus a Parisian Divine may be thrown in among the Number of the Geneva Merchandize for when he was reproved by his Brother Divines for so rash and inconsiderate an attempt He protested before God and Man that his Translation was the same with that of Geneva which he altered a little without ever a Glance upon the Hebrew which he never understood and that he added and substracted only as his Genius and Fancy led him The reason why this Divine turn'd a Translator was because that a meer Ignoramus in the Greek tongue had took upon him to Translate Aristotles Logick and had got great applause by the endeavour which he looked upon as a President whereby he might be kept harmless in going to do the Hebrew and Greek Testaments out of their Originals though he had liv'd always a Stranger to both those Languages Lastly let us place among the Geneva Bibles the Translation of Johannes Adeodates a Calvinistical Minister which was first published in Italian and then in French and is in as much Vogue with the Calvinists as the Geneva Translation it self So reverendly is a Translator esteemed among his Fellows in opinion Neither were the Reasons slender why his Translations should be so much cryed up and applauded since every passage in it is so plain and easie since the Author plays the Parapharist and tickles the faâ—â—â—â—f his Brother Sectaries as may be made evident by his Notes upon the 6. Chap. of Gen. where he follows the Emendation of Bertramus yet avoiding his barbarity Translates the place more clearly and elegantly Then they began to call one part of Mankind by the name of the Eternal though he doth not cast his eye aside and look upon Robertus Olivetanus and Jo. Calvin their true Translations but only putteth down a Note in the Margent as a Limit of the Scriptural Sense To alter or substract a word breaks no squares with this Gentleman who acting according to his good will not much minds the proper sense of the words so the vulgar may by any means understand him Neither is he so much a Critick as an Orator and Divine making it his only business to please the Vulgar and work upon their passions His Notes generally are pretty plausible serviceable to the Interpretation of several Texts of Scripture save only when he bustles for his Religion enters into Disputations Preaches Cants and ridicules himself For I question whether Heraclitus could have forborn laughing suppose he had read this mans Annotations upon the 2d Chap. of Gen. Gen. 1 v. Eve was not formed of the Head for that Woman ought to be subject to her Husband nor of the Feet for that she ought not to be trampled upon or debased like a Servant nor of the First because it does not become her to thwart him nor of the Hinder part for that she ought not to be despised nor rejected nor abandoned in necessity but of the rib and the middle of the Body to shew the moderation which the Husband ought to observe in his superiority and the faithful Society they owe to one another I wish those who have a fancy to read Jo. Adeodates his Translation that they make use of the Italian Edition which is much more Elegan than the French and I only advise them to read the Contents of the Chapters whereby they may attain unto a full Compendium of the Bible Castalio's French Translation Noâ—eâ— suppose may blame us in giving room to Sebastian Castalio's Translation of the Bible in Geneva tho perhaps the poor Author had the bad fortune to meet with nothing at that place save taunts and reviling This Translation was published at Basil in the Year of our Incarnation 1554 and was dedicated afterward to Henry the 2d King of France which Translation to make no farther enquiry about it was done word by word out of the Latin a way of writing proper to Sebastian who for example in the 49th Chap. of Genesis turned the word Schilo in the Latin Translation Sospitator into the French probatim porte bonheur so that he strictly followeth the Latin way of speaking thus First God created the Heaven and the Earth and in regard the Earth
will appear that he has given positive sentence in matters which he little understood I will therefore begin from the Epistle which he has affix'd to that little discourse At the first dash in this Epistle Vossius takes several occasions to traduce the person himself as learned as he was in the Hebrew Language for a Fool a half Rabbie and an Egregious Knave as one that produc'd the words of St. Jerom most wickedly dress'd and trim'd for his own turn Gen. 19.33 The place in dispute is extant in these words in St. Jeroms Hebrew Questions upon Genesis The Hebrews as to what follows And he perceiv'd not when she lay down nor when she rose up marke the words at the top as a thing incredible and as a thing not to be comprehended in nature how a Man should lye with a Woman and not understand any thing of it Vossius attests that he has consulted many Manuscript Copies and that he finds it written in all Apponunt not Appungunt they set over or upon instead of they mark with points at the top He would have said truer that he never found Apponunt in any Manuscripts that were of credit or reputation for what sence could be made of these words had Apponunt been set in the place of Appungunt Nor does he tell us where he found these Manuscripts But that we may come to the business there was no reason for Vossius to pervert the words of the Hebrew Text fearing perhaps least from that word Appungunt the Antiquity of points might be made out from St. Jeroms time For the sounder sort of Criticks confess that those points were much later then the age wherein St. Jerom liv'd who nevertheless acknowledge that that sort of points of which St. Jerom here makes mention and which are put upon some words of the Hebrew Context were done upon the same ground that the Samaritans and the Syrians fix certain cross stroaks over some words which were invented by the Grammarians or Criticks And the Jews both Ancient and Modern agree with St. Jerom in this particular Mention is also made of these points in the Talmud in Medraschim or the Allegoricall Comments of the Jews upon Scripture And they are likewise to be seen in the Modern Exemplars of the Bibles and in most upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Becumah when she arose Which is the word at present in dispute there is added this note upon the Margent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nakod gnal Vau a Point upon Vau. An. 1615. In the small Venetian Bibles set forth by Râ—ter Bragadinus in the 37th Chap. of Genesis where the same point is put upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is this note in the Margent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of the fifteen Points which are in the Law Now as for the reasons which are given for these Points by the Jews who are troubl'd with an Itch of vanity I pass them by in silence as being very frivolous It is enough to have observ'd that the Jews retain those Points in their Exemplars by Tradition from their Ancestors When Vossius in his Epistle deplores the miserable Estate of the Accademies in Germany at this day where Rabbinisme domineers without controul and no Theology but Rabbinical is admir'd The Learned Gentleman does not believe that human Learning can be taught or studyed where Rabbinism raigns and the Rabbinical Screitch-Owls bear an ominous sway Nor do I dissent from Vossius in this particular And I would be glad those pedling Priests might be expung'd out of the number of Divines who contemning the Latin and Greek Learning will admit of nothing but the Fictions of the Rabbins But that Persons eminently Learned who after the Example of Origen Jerom Chrysostom Theodoret and others of the Fathers frequent the Thresholds of the Jews should be listed in their Number I can hardly endure For though generally the greatest part of the Books of the Jews are full of frivilous Trifles yet there are not a few of the Rabbies who have wonderfully illustrated Sacred Scripture And this the Commentaries of St. Jerom alone upon the Peophets aparently make out who was not ashamed to consult the most Learned Jews of his Age. But to the nice and squeamish Mr. Vossius St. Jerom seems contemptible and Prince of the Semi-Rabbinical Divines And that Semi-Rabbie as he calls him though he have his failings has far surpass'd all the rest of the Fathers of the Church in expounding the Books of Sacred Scripture And I could wish also that Vossius had first convers'd with those half Rabbins before he began to meddle with their concerns For those half Rabbies can hardly forbear Laughter when they read in his Epistle before his Treatise of the Oracles of the Sybils that it is not above six Centuries since those Vowel points came to be us'd with which the Modern Exemplars of the Jews are loaded That three or four Ages most fiercely contended together while these were of Opinion that the Vowels were thus others another way to be introduc'd And that the Controversie would never have been at an end unless Daniel Bomberg had ended the quarrel having had some Centuries of the Jews and so those Vowels crept into the World out of Bombergs Shop in Venice That person 't is true had a Library well furnish'd with Rabbinical Books from whence he gathered most of his Fictions more Rabbinical But they who have convers'd with Books of the Jews well know that before Bombergs Edition of the Hebrew Bibles and in other parts of Italy especially at Pesaro the Hebrew Bibles were then Printed with pointed Vowels We also meet with Copies of the Bibles in Manuscript written above four hundred years since which have the same Points and Bibles are quoted by the more antient Rabbies wherein the same Points are made use of And it is plain that these Points were in use not only for six but for nine hundred years ago For the Rabbie Saadas Gaon wrote a Grammer about the Year DCCC wherein he disputes at large about the pointed Vowels which were in use among the Jews long before his time Besides those things are all feigned that Vossius affirms concerning the soare contention among the Jews how the Vowels are to be placed upon the Hebrew Context And of the same stamp is that which the Learned Gentleman urges concerning the Editions of Bomberg which according to the Opinions of the Jews are full of Faults And indeed the Jews contemn the first Edition of Bomborgh which was overlook'd by Felix Patrensis in regard the Masoretis Notes are very unskilfully added to the Margent of that Exemplar but they applaud and reverence the second and third of Bombergh's Editions In the adding the Mazoretic notes to Bomberghs Editions great difficulties arose for that there are few among the Jewish Rabbies that truly understand the Masoretic Art which however R. Jacob Ben Hajim with incessant toyl and labour
and the rest of Syria but also in Judea where from the time of Alexander the Great no other Language was heard to be spoken but the Greek especially in Cities and great Towns nay that in Jerusalem it self no other then the Greek Language was spoken and that if the Hebrew Scripture were read first the Greek Explanation followed But so many words as Vossius has published so many fictions hath he spread abroad For first it is manifest that before the Version of the Seventy Interpreters from the time of Esdras there was no other Scripture read in the Jewish Synagogues then the Hebrew Context For the Jews had not so far forgot their Language in the Jewish Captivities but that it remain'd among the Prophets Priests and Persons of Principal Note as Josephus Albo a most eminent Jewish Divine informs us and that not unwillingly Vossius acknowledges who believes that the Seventy interpreted the Bible at what time the Hebrew Language was in a flourishing Condition and familiarly spoken Then again that the Hebrew Text was read at least in some Synagogues after the Translation of the Seventy Interpreters neither can the Learned Person deny who writes that Flavius Josephus Interpreted the Law of Moses in the Hebrew Language and set forth his History of the Jewish Wars in Hebrew before he wrote it in Greek With which Argument Vossius had refuted those who objected against him that he knew not his own Language nor ever saw an Hebrew Exemplar against whom he opposes the words of Josephus who writes of himself that he excell'd the rest of the Hebrews in the Learning of his Country but that he had only learnt the Greek Tongue Grammatically and wanted an acurate Pronunciation Therefore according to the Testimony of Vossius himself who speaks contradictions not only the common People who liv'd in the Country and in Villages made use of the Syriac Dialect but the Principal persons among whom was Josephus who calls the Hebrew or Syriac his Native Language the pronunciation of which being a little harsh and rugged was the reason that he could hardly pronounce the Greek which was much more smooth and Polite Now then if the Greek Language were so naturally spoken in Citys and Greek Towns why did Josephus who was not bred up in the Country Villages learn the Greek Grammatically I forbear to prove that Christ and his Apostles spake Syriac in Jerusalem as is manifest out of the Books of the New Testament Therefore it is a meer Fiction which Vossius asserts concerning the Hierosolymitan Synagogues that there was no other Language us'd therein then the Greek For saith the Learned Gentleman if the Hebrew Text were read first the Greek Interpretation followed because the ancient Hebrew was only understood by the Learned Certainly Vossius is a most wonderful Argumentator who from thence that the Learned only understood the Hebrew Language concludes that the Greek Interpretation followed He had spoken much more truly had he said in those places where the Syriac Language was natural to the Inhabitants that the Syriac Interpretation followed the Hebrew Text but where the Greek was more familiar Greek Interpretation came after Thus also at Jerusalem in the Synagogue of the Alexandrinians who spake Greek I make no question but the Sacred Text was read first in Hebrew according to the ancient Custom of the Synagogue then in Greek by some Interpreter according to the ancient use of the Jews who since their return from the Babylonish Captivity after the Hebrew Language ceas'd to be familiar had Interpreters appointed to turn the Hebrew words into the Vulgar Language that they might be understood by all the common People In which sence I should think the words of Justinian are to be expounded by which the Learned prove that in the ancient times the Greek Version of the Seventy was publickly read in the Synagogues of the Jews who are vulgarly call'd Hellenists For if the words of Justinian are but attentively considered it will be apparent that in those Synagogues the Greek Translation was only made use of to assist the Hebrew Context by way of Interpretation as at Jerusalem and other more neighbouring places the Chaldee-Syriac was joyn'd with the Hebrew Lectures for the same purpose Nevertheless I willingly acknowledge with Vossius that the Greek Tongue had in some measure got a great footing in Judea especially among the Persons of chief Quality and Magistrates yet so that the Chaldee-Syriac which their Ancestors brought from Babylon prevail'd And to believe this I am not only induced by the Authority of Josephus but by many testimonies of the New Testament from whence it is plain that Christ and his Apostles spake Syriac But we shall have occasion to speak of these things hereafter again There are some other Objections which Vossius has heap'd together in his little Treatise concerning the Oracles of the Sibylls but because the Learned Gentleman repeats them again in his answer to the late Critica Sacra it will be sufficient to examin them being collected altogether Let us see therefore whether he be more successful in that part In the first Front Vossius praises the Author of the Critica Sacra which he attributes to Simon Vess in Resp ad Object Nuper Crit. because the ancient Interpreters that is the Seventy and the Observations of Capellus please him He also extols and admires Simon 's diligence or rather patience in turning over so many Writings of the Rabbins But because he believes there may be something of solidity in their Expositions and Traditions propagated only by the Ear and so much that sometimes he scruples not to prefer them before the Greek Version of the 70 therein Vossius openly professes that he cannot agree with him Nor does he believe that any ingenious person will consent to Simon in that particular Certainly Capellus whom Vossius so much admires may be listed for an ingenious Gentleman and that deservedly too And in this dispute Simon has not swerv'd from Capellus the least Tittle who sharply girds Morinus and his Ape Vossius as immoderate Persons who out of a perverse and damnable ill custome prefer the ancient Translations to others far more acurate In this moreover Simon displeases Vossius for writing that sometimes St. Jerom receded judiciously from the ancient Interpreters as if those ancient ones had been free from all Mistake and Error Nor does Capellus forsake Simon in this particular For where Capellus in the place above cited has observ'd several Childish Mistakes frequently taken notice of in the Greek Version of the Seventy Interpreters he compares this and that of St. Jerom tother and prefers that of St. Jerom as that which produces better sence In Apol. adv Boot and lastly he adds these words Six hundred yea innumerable are the places that might be produced in which from the same Copy with that in use at this day St. Jerom has expressed the sence of Sacred Scripture much otherwise and
upon which he does not wholly depend while he does not put a small value upon the Tradition or reading of the Hebrew Context which the Greek Interpreters follow'd Nay sometimes he does not scruple to prefer it before the Masoretic because he did not set himself to write with a mind pre-engag'd by the Greek Interpreters as Vossius nor by the Latin as most of the Divines of the Romish Church nor by the Jews as the Croud of Protestants But says the most learned Vossius the Jews are Enemies to the Christians and therefore the reading of the Sacred Scripture ought not to be fetch'd from them as if any Art could be better learnt from any other then they who profess it But then Vossius urges again and Confesses that the reading of the Scripture ought to be fetch'd from the Jews indeed but from those ancient Jews who preceded the time of Christ not from the latter Rabbins who understood it not at all And in this also Simon agrees with Vossius that the Tradition of the Hebrew reading is to be taken from those ancient Jews only in this he differs from him in saving not only from those but from Aquila Symmachus Theodotion Jerome and all other Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture for that no Art can be brought to perfection by one or another but by many together Simon professes himself under the Laws of no Master he denyes that a perfect knowledg of the Hebrew Tongue can be attain'd by the vulgar Rules of the Grammarians as being confin'd within too narrow limits Furthermore he believes it necessary to have recourse to the ancient Interpreters in imitation of St. Jerome who not only Consulted the Rabbys of his own Age but sometimes the Seventy Interpreters sometimes Aquila sometimes Theodotion or any other whose Interpretation seem'd most to the Purpose And we have no reason in our Age of making another Translation of the Bible which may excel all the rest For it is not true as Vossius often inculcates that only one St. Jerome durst presume to vary from the Septuagint For you shall find the rest of the Fathers have frequent recourse to the Versions of Aquila Symmachus or Theodotion because their sense sometimes appears to be better To say Truth they differ more from Vossius who believes that the Seventy Interpreters being taken away all the remaining knowledge of the Hebrew Language is utterly lost and that without them no one word can rightly be expounded That Aquila and other Interpreters fail'd wherever they departed from the Ancient Version that he was an Idle Interpreter who being learned in the Hebrew did not give the Hebrew words new significations from the Greek Translation of the Septuagint but only retain'd those significations us'd by the Greek Interpreters though in a different Order and accommodating other Notions to other places And yet Origen frequently commends that same Aquila whose Version Vossius affirms to be so full of trivial words speaking of Aquila as of a person who searching out the Proprieties of words and dilligently adhering to their significations studyed to give them the most proper Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aquila labouring to Interpret by words that carryed most Authority But if Aquila apply'd the same Notions of the Hebrew Language variously in several and different places those places are to be weigh'd and Judgment is to be given whether he have swery'd truly or falsly from the Interpreters Certain it is that St. Jerome sometimes preferr'd Aquila before the Seventy Interpreters because they seem'd to favour the Jews In like manner Origen thought that Aquila had in several places more properly express'd the words of the Hebrew Context then the 70. There it is a fiction of Vossius's that there was no man among all the ancient Christians upon whom a clearer light of Hebrew truth shone then upon all the Christian Rabbies and Semi-Rabbies of our Age. For as it was most excellently observ'd by Ludovicus Capellus there is nothing that was ever begun and perfected both at one time The Translation of the 70 Interpreters was corrected by Aquila Symmachus Theodotion and Jerom and as St. Jerow's so is that mended every day by persons learned in the Greek and Hebrew Languages In this alone the Septuagint excells all the other Versions of Sacred Scripture for that it was the first of all the Translations from which all the succeeding Interpreters drew many things proper for their purpose Nor do I question but that in the time of Philo there were extant Lexicons of Hebrew words taken out of the Version of the 70 both at Alexandria and other places Nor will I deny but that Aquila might make use of them as great helps in compiling his Translation But for me to believe that he who in the Opinions of Origen Jerom and other Fathers did not consult the Jews of his time is a thing almost impossible and why Vossius should think so there seems to be no other inducement then a pre-engag'd Opinion that the 70 Interpreters are the only persons with whom the knowledge of the Hebrew Language was buried And indeed whatever Vossius throws upon Aquila may be said of St. Jerom though it be most certain that he consulted the Jewish Doctors of his time when he was compiling his Translation and very often rather chose to depend upon them then upon the Greek Interpretation For he often declares in his works that he was instructed by the most learned Doctors of his Age. The same is Aquila's case whom he calls sometimes contentious Interpreter because he sticks sometimes too close to the signification of the words more eager upon the force of the word then the Sence of the Sentence For which reason Jerom accuses him of deprav'd affectation but never of Ignorance which affectation Origen ascribes to his too much dilligence Now Vossius passes to other matters He denies that the Sence of Scripture can be plough'd forth of a Mute Codex which heither any man knows how to read or understand as being half maim'd and furnish'd with no other Vowels then what the Enemies of the Christian Faith have fix'd to it And thus he thought it not enough to traduce the Interpreters of Holy Writ unless he accuse the Books themselves Every Foot and even to loathing he objects in his little Treatise that the Hebrew Codex is mute as if it had been less mute in the Age of the 70 Interpreters then in our time This is the manner of Writing among the Orientals to follow Compendium's Nor is the Hebrew Language more subject to this vice than the Arabic Chaldee and Syriac whose manner of writing is Compendious likewise The Condition of the Exemplars which the 70 Interpreters made use of was no better But there was a certain manner of writing confirm'd by Use and Custom amongst the Hebrews and the rest of the Orientals especially the Rabbies as now it appears For after the Invention of points most of the Oriental Bocks were set
by the Hebrew Exemplars and the Translations of Aquilla Symâ—â—chus Theodotion and others Which he could hardly attain to but that had vitiated that Version in many places before especially when Origen set a higher value upon the Hebrew Truth then Vossius is aware of if we believe St. Jerom who well knew the disposition of the Person But as for Adamantius I sâ—y nothing who when he follows the common Edition in his Homilies which he speaks to the People in his Times that is his larger dâ—spute guarded with Hebrew Truth and surrounded with squadâ—ons of his own he sometimes seeks the aid of Forraign Language Oâ—igen therefore carried himself one way with Learned Men another with the Ignorant Multitude and as the Proverb is Wise with a few spake those things which were in common With this agrees what he writes against Celsus for after he has produc'd some things out of the Book of Exodus according to the vulgar Exemplars of the Greek Version he presently adds the Section of the Hebrew Text with this Animadversion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But these things which seem to be more nice and not so fit for vulgar Ears Therefore the Learned Gentleman is in an Errour who believ'd that Origen approv'd no other Exemplars but those of the Septuagint He is ignorant of the Laws of that management which most of the Fathers especially Origen observ'd to the end they might accommodate themselves to the already received opinions of the People which prudence of Origen in our Age the most Eminent Divines of the Roman Church do imitate who granting to the People the use of the Latin Edition reserve to themselves the knowledge of the Hebrew Truth Now because Simon gives no credit to the Prodigious discourses of Aristaeus concerning the 70 Interpreters while he endeavours to give a reason why it was fixed upon the 70 he confesses that he adheres to the opinion of those who believe it to have born that name from the 72 Senators of the Hierosolymitan Sanhedrim who approv'd it by their Sufferage and Authority Yet he affirms nothing but only makes a conjecture upon a thing so obscure and so far remote from our times But notwithstanding all his Modesty Vossius falls fiercely upon him and demands if that Greek Version were approved by the whole Sanhedrim how it came to be so full of faults as if of necessity the Authority of the Grave Sanhedrim which Simon suspects to have allow'd that Version to be publickly read in the Synagogues and Schools had been sufficient to exempt it from all Errour Certainly it could derive no greater Authority from the Decree of the Hierosolymitan Senators then was ascrib'd to the Latin Edition after the Fathers of the Council of Trent had authoriz'd it by their Constitution Was the Latin Interpreter therefore purg'd from all the faults with which it formerly abounded No. In this also appears the greatest equality between both decrees that as it came to pass in the Western Church through Ignorance of the Greek and Hebrew Languages that the Bibles were Translated and read in the Latin Tongue so also the Ignorance of the Hebrew among the Hellenist Jews was the reason that the Alexandrian Jews Translated for their own use the Sacred Writing into Greek which Greek Translation afterwards grew to be currant among all the Jews that understood Greek and was perhaps approv'd by the Hierosolymitan Senators I say perhaps because there is no need to have recourse to their Authority for the Exposition of the reason why this Version was attributed to the 70 Elders But only we are to observe the form of Speech so familiar among the Jews whereby the us'd to refer all things which seemed to be of any moment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Men of the great Synagogue Which kind of Phrase has lead many Learned Men into several Errors while they turn over the Books of the Jews with a Circumspection too remiss whereas we are to heed not so much what those Doctors say as how and for what reason they speak it So the Rabbies eagerly maintain that the Points of the Holy Scripture and such other things derive their Original from the Men of the Great Synagogue speaking according to the Phrase of the Country not according to the Truth of the Thing And thus it is more proper to conjecture that the Greek Version was attributed to the Seventy Interpreters than with Vossius to give credit to the Fictions of Aristaeus Then again the Learned Gentleman is displeas'd that Simon endeavour'd to restore the Hellenistick Language exploded by the Learned men and to obtrude it under the name of the Language most currant in the Synagogue as if among them there had been any more peculiar Language which was neither Greek nor Hebrew that by that means he might make it out that the Seventy Interpreters understood neither Greek nor Hebrew Certainly Simon knew what had been already written by the Defenders of the Hellenistick Language but with the good favour of that Learned Gentleman I may say that while he disputed about the shadow of an Ass he did but raise Contentions about a Name Simon does not lay ignorance to the charge of the Greek Interpreters of the Hebrew and Greek but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a deprav'd affectation natural to the Jews especially in Translating the Scriptures who while they labour to express the Hebrew words too curiously and literally turn a little aside from the common and more receiv'd Idiome and to some words give particular and distinct Notions from the Vulgar This is to be observ'd almost in all the Versions of Sacred Scripture compil'd by the Jews as Simon truly demonstrates by whom it was also most excellently observ'd that the Greek Interpretation of the Seventy Seniors was hardly understood by most of the Greek Fathers because it retain'd something of the Idiom of the Syriac or Hebrew Language And thus the Spanish Translation set forth at Ferrara which was done by the Jews can hardly be read by those who understand not Hebrew though well vers'd in the Spanish And this was the reason why the ancient Interpreter of the Greek Version has but ill rendred not a few Greek words not having attain'd the force and propriety of their signification Some also Jerom himself seems not to have understood though both Hebrecian and Grecian while he seems to adhere more to the Greek then Hebrew whence the Greek were taken Vossius also objects against Simon that he understood not what the Hellenists were I confess that Simon understood not before what Vossius had feign'd contrary to the Opinion of the most Learned men who to shew his Greek Erudition expounds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to side with the Greeks as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fignifie to imitate the Manners and Customs and side with the Romans Mâ—des Persians and Antigonus Now considering the present Argument where the Dispute with Vossius is about Critical
Learning this is as much as if I should say That Vossius is not only a skilful Critick but a Canon of Windsor who quavers forth the English Liturgy most sweetly in the Chappel It is certain that the Jews were of two sorts and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scattering of the Greeks was distinct from those Jews who at that time both in Judea Samaria Babylon and other Neighbouring Regions spoke the Syriac Language and made use of the Hebrew Exemplars They because they were dispers'd among Nations where the Greek tongue was familiar spake Greek and read the Scripture in Greek are call'd in the Acts of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hellenists And in reference to them are these words of the Jews to be expounded in the Gospel of St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will he come to the scattering of the Hellenists Now Simon mending his own subject asserts that the Greek Interpretation of the Seventy was cheifly approv'd by the Hellenist Jews who understood Greek not so by the rest of the Jews to whom the Greek was not so familiar as the Inhabitants of Babylon Palestine Syriac and Judea who all spoke either Chaldee or Syriac Nevertheless Simon does not deny but that there were some Hellenists among them and so there was a Synagogue of Alexandrians at Jerusalem and several Hellenist Jews lâ—v'd at Antiochia as appears from the Acts of the Apostles So that the dispute being only concerning the Hebrew Context and the Greek Interpretation of it therewas no necessity for Vossius to run out of his way in imitation of Vossius to call the Hellenist Jews who being of a peaceful disposition readily paid their Tribute and admonish'd others that the Yoak impos'd by God was to be born with patience and therefore submitted to the Greeks As if at Jerusalem and in other places where the Jews did not go by the Name of Hellenists there were none that carry'd themselves peaceably and readily paid their Taxes Why therefore were not they call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hellenists or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lovers of the Greeks But let Vossius hug himself in his conjecture and give sentence that Hellenism is not to be referred to Speech alone so it may be any way referr'd to his Version 't is enough Christ was also a Hellenist if you will believe Vossius because he understood the Greek Language and because he commanded to give to Caesar that which is Caesar's As to what the Learned Gentleman adds concerning the design'd corruption of the Hebrew Chronologies we shall not need to examin the matter again it having been sufficiently demonstrated in the foregoing Treatise that Vossius was most heavily deceiv'd in this particular nor to repeat what has been said before touching the Prophesie of Daniel already known to the Jews We are now to brush off those things which Simon blames as not so aptly rendred by the Seventy and which Vossius as stifly defends Weighing the words of the first Chapter of Genesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we render it to rule the day Simon says that the Exposition to him seems doubtful because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both Dominion and Beginning Vossius admires that Simon did not also find fault with the Hebrew word which has also a double signification But it is the part of a diligent Interpreter to avoid Amphibologie This place as being better express'd by Aquila then by the Seventy was taken notice of by the Learned Origen before Simon 's Castigation Then Simon had observ'd upon these words of the third Chapter of Genesis Gen. 3.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cursed art thou above all Cattel that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not agree with the place or seem to make any Sence but Vossius much more perspicacious maintains that the place could not be better nor more exactly rendred and that there is no Greek writer that does not so express himself True it is that Simon does not deny but that the words are Greek and that the Hebrew Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Min is rightly rendred by the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Question is whether in this place where there is a Comparative in the Case as the Gramarians call it that Preposition Min be truly rendr'd by the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Greek Writer had put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where frequently the Seventy and Aquila 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly in the same Chapter Simon conjectures that instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall keep and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall bruise and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shalt bruise But the nice Vossius objects that the latter is not Greek because the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the future But the less squeamish Grotius does not disprove the future 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is also in the Edition of Complutum besides some of the Grammarians have noted that from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the future The rest I omit as being of little moment that I may not seem to carp at trifles Only I cannot pass by one thing which the sikful Ship-Carpenter Vossius observes upon these words of Genesis Chapter 6. ver 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Make to thy self an Arch of four square Wood. He denys in opposition to Simon that any Ship can be built of Planks or flat Boards but of square Trees or Timber which are most fit for the building a Ship as being that which not only affords the Materials of Building but also Pitch to Pitch the Vessel I will not deny but that Cedar Firr and Pines which are Vossius's four square Trees may be very proper to Build a Ship but why he should deny that Plank or flat Boards are not to be sastned to the Ribbs of any Vessel I do not apprehend But let us proceed to somewhat of more moment Lastly that draws towards an end Vossius out of his malicious spirit against Simon endeavours to bring an Odium upon him while he equals him to Spinosa the Jew in those things which he asserts concerning the uncertainty of the Old Testament However by and by as it were correcting himself he confesses ingeniously that Spinosa was deservedly condenm'd by Simon as unlearned and with frivolous Arguments denying the receiv'd Authors to be the real Authors of those Books But they shew themselves more unlearned then Spinosa who presently think the Books of Scripture new written by the Persons whose Names they bear The vile and erroneous part of Spinosa is to be condemned but therefore all that he speaks concerning the Sacred Scripture is not presently to be condemn'd because he agrees in some things with men of conspicuous Piety and Learning But whereas in
this part Simon has not only distasted the most Learned Vossius but also some other persons of no less Note who have not forbore to Vomit forth their most virulent Poyson against his Critiea Sacra it will not be amiss to clear the truth of that Argument a little more plainly In the first place there is nothing that Simon has written concerning the publick Notaries of the Hebrew Nation but what these Diminitive Saint and nice Stomack'd Scholiasticks are extreamly offended at For those publick Registers they together with Eusebius and some of the Fathers call Prophets who not only committed to Writing the Transactions of their own Times but also took care of those Books which were written by the former Prophets and were kept in the publick Registries almost in the same manner as Esdras is said to have reveiw'd the Sacred Writings after the return of the Jews from Babylon and to have put them into that method which is still observ'd both by the Jews and Christians There is nothing in this Assertion of Simon which has not been approv'd by most of the Fathers and them the most Learned amongst the Rest Read but the Preface of single Theodoret one of the most Eminent Divines of the Eastern Church to the Book of Kings where he explains the whole matter and freely and without any scruple asserts that there were several Prophets among the Hebrews of which every one was wont to Write the Transactions of his own Age and that the greatest part of those Books are now wanting as is easie to be found in the History of the Chronicles He adds that those Books which we call the Books of Kings were a long time after taken out of those Books with Theodoretus Diod. in lib. 1. Sam. Mas praef Com. in Jâ—s Sanct. praef in lib. Reg. Perer. praef in Gen. Diodorus Procopius and others not a few consent To whom I may add the most Learned Masius whom Pierius Sanctius Cornclius a Lapide and other Jesuits long and much conversant in the Sacred Writings have follow'd whose words it is needless here to cite since their Works are every where to be had But to make this matter yet more plain it may be perhaps from the purpose to run over the several Books of Sacred Scripture and to take a short hint from every one The First that appears is Moses whom the constant Tradition both of Jews and Christians make to be the Author of the five Books of the Law But as to him the Jewish Rabbies seem to be the more religious who maintain that there is not so much as one word nay not so much as one syllable which did not proceed from God and was dictated to Moses Quite otherwise the most part of the Christians who affirm that some of the Books of Moses were added a long time after either by Esdras or some others who had the overveiwing of them Neither does St. Jerom presume to attribute to Moses some words of the Pentateuch as it is now extant following in this particular the common Opinion of the Doctors of the Church who constantly affirm that the whole Law was review'd and corrected by Esdras a most learned Scribe Whether you will saith St. Jerom that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuch or Esdras the restorer I will not gain say But whether Moses committed to Writing the whole History which we have under his Name or in part commanded it to be transcrib'd by the Notaries that Register'd the publick Transactions of his time is the Question However be it how it will Moses shall still be thought the Author and Writer of the whole Law as has been most excellently observ'd by Simon because those Scribes if there were any in his time were wholly at his Devotion And indeed we find nothing in the whole Law that does fix the Authority of those sort of Scribes And yet had they not been constituted by Moses from that very time the Hebrew Common-wealth had been deficient in what neither the Egyptians nor any other Eastern Nation wanted Now that there were Writers of Annals ever since the time of Moses the most Learned Jesuit Sanctius endeavours to prove in these words Proleg 4. in Paralip I beleive there were in the former Ages the words of Dayes Commentaries Ephemerides and that there was diligent and sedulous care least oblivion of Time should obscure the Nativities and Posterity of Men considerable which seems to me to have been certain from the very time of Moses I spare the names of others who have the same Sentiments And I wonder that a late Writer of the Order of the Seraphris enflam'd with a Seraphic Zeal should condemn in his Biblic Inquisitions this Opinion as Impious and curse the Authors of it But as I am inform'd that Seraphic Doctor though he understands neither Latin nor Greek is a person of most insolent ignorance and of the Sect of those who blaspheme what they understand not Jude 8. Some are offended and perhaps the more delicate Vossius for that Simon in his Critick's affirms that some of the Books of Moses were added afterwards But Simon is no Innovator in this particular as one that has to back him the most skilful Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture Masius and Pererius who has transferr'd all Masius's words into his Preface to Genesis Bonfrerius Cornelius a Lapide and many others Their Opinion also pleases me says Pererius who believe that the Pentateuch a long time after Moses was as it were fill'd up and render'd more plain by the Interlineation of many words and sentences and better methodiz'd for the continuation of the History In like manner Bonfrerius considering some words of Genesis which he suspects could not be written by Moses Com. in Cap. 36. Gen. v. 31. has these Expressions I had rather say that some other Hagiographer added somethings afterwards then ascribe all things to Moses performing the part of a Prophet Not much unlike to this speaks Cornelius a Lapide upon the same place Com. in c. 36. Gen. These words seem to be added after Moses 's time by some who digested the Diaries of Moses Nay Huetius himself in answer to Spinosa objecting that some things were added to the Books of Moses Dem. Evangel prop. 4. c. 14. so replies that he seems not to gainsay We confess says he that Esdras the Restorer of Scripture if any places more obscure or difficult then others occur'd stuft here and there into the Sacred Writings for explanations sake some things of his own Moreover seeing the Sacred Writings are propagated by so many Disputations that never so many Exemplars were ever known of any one Book no wonder if what has happen'd upon other occasions to other Books should happen to this that some Notes added by Pious and Learned Men in the Margin should at length creep into the Text. Lastly those relations at the end of Deutronomy concerning the Death and Burial of Moses by
Scripture do not agree among themselves The ancient Jews as R. Solomon testifies will have Solomon so call'd as if we should say a Collector or Assembler of Sentences for that Agar in Hebrew signifies to Collect the Sense of which the Latin Interpreter has render'd in Translating it the Words of the Collector or Assembler The same Opinion R. Levy Ben Gerson illustrates where he says Solomon seems to have given himself the Name of Agur in respect of the Sentences which he has Collected in this Book But perhaps Aben Ezra and Grotius following him with more reason suspects this Agur to have been the Theognes or Phocylledes of those Times out of whose writings Solomon might Collect some Sentences which he digested into one Volume with other Proverbs Lastly there is a fifth part of the Proverbs of Solomon contained within the 31st Chapter which is the last and that under the Name of King Lemuel who that Lemuel was is not known Most of the Jews believe that Solomon is meant thereby as Christ is intended by the word Immanuel as Aben Ezra asserts and the reason of that Appellation he takes from hence for that Lemuel signifies God with them because that in the Reign of Solomon as Aben Ezra testifies one God was worshipt among the Hebrews But there is no reason we should be sollicitous about the Word Lemuel especially when the Seventy say nothing of it and as they read so they have Translated the words of the Context quite after another manner As for the Book which in the Hebrew is call'd Cobaleth and by Us Ecclesiastes in Latin it is call'd Concionator or the Preacher though most of the latter Jews will have Cobeleth to signifie a person that Collects because that Book contains several Proverbs upon sundry Occasions Of this Opinion are R. Solomon and Aben Ezra and as he says Solomon in another place is call'd Agur for the same Reason as David de Pomis speaks In Lexi Heb Titolo del libro nomato Ecclesiastes composito da Salomone significa Congregatore per Congregareâ—e raccore in quel trattato diverse opinioni de gl' huomini la Maggior parte de quali sono false The Title of the Book called Ecclesiastes composed by Solomon signifies a Gatherer together from Collecting and gathering together in this Volume the opinions of Men the greatest part of which are false But some of the Jews according to the Testimony of R Salomon agree with the 70 in the Interpretation of the word Cobeleth believing it to signifie a Person that Preaches in some Congregation But as to the Author of that Book the Rabbies do not agree among themselves For the Talmudic Doctors ascribe it to Ezechia the later Rabbins to Solomon and these are back'd by the words of the Text in which there are some Passages that cannot well be meant of any other than Solomon therefore it is most probable that the Talmudics only meant that that same Writing was tak'n out of Solomon's Works by King Ezekiah or by Men appointed by him The Christian Interpreters also acknowledg no other Author of Ecclesiastes excepting some few among whom is Hugo Grotius who affirms that Book to be of a later date composed under the Name of Salomon for proof whereof he alledges that he has many words collected thence which are not extant but only in Daniel Esdras and the Chaldee Interpreters St. Jerom writes that the ancient Jews had some thoughts of obliterating this among the rest of Salomon's Works thrown by because he asserts the Creation of God to be vanity wherein St. Jerom agrees with the Talmudists and later Jews Jerom. Com. in 12. Eccles but every one knows that it is the Custom of those Doctors to feign many things of their own Heads By who the History was written that is entituled Esther is uncertain but as to the time when it was written almost all the Jews and Christians agree For whether the Authors of it were the Senators of the Grand Synagogue as the Talmudic Doctors believe or Esdras which is the Opinion of the Fathers or Mordecai as Aben Ezra more probably believes and the Book it self seems to testifie there is no dispute about the time when it was written Therefore Hugo Grotius does not conjecture amiss when he says that Esdras added to his own and the Book which Nehemiah wrote The History of Esther which happened in the middle of those Times of which the Transactions are related in those Books and which Grotius also acknowledges to have been written by Mordecai That the Song of Songs had no other Author than Salomon the very Title it self declares and it is certain from the third Book of Kings that the same Salomon composed both Proverbs and Songs But this because it was the best of Salomon's Songs was therefore called The Song of Songs that is to say the most Excellent Song Yet some do question whether it were written by Salomon as it is now extant or whether it were cull'd out of the whole Volume of his Songs However for that Song wherein Salomon is introduced discoursing with the Sunamite as a Bridegroom with a Bride is very difficult to explain not only by reason of the Expressions somewhat over confident and frequent Similitudes which our Customs will by no means endure but also because the Names of the Interlocutors are not set done for besides Salomon and his Spouse there are two Chorus's of young Men and Virgins But 't is a strange thing how the Rabbies differ among themselves about the Book of Job The Talmudics believe it to be no relation of real matter of Fact but that it is a Fiction or Parable to set forth a most exact and high Example of Piety and Patience and with these some of the Christians agree Nay there were some who did not only believe the Argument of the work to be feigned but will have the Name of Job to be taken out of those Letters of the first Verse of the third Chapter of the Book where we read Jobad Jom he curst the day For all that went before they looked upon only as a Prologue But the Testimony of Ezekiel who makes mention of Noah Daniel and Job demonstrates that the Name of Job is not fictitious and the prudent Aben Azra most sharply rebukes those who are of that Opinion He also believes him to have been of the Posterity of Esau which he gathers from the Name of the Place Com. in 1 cap. Job where he was born Besides the Names of Job and his Friends and other Circumstances plainly evidence that the story was really true according as it is related though it contains many things which are much more like Parable than Truth of History But as to the Author of it there is no certainty some apply it to Moses some to Isaiah others to Job himself and his Friends Nor do they agree among themselves who make Moses to be the Author of it some believing that it